Toronto Waterlink at Pier 27 | 43.89m | 14s | Cityzen | a—A

Takes full advantage of the possibilities offered by a large site: lake views are maintained by raising and 'floating' entire apartment buildings; there's public access to the lakefront promenade right through the centre of the complex; and property owners have acces to their own private gardens - as property owners all over the city have.
 
Lake views are maintained by "floating" the buildings? From where? From the condos themselves? Because they're sure not maintained from Queens Quay unless pedestrians are 20 feet tall and can see over that ground-level connecting bridge.
 
From my wanderings outside wealthy families in Forest Hill, I think opposition to these condos is pretty broad-based from people who are aware of them. Like I've always said, I've got nothing against "sexy" architecture. I just think that a prominent site should have a little more than a gated condo using half-decent architecture as a trojan horse.

You support this condo. Don't you come from a wealthy family in Forest Hill?
 
unimaginative2 said:
Lake views are maintained by "floating" the buildings? From where? From the condos themselves? Because they're sure not maintained from Queens Quay unless pedestrians are 20 feet tall and can see over that ground-level connecting bridge.
Click to expand...

For that, you need to hire Doug Henning as your architect, if he were still alive.
 
The lower units behind a podium would not have had a lake view then.
Click to expand...

simple ... make 'em two storeys with the bedrooms on the lower level ... master could have a walk out private terrace
 
But the architect has opened up the site by aligning the buildings north-south to give views between them. This isn't like the public space we'll see at U condo, encircled by a wall of town homes, and different sites require different solutions.
 
I'm fully aware of the architects intentions however, just because its Clewes (or Bregman or Wallman) doesn't mean it is without fault. Also, I fail to see how adding anything other than a "gate" as a buffer between private in public will further block views considering the one storey enclosed walkway linking the two bases already.
 
Scaled Model

CGM beat me to it, but at least these are different angles from the Condo Show :)

I echo many's concern on gated spaces adjacent to our waterfront, but if its any reassurance at least the City required the builder to keep the north-south walkway between phase 1 + phase 2 (middle of 3 aisles shown in photos below) as publicly accessible space, hence no fence there

IMG_2314.jpg


IMG_2317.jpg
 
Urban Shocker said:
But the architect has opened up the site by aligning the buildings north-south to give views between them. This isn't like the public space we'll see at U condo, encircled by a wall of town homes, and different sites require different solutions.
Click to expand...

Opened up the site? To whom? Are we supposed to celebrate his architectural genius because, like most waterfront condos on earth, he designed two thin buildings perpendicular to the water so that the developer can market the whole line of suites as water view?
 
u2: There's a public walkway between the buildings at the middle of the site, linking the Quay to the public promenade along the lake, so it has been opened up to your beloved proles.
 
You must be so disappointed!

Yes, but the problem is that there's no there there. There is no reason for them to linger at the edge of the water, as it's simply a concrete sidewalk fronted by the backyards of townhouses and a private marina. No public uses of any kind.
 
In the immortal words of Divine:

"Well, hip-hip-hooray for that cheap climax!"

Since the architecture is going to block water views and/or access from the street through two-thirds of the site (yes, the connecting buildings are of glass, we know. Still...), would it have really have killed the builders to include a little street-enlivening public streetwall at the boardwalk end?

There's plenty of ways this could be done without compromising the much-vaunted north-south alignment of the towers - and done properly, it might have even improved them. Much as the bridges at the top add to them.
Since the buildings are going to shut us out from the this enclave of the wealthier while compelling us to look at it as we walk past, they could be at least polite about it.

Although not completely dreadful, the street level starkly fails to add up to the hype been thrown around about these buildings. It could be improved.
 
u2: The design of the waterfront promenade to the south of Pier 27 won't be much different from the design of the waterfront promenade in any other part of the waterfront as far as I can tell. None of your non-yacht-owning proles can moor their non-yachts in any of the yacht marinas in any other publicly accessible waterfront locations either, nor does the presence of condos south of the Quay at 410 Queen's Quay and Harbour Square prevent people from using the public promenade - as any visit there will show you.

Public space isn't any the less public for the lack of commercial ventures designed to part the proles from their money setting up there, or of organized entertainments designed to give them one more reason to go on living.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top