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

In all fairness, they are a corporation who is marketing their condos. What else would they say? I just hope that the public component of this is done perfectly to compensate for what could be lack of animation at the base of these buildings. A long pier extending from QQ right up where Captain John's is out into Lake Ontario would really help make it a destination. Maybe some outdoor cafe's with decent seating would help as well...
 
That's the problem, though. The public portion can't be done well if there's a lack of animation at the base. From what I can see in both the renderings and the press release, the base is going to be pretty cut off, and the supposedly-public "quay" will be a front yard for these duplexes. Restaurants with nice seating would absolutely help. They're exactly what's needed. Surely at least at the foot of Yonge we could have a few restaurants... something that people would actually travel to the waterfront to visit. We've already got lots of squares and open space, with more to come.
 
On the waterfront between Spadina and Jarvis there are parks such as the Music Garden and HtO, there are art galeries and theatres, there are restaurants and shops, there are offices, and there are condos. Hardly a single use district for the rich.
 
brettrobinson said:
In all fairness, they are a corporation who is marketing their condos. What else would they say?
Click to expand...

I'd have to agree. I would think in this case they mean "exclusive" in the same sense most condo ads do, rather than an indication that this is an exclusive property shut out from the public.
 
On the waterfront between Spadina and Jarvis there are parks such as the Music Garden and HtO, there are art galeries and theatres, there are restaurants and shops, there are offices, and there are condos. Hardly a single use district for the rich.
Click to expand...

You're absolutely right... from Spadina to York. East of York, it becomes just that: a single use district for the local condo-dwellers. That's the problem with this project. It's an extension of the failed Harbour Square style of development, however architecturally appealing Pier 27 might be, rather than the relatively successful public-oriented approach of the section west of York.

I'd have to agree. I would think in this case they mean "exclusive" in the same sense most condo ads do, rather than an indication that this is an exclusive property shut out from the public.
Click to expand...

Yes that is obviously what they meant, but the point remains. A project that is designed to be "exclusive," by any definition of the term, isn't going to be designed to attract throngs of people.
 
unimaginative2 said:
You're absolutely right... from Spadina to York. East of York, it becomes just that: a single use district for the local condo-dwellers. That's the problem with this project. It's an extension of the failed Harbour Square style of development, however architecturally appealing Pier 27 might be, rather than the relatively successful public-oriented approach of the section west of York.



Yes that is obviously what they meant, but the point remains. A project that is designed to be "exclusive," by any definition of the term, isn't going to be designed to attract throngs of people.
Click to expand...

Well, any sort of residence is exclusive to a certain degree - condo units are private - but that doesn't mean that overall the project can't be a positive contribution for everyone (including the retail, which hopefully would be good).

I do get and agree with what you're saying though. I share the same concerns.
 
If there has to be a condo here, than this is a great compromise - it is like OCAD where the building tries not to be a barrier to the water by being largely elevated (similar to how OCAD allows slightlines into Grange Park and eventually will connect it to McCaul through Butterfield Park once AGO's parking is gone).

But it would need something inviting at the base. A decent restaurant or cafe with a 3-season patio would work.
 
Don't get me wrong, I definitely think that a condo-based project can have a positive contribution. I just think that it's important to create a genuine mixed-use complex instead of pure condos and one or two shops to serve the residents. The entire base should be commercial oriented to the water. This project has condos at the base facing the water.
 
In one of the articles, Clewes describes the concept behind his design as "a series of long pier buildings that create generous framed views and public spaces between them and at the water's edge" which is similar to how Harbourfront to the west looks and functions. I think he is fully aware that the Harbour Square model should be avoided at all costs and is not trying to extend it. He is further quoted as saying, "I'm very conscious of the importance of the site, particularly in the context of a lot of the extraordinarily banal condominium buildings that have been constructed on the waterfront in the last 15 years."
 
I know Clewes is a good architect and I know he doesn't want to repeat the mistakes of Harbour Square -these buildings are certainly a lot better looking. But he has to design what his client wants. He's trying his best with this Quay public square, but it's obvious that it's just going to turn out as a front lawn for these duplexes. Why would anyone go there if they didn't live there? There's nothing there whatsoever to attract people.
 
What does the client want? Well, by hiring Clewes, a well thought out and innovative solution perhaps. Which I think is what we're seeing. For one thing the public will be able to see the lake through the development - so there is a visual invitation not to walk-on-by. By adopting the pier model of slim buildings pointing towards the lake rather than blocking it with buildings that stretch parallel to it ( the Harbour Square model ) he's inviting people to use their eyes and follow their instincts. There doesn't have to be a destination - promenading is a joy in itself, and Harbourfront already has a waterfront promenade that works like that so people are being set up to explore the district. I don't think you have to cram in shops everywhere to enable our waterfront promenade to work.
 
I agree with all you've said, and as I said, I think Clewes is a good architect. Unfortunately, I think it's more likely that the client hired him to provide cover for what is essentially yet another private condo along the water. Sure, the building will be attractive and that will be enough to satisfy many people in this city. It is certainly more transparent than Harbour Square, but how many people are actually going to walk between the two buildings, under the bridge? Will it even be open to the public? The area along the water, great architecture or not, is still condos. At this point, I'd rather have a bland building that will at least have a critical mass of businesses to attract people to the area. For the East Bayfront to be successful, the entire waterside has to be lined with businesses so that people can walk along and browse. If it's chopped up with condos taking up much of the shore, the only thing we will have are Rabbas and dry cleaners.

What benefit to the city does this particular waterfront provide? It's simply a condo building, with some particularly lovely condos whose doors will open right up onto the water. Sure, it's a good-looking building, and I'd love to have it somewhere in the Port Lands, but is this really what we want at the foot of Yonge Street?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top