maestro
Senior Member
Infinity is damn boring but its land use and massing is not bad at all
MisterF
Senior Member
The city can easily use easements to assure that it will. Hopefully that's the path they're taking.
Urban Shocker
Doyenne
Clewes talks of public spaces between the buildings and at the water's edge, in that quote.
People strolling from point A to point B along the boardwalk in the Beaches don't go into severe capitalist withdrawal because business interests aren't scattered there at regular intervals to hawk their wares and separate pedestrians from their money. I'm sure people strolling past these buildings will be able to manage it for a block or two as well. Does shopping always have to be the defining reason to go somewhere? Can't promenading along a well designed mixed use waterfront be an end in itself?
People strolling from point A to point B along the boardwalk in the Beaches don't go into severe capitalist withdrawal because business interests aren't scattered there at regular intervals to hawk their wares and separate pedestrians from their money. I'm sure people strolling past these buildings will be able to manage it for a block or two as well. Does shopping always have to be the defining reason to go somewhere? Can't promenading along a well designed mixed use waterfront be an end in itself?
RJR123
Active Member
Exactly. Anyone who has strolled Vancouver's seawall will understand what you are saying.
adma
Superstar
Remember where he works. This is practically a NIMBYesque issue for him...
RJR123
Active Member
Many people are conditioned to think that you are supposed to hate Porter/Island Airport...that it's a blight and is leading to the downfall of the waterfront. Truth be told, there are far worse things that are impacting the waterfront, such as the nasty buildings down there, lack of cohesiveness, etc...all things extensively written about on this forum. Porter/Island Airport doesn't warrant a lot of venom here because it hasn't been the disaster that people predicted.
unimaginative2
Senior Member
C'mon, US. You know as well as I do that Toronto's waterfront is woefully underserved by commerce of any kind. The foot of Yonge, of all places, should have a building that is at least partly occupied by uses that are accessible to the public, whether commercial or institutional. It's easy to slip into anti-Capitalist rhetoric, but I can't see how anybody could oppose decent waterfront restaurants and other businesses. I'm not even one of these people that thing that every building in the city is a failure if it doesn't have street front retail. Obviously it doesn't make sense in some locations. In this location, it doesn't just make sense - it's vital. Clewes is a good architect who's designed a good building, but decent design shouldn't give a developer license to build whatever he wants on one of the city's most important sites. I don't even oppose condos on this site. I wouldn't mind if Clewes built a 30 storey building if it just provided some kind of real public draw at the waterside and on the street. Right now, it looks like a building set way back from Queens Quay by a big lawn, and fronting the water with a bunch of condos. Considering how much the developer is going to make from these duplexes, the city should be demanding a lot - like they did in the BCE Place era.
b13
New Member
I know this may be impossible but what if the city offered incentivies to the owners of the buildings on the central waterfront including Harbourfront and Toronto Star Building to demolish their building and build some where else? Is this possible? And if so I think the city should try and look into this!
maestro
Senior Member
Anything is possible but I can think of much better things to do with a minimum of 1.5 billion than to buy out and demolish the star, westin and harbour square (pretty sure the star building is slated for extensive renovations anyways)
cassius
Active Member
It was going through asbestos removal not too long ago.
rp07
Active Member
I just can't understand anyone in favour of this project. Yonge St. if i'm correct is the longest street in the world and what do we have at the base of it to monument it? A Captain John's Restaurant and parking lots. And now this condo project catered to only the wealthy is going to be the landmark? It's an absolute joke! I think public parks, pier, restaurants and cafes, markets should have been built long time ago and should have put Yonge St. on the map. What about the WEST8 winning waterfront design of building long pier and retails at the Yonge slip? Is that still a go?
ShonTron
Moderator
Member Bio
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 12,580
- Reaction score
- 9,630
- Location
- Ward 13 - Toronto Centre
Welcome rp07!
1. Well, Yonge Street being the longest in the world is really dubious, but I don't mind that claim repeated too much. It sounds good.
2. At least it's better than Harbour Square. It needs improvement for sure, but if they sacrifice the bottom floor for more "public" use, than I'd be happier. If done right, it'd be something to mark the end of this street better than a lot of potential alternatives, like Corus' Project Psymphony/Shitphony.
3. Good point about West 8. I would certainly hope too that this doesn't preclude their waterfront plans, like the Yonge Street Pier.
1. Well, Yonge Street being the longest in the world is really dubious, but I don't mind that claim repeated too much. It sounds good.
