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

Aug 3

3fbw.jpg
 
Silence&Motion said:
My larger point is that what has saved historic architecture since the 1970s is not that people all of a sudden "rediscovered" their love of it, but rather that a legal framework was put in place to preserve it (after people witnessed the mass demolitions that took place for financial reasons in the 1950s and '60s).
Click to expand...

I disagree! The overwhelmingly popular style of the 50s and 60s was the modernist ranch homes, which combined a feeling of "down homeness" with clean lines and open spaces. And just as people seem totally inured to the demolition of mid-century buildings now, they were casual and not particularly concerned about the demolition of Victoriana in the fifties and sixties. After all, there was ~so much~ of the stuff back then, it felt like there was a limitless supply of stuff to tear down. It's a common enough experience - people only value things when they are on the way out. We also tend to forget that people often reacted to the styles as evidence of a particular mindset: liking an old Victorian building meant your morality was likely Victorian-inspired. We do the same thing now, calling styles "suburban" or "new money" - disliking them because of the people who appreciate them. Now, for instance, liking "actual" Victoriana is a way to hold yourself above the common herd who conflate pomo versions with the "real" thing. Taste is more affected about our concerns about status than we like to admit. (Hence why people on this forum go on about tall buildings!)
 
Parkdalian said:
I disagree! The overwhelmingly popular style of the 50s and 60s was the modernist ranch homes, which combined a feeling of "down homeness" with clean lines and open spaces. And just as people seem totally inured to the demolition of mid-century buildings now, they were casual and not particularly concerned about the demolition of Victoriana in the fifties and sixties. After all, there was ~so much~ of the stuff back then, it felt like there was a limitless supply of stuff to tear down. It's a common enough experience - people only value things when they are on the way out. We also tend to forget that people often reacted to the styles as evidence of a particular mindset: liking an old Victorian building meant your morality was likely Victorian-inspired. We do the same thing now, calling styles "suburban" or "new money" - disliking them because of the people who appreciate them. Now, for instance, liking "actual" Victoriana is a way to hold yourself above the common herd who conflate pomo versions with the "real" thing. Taste is more affected about our concerns about status than we like to admit. (Hence why people on this forum go on about tall buildings!)
Click to expand...

Most of what you said I agree with, but I still don't accept that the general public in the mid-20th century had a stigma toward the aesthetic of Victorian buildings. There seems to be far more evidence that buildings were demolished for practical reasons rather than aesthetic reasons. After two world wars and a great depression, the Victorian building stock was in bad shape, and the temptation was just too great to demolish them and replace them with something more economical rather than rehabilitate them.

In the 1950s, people still thought Victorian architecture was pretty, but they couldn't be bothered to do anything to preserve it. I actually think that we're not that much different today. I bet most people in Toronto find a neighbourhood like Cabbagetown to be pretty, but few would actually raise a finger if a developer wanted to demolish an entire block of Cabbagetown to build a condo (think of downtown Brantford!). The difference today is that the small group of people who are willing to fight for preservation are now much better organized and backed up by relatively strong legislation (Also Toronto's Victorian districts are now home to the powerful upper class rather than the working class).

Jane Jacob's book wasn't so influential because it convinced people to recognize the aesthetic value of pre-modern architecture (they already did), but because it provided a stronger justification for preserving the pre-modern cityscape rooted in social engineering rather than aesthetics. In that way it provided a counter-theory to modernism that could eventually spread in the late '70s to the corridors of power where elites made decisions about planning and development.

A great piece of evidence that the general public still liked Victorian architecture in the 1950s was the opening of "Main Street USA" in Disneyland. People would actually pay admission to spend time in a replica of a Victorian streetscape! If people were dismissive of Victorian architecture in the 1950s and 60s, why would it be given the most prominent location in this idealized version of the North American city? Sure there was also Tomorrowland, which idealized modernism, but that didn't diminish the public's love of pre-modern architecture. And there is much, much more evidence of the public's love of pre-modern architecture in the 1940s-60s, from WWII soldiers' accounts of European cities to all of the failed efforts to save historic buildings throughout the 1960s when modernism was at its height.
 
Love it! Awesome shot. With the angle, focal length and depth-of-field shown in the photo, you have just eliminated the train corridor, the Gardiner, Lakeshore Blvd, and Queen's Quay haha...and brought Pier 27 into the St. Lawrence neighbourhood. Magic.

Again, awesome shot, udo :D

p.s. I'm hoping that you can replicate the shot when it's all completed!
 
That's a pleasant surprise, (real) black brick on the "blast wall". I never noticed that in the renders. I'd love to see that wall painted a brilliant white, don't think it'll happen, but otherwise this is one of my favourite projects in the city. The white balcony accents really add nice contrast and pop to the facade.
 
Yikes, to my eye that 'blast wall' is a bit rough looking from Polson Pier. It really dominates the lower part of the vista there--the eye is inevitably drawn towards it because it's so relatively uniform.
 
Well, three cheers for the dots and dashes in it then.

I'm glad the wall is there as a disruption to the rest of the cityscape: it adds visual interest. Not everything has to be a grid of windows.

42
 
I'm doing a case study on this project for school and the one piece of information I can't find anywhere (planning department included) is the property value. (Value of the entire plot, as well as $/sq. m.)

Surely there is a document somewhere that shows at least what the developer paid back when they purchased it? (Although a more up-to-date property value evaluation would be ideal.)

Could anyone help me out? Thanks! :)
 
Last edited:
SP!RE said:
I'm doing a case study on this project for school and the one piece of information I can't find anywhere (planning department included) is the property value. (Value of the entire plot, as well as $/sq. m.)

Surely there is a document somewhere that shows at least what the developer paid back when they purchased it? (Although a more up-to-date property value evaluation would be ideal.)

Could anyone help me out? Thanks! :)
Click to expand...

Damn man, I had a senior role on the design team and even I never heard that information! You would have to talk directly to the developer for that information, or perhaps a real estate agent could tap into MLS and see if it's there... I think that depends on who owned the land and how they sold it though - IE if it belonged to BILD or the city it may not be on MLS, but otherwise I would think it would be. The only way you'd get an up-to-date valuation would be via an appraisal and I doubt that will be done before it's finished.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top