Quote:
Originally Posted by niwell
There are HUGE historical differences between Toronto and Chicago in terms of waterfront development. Without getting into it in any level of detail Chicago always intended its waterfront to be public with the bulk of industry located inland along the river. Toronto's direct waterfront was industrial and the remaining built form reflects that.
For the record I'm not referring to the pretty pictures that show mixed use communities in the Port Lands. I think those are a pipe dream and nothing more. In my mind everything East of Redpath should be reserved for employment uses, and in this context Corus is actually quite important. The recent enactment of a Port Lands CIP seems to reflect this future despite whatever renderings are released by various groups. By definition Employment Areas really aught not to have large public components (in this case the southern fringe of the port lands might be the exception) due to the detrimental effect sensitive land uses have on industry.
The result might not be pretty, but quite frankly the Eastern waterfront and Port Lands are a bit out of the way and are not the best location for a major public space. There is still quite a lot that can be done with the central waterfront (the wavedecks for instance have proved quite successful) and in my mind it isn't half as bad as many make it out to be. Particularly when you consider the history of the area and what was there to begin with.
I guess what it comes down to is that I don't understand this obsession with the waterfront in Toronto. With the notable exception of the Island, Beach and the far western communities Toronto has never really been "about" the lake in the same way Chicago has. Not entirely sure why this is an awful thing, but then again I don't understand why people pay more to look at water.
|
Niwell, the Millenium Park site consisted of train tracks and parking lots before it was transformed. I'm sure that Chicago could have easily sold the land to developers for top dollar but they didn't, they had enough vision to set it aside and create something unique for its citizens to enjoy for all time.
The wavedecks are successful because in the areas where they were installed, the waterfront consisted of the sidewalk and nothing else. It's like taking a crowded one lane street, expanding it to two lanes and calling it a success because it's instantly filled with traffic. The wavedecks essentially doubled the size of the sidewalk.
The Montréal waterfront was an industrial zone well into the 70's and there was intense pressure in the 60's, 70's and 80's to build a Gardiner-like monstrosity along rue de la Commune and condos along the water as well as on the island park, Parc Jean-Drapeau. Fortunately, the entire central portion bordering Old Montréal and the Islands were redeveloped as a 100% public space and the City can run any type of event imaginable without worrying about noise and disturbance complaints from yuppie condo owners.
Personally, I don't care what Toronto does with its waterfront. I stopped caring when I lived there and realised that developers could do pretty much as they pleased while the rest of us were stuck with 30 year plans; plans that were always subject to 'The Compromise', 'The Cheapening' and 'The Last Minute Redesign'.. if they ever got off the ground at all. My only concern is for Montrealers who, distracted by large shiny things, look to Toronto-style development as a positive, when I see it as something to be avoided.