2. At least it's better than Harbour Square. It needs improvement for sure, but if they sacrifice the bottom floor for more "public" use, than I'd be happier. If done right, it'd be something to mark the end of this street better than a lot of potential alternatives, like Corus' Project Psymphony/Shitphony.
3. Good point about West 8. I would certainly hope too that this doesn't preclude their waterfront plans, like the Yonge Street Pier.
Tewder
Senior Member
I am not against the idea of noncommercial waterfronts. Burlington's beautiful waterfront does just this, and very well. Still, for the foot of Yonge I would have thought that a Navy Pier-type development would have been nice. Not one with the same aesthetic as Chicago's, which is a little too 'olde time', but a more architecturally interesting version of a gathering place on the water, perhaps culminating in an offshore, beacon-type monument with jets and fountains etc. I don't know, I'm totally fine that the rest of the waterfront should be left quiet with parks and promenades etc, but something a little showier and more inviting would have been great, anchoring Toronto's most important thoroughfare with its most important natural feature.
Andrew3D
Active Member
My main concern with this is that how much of the space around the structure will be inaccessible to the public. I notice a ground floor connection blocking off the centre of this structure to pedestrian traffic. It would have been nice if that was an area completely public in use.
Northern Light
Superstar
Aspiration
As with so many development proposals in Toronto, the issue isn't so much whether its good, as opposed to bad; its whether its good when it can and should be great.
The proposal (based on the renderings) is above average for this City, not that that says much.
The public space component will undoubtedly be a significant improvement over the moribund parking lot that sits there today.
But, at the Foot of 'The World's Longest Street', in the heart of the waterfront of a would be world-leading city, is this the best we can do?
I surely hope not.
My personal take is that the West 8 proposal didn't require the whole site, so the City shouldn't expropriate the whole site, it should simple expropriate what's needed for a grand waterfront pier, then let Clewes and company have at what ever is left.
Alternatively, the City could swallow the whole site, and hold a design compeition for the buidling on the remainder of the site, but it could still be a private buidling, paid for by private money, with the cost of the land being recovered from whatever developer wins the compeition.
Not that I expect either of the above to happen, but it would be nice if we, as a City aspired to something better than 'above average' on such a prime piece of land.
****
I hasten to add that the (NET) cost of acquiring and redeveloping Habour Castle/Square need not be prohibitive, providing the intention is to allow for new private redevelopment subject to better design standards and a more accessible waterfront.
Its likely that a hotel/condo proposal on such land would be worth considerable more than the current buildings, allowing for substantial cost recovery.
Of course, if you want to buy it all for a park, or low-rise, then we're all in the hole for a billion.
The main thing wrong with those buildings though is not the height.
Its the 'wall effect' and mediocre design.
Just ditch the giant parkade (put the parking underground, and less of it) , re-face the lower levels, create 1 or 2 wider, clearer access points and water views and the problems are largely solved.
As with so many development proposals in Toronto, the issue isn't so much whether its good, as opposed to bad; its whether its good when it can and should be great.
The proposal (based on the renderings) is above average for this City, not that that says much.
The public space component will undoubtedly be a significant improvement over the moribund parking lot that sits there today.
But, at the Foot of 'The World's Longest Street', in the heart of the waterfront of a would be world-leading city, is this the best we can do?
I surely hope not.
My personal take is that the West 8 proposal didn't require the whole site, so the City shouldn't expropriate the whole site, it should simple expropriate what's needed for a grand waterfront pier, then let Clewes and company have at what ever is left.
Alternatively, the City could swallow the whole site, and hold a design compeition for the buidling on the remainder of the site, but it could still be a private buidling, paid for by private money, with the cost of the land being recovered from whatever developer wins the compeition.
Not that I expect either of the above to happen, but it would be nice if we, as a City aspired to something better than 'above average' on such a prime piece of land.
****
I hasten to add that the (NET) cost of acquiring and redeveloping Habour Castle/Square need not be prohibitive, providing the intention is to allow for new private redevelopment subject to better design standards and a more accessible waterfront.
Its likely that a hotel/condo proposal on such land would be worth considerable more than the current buildings, allowing for substantial cost recovery.
Of course, if you want to buy it all for a park, or low-rise, then we're all in the hole for a billion.
The main thing wrong with those buildings though is not the height.
Its the 'wall effect' and mediocre design.
Just ditch the giant parkade (put the parking underground, and less of it) , re-face the lower levels, create 1 or 2 wider, clearer access points and water views and the problems are largely solved.