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

[egotrippin]

Right, yeah, I think I appreciate your point that it's an urban beach--hence my comment that it's the area is beach-like. But I'm not getting as much mileage as you are from this observation. Fine, it's an urban beach; we can call it that. But the first thought that comes to my mind is: are factories urban? Well, kind of sort of, and kind of not really. If Redpath wanted to snag that lot on Wellesley between Yonge and Church I think people would rightly be confused: but...that's a factory..and this is an...urban area.

But yet still, your line of reasoning seems to be in many ways the same as the other poster's: there's something I'm not understanding about the concept of the beach, the concept of the area, the history of the city, and so on, that's responsible for my poor judgment. I think that's mistaken, and taken too seriously it'll over-intellectualize a--I repeat--really basic judgment call I'm making: when I go a beach--urban beach, beach-like area, chic beach (perhaps?)--I don't want to look at a smelly, ugly, dirty factory.

You're using overly subjective words to describe the factory, considering it isn't, and most people don't consider it, to be smelly, ugly, or dirty. Sure you can smell molasses or caramelized sugar every now and then, but it's far less offensive than a lot of other odours that hang around the city from time to time. It's not a beautiful building by any means, but it's certainly interesting. Industrial? Sure, but I (and many) happen to like industrial architecture. It's not really dirty either, and the new coat of paint on the crane looks great.

The urban aspect stems from the fact that Toronto is still a functioning port city, and Redpath has as much right to occupy the space as much as any condo or office dwellers do. Redpath is a pretty good neighbour too; it's not a loud or highly polluting operation, they've agreed to share costs to remove the tracks, and they do have a sugar museum that the public can visit. Again, it's just one lot in what will be a huge area, and the factory will fade into the urban fabric as it's surrounded by new development. It sticks out now because it's the largest structure in the area, towering above its neighbours. In a "perfect world scenario" though, it'd be nice if they redesigned the Queens Quay facade, and incorporated the museum into a more open structure that better engages the street. Who knows, maybe they will one day.

 

[hawc]

First, the Hearn Station is absolutely fantastic and must be preserved. Its brick is beautiful and has a massive space within. The stack is a presence all of its own - it is huge and a reminder of the past.

Hahahah, wait what?!

Now you want to preserve a smoke stack?

You're pulling my leg right?

A smoke stack.... that's a heritage building now?

The sooner that eyesore comes down the better.

You crack me up.

 

[agoraflaneur]

Well I am willing to argue with you here, though I am not sure it is useful. Anyway, I don't propose to leave it as it is now, but to enhance it with something interesting. How exactly is it different from the CN Tower? Or many other skyscrapers? I do believe in its aesthetic beauty, and that photo, in my opinion displays it - though it could be better, perhaps with colour, restoration, an observation deck or some ornamentation. But it has amazingly clean vertical lines, excellent proportions, and overall is a landmark and reminder of the past (it was a symbol of industrial glory, Toronto, etc.)

 

[hawc]

I'll give you that. It does have clean lines.

 

[Dan416]

I think the big attraction of Sugar Beach is that it's right next to a sugar factory. I've made trips specifically out there to experience it (I'm from Mississauga).

I agree they should make the approach from downtown easier to get to. Walking along those tracks isn't much fun.

 

[junctionist]

The factory and its industrial activity add vibrancy to the boring formula of offices and residential. The Dutch landscape architects understood this and designed the park to respond to the presence of industry by embracing it as an integral part of the neighbourhood and not an oppressive eyesore. The loading and unloading of these impressive ships is a theatrical element not available anywhere else in the city. It's something more common in older, bigger cities.

Note that both Sugar Beach and Sherbourne Common were designed by Canadians: Claude Cormier and the Phillips Farevaag Smallenberg firm respectively. Claude Cormier particularly impressed me the way he worked saw the context as a strength rather than weakness to sidestep with awkward design and how he oriented the space to take full advantage of the beautiful CBD skyline views. His incredible attention to detail makes Sugar Beach an outstanding space by world standards.

They're blind to this. It's the same line of thinking that was around in the '60s and '70s. If the flatiron or the distillery hadn't been cleaned up, they'd no doubt be calling for the destruction of those, too.

Except now, they seem to think that the heritage buildings of Toronto Street now gone are the kind of thing worth saving. But it's not just beautiful, almost aristocratic heritage that's worth saving. Industrial buildings like the Canada Malting Plant silos don't have that kind of beauty, but their presence indicates a certain historical richness of production, trade, and working class history. To understand why an ornate office building or mansion that we preserve went up in the first place, we need to preserve industrial heritage. That way, we can understand our history through its economic development.

Without such markers of industrial history, one might assume that there were just empty fields there before the condos were built, and so disappears a century of history from popular memory. It's a history that's more and more interesting with every generation because Toronto no longer has much manufacturing, to say nothing of lake shipping-dependent industry. Indeed, this nation doesn't have that much manufacturing of goods anymore. So to be able to look into the past in these unique industrial structures while we enjoy the redeveloped waterfront is a privilege. If embraced, these unique industrial structures will enliven our waterfront and make it more unique and interesting.

 

[Miscreant]

Note that both Sugar Beach and Sherbourne Common were designed by Canadians: Claude Cormier and the Phillips Farevaag Smallenberg firm respectively. Claude Cormier particularly impressed me the way he worked saw the context as a strength rather than weakness to sidestep with awkward design and how he oriented the space to take full advantage of the beautiful CBD skyline views. His incredible attention to detail makes Sugar Beach an outstanding space by world standards.

Except now, they seem to think that the heritage buildings of Toronto Street now gone are the kind of thing worth saving. But it's not just beautiful, almost aristocratic heritage that's worth saving. Industrial buildings like the Canada Malting Plant silos don't have that kind of beauty, but their presence indicates a certain historical richness of production, trade, and working class history. To understand why an ornate office building or mansion that we preserve went up in the first place, we need to preserve industrial heritage. That way, we can understand our history through its economic development.

Without such markers of industrial history, one might assume that there were just empty fields there before the condos were built, and so disappears a century of history from popular memory. It's a history that's more and more interesting with every generation because Toronto no longer has much manufacturing, to say nothing of lake shipping-dependent industry. Indeed, this nation doesn't have that much manufacturing of goods anymore. So to be able to look into the past in these unique industrial structures while we enjoy the redeveloped waterfront is a privilege. If embraced, these unique industrial structures will enliven our waterfront and make it more unique and interesting.

So would you agree that, were we having this conversation many years ago when the waterfront was populated with far more industrial operations than it is now, those too should be preserved? Where do we draw the line?

 

[RC8]

Preserving those structures and re-using as many of them as possible (like in the case of Harbourfront Centre) was a much better alternative than to clear most of it for parking lots and let it stagnate for decades and decades.

It is very rare to find old architecture that's been given modern uses while respecting its integrity to be displeasing. Almost impossible. Whenever a structure is seen as an obstacle to be removed the results have more often than not been less than flattering in the long term.

P.S. that smokestack is beautiful.

 

[Miscreant]

Agreed, if we assume that we have two options here: preserve or suffer parking lots. I'm in no way defending the current state of the Queen's Quay area. But I do want to still suggest that there can be many good reasons for redevelopment, so long as it's taken to be superior to what would have been had we preserved. And that, it seems, really comes down to a matter of taste.

 

[junctionist]

So would you agree that, were we having this conversation many years ago when the waterfront was populated with far more industrial operations than it is now, those too should be preserved? Where do we draw the line?

Justification for preservation would depend more on the buildings if we had a surplus. Nondescript industrial buildings could be replaced by great new buildings. The historical and impressive industrial structures would be preserved. In terms of where we draw the line, with the number of remaining industrial structures countable on one hand, there are no more lines to draw. If we had a whole waterfront of industrial buildings to consider, we'd have to evaluate the historical significance of each building in a broad plan, as is routine in historical district planning around the world. Removing these prominent markers of the interesting history of waterfront industry is irresponsible and will mislead future generations. You might say it's about taste, but I say that if you want new buildings you will get them either way amidst landmarks of industrial history. With preservation, people will always be enticed to learn about that history and will appreciate the visible layers of history as opposed to a more one dimensional built form of recent buildings.

 

[Miscreant]

The historical and impressive industrial structures would be preserved.

Agreed.

And this, to me, might be historical, but it isn't impressive.

 

[adma]

So would you agree that, were we having this conversation many years ago when the waterfront was populated with far more industrial operations than it is now, those too should be preserved? Where do we draw the line?

Actually, if we were to revisit what Harbourfront was in the 70s, yes, there *would* be a fair argument for reusing/preserving a lot of that earlier industrial fabric--heck, a lot of the plaquing and activity that took place back then pretty much allowed for that option.

As far as what the outcome might have been like: think of a plethora of Wychwood Barns (or even York Quay) arrays...

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Well, from a more practical standpoint - Redpath is providing jobs in the area, and it does need a harbour site. Given that it's no longer using the rail spur, working with WT on the QQ redo, with a relatively small impact on area residents (than say, the hundreds of vehicles they drive?), I don't see why it is any less legit on the waterfront than say those living by the waterfront condos, who did their darnest to keep WT from building the pedestrian bridges along the boardwalk. If there is something one should bitch about it is the latter.

AoD

 

[hawc]

If you can have a rancid slaughterhouse stinking up the very heart of trendy King West, I'm sure you can keep a little ol sugar factory on the lake. I have to say though, apart from it being 'a part of history' (isn't everything that was here before us?) I fail to see how it has any historical beauty. It's a box with a smokestack. Compare that to say the Distillery District and the distinction is pretty sharp. And to say we should save the Hern generating plant is akin to future generations saying we should preserve the sewage treatment plant by Ashbridges Bay. The criteria for preservation has to be more than age.

 

[interchange42]

It is more than age. Just because you don't recognize the Hearn's qualities for which others have called for its preservation does not mean that the only criteria for saving it is age; there are several other reasons for which many want to preserve the Hearn, and the likes of the Loblaws warehouse, etc. Meetings at the Toronto Preservation Board do not consist of people sitting around a table declaring "It's old." "Well, let's save that then. Next old building?" A place to start learning about preservation activities in this city is here: http://www.toronto.ca/heritage-preservation/index.htm if you are interested.

42