jokes aside to get the thread on track;
I think it's silly that we have this much heritage preservation of how gross our waterfront used to look. The Victory Soya and Canada Malting siloes, this crane structure, the still functioning Redpath factory, and active portlands- this is simply too much preservation. The crane is a perfect example of how overzealous our heritage registry can be. Why are we protecting a crane, of all things? It can't be used anymore, and it's a rusted out eyesore in what will otherwise be a beautiful park. We don't need so many reminders of how awful of a place the waterfront used to be, one is plenty.
Adding insult to injury is that these structures are all dead space on very valuable real estate. The siloes especially, taking up a giant cinder block of a footprint to serve absolutely no function other than a rather soviet-esque reminder that this city wasn't always condos and parks. Heritage registering specific buildings that can still be adapted to modern uses? Absolutely, go right ahead. That's an efficient use of the limited land we have downtown. Heritage buildings that cannot be repurposed into anything other than empty vessels with a nice paint job? No thanks. We are not a toy train set where history is static. We are a place of life, vibrant streets, activated storefronts, and busy promenades.
Attach a museum to one of these assets (as was the plan for the Canada Malting Silo at one point) showing the way the waterfront used to be for those who are interested, there's no sense in having three boondoggles sitting completely empty and useless, blockading everyone's view of the water.
That's my problem. One example of how our waterfront used to be industrial is enough. We currently have three, and many still-operating ones. All four do nothing for public realm and activation; and are not pretty to look at.
My goodness that's an extreme take.
There has certainly been heritage saved in the City that is 'ordinary', will likely add little value to a finished project or even detract from it....... or be widely perceived as ugly. I view that as unfortunate. But I don't see the crane as fitting any of these.
Before we get to that......some clarity on the other sites you mention.
1) Red Path Sugar is an active industrial food processing operation that employs lots of people and provides us a local sugar supply chain, as opposed to say, relying on an unstable neighbouring country....not a relic.
2) We have already demolished many silos, there used to be a lot more.
3) I get the sense you would have demolished Queen's Quay Terminal, now a well liked shopping and residential centre or the power plant art gallery both of which have been preserved, and adapted.
Back to the crane.......I actually find it to be among the more visually interesting pieces of industrial heritage, it's not just a reminder of an industrial port. I'd be the first to question retaining something of visually dubious quality or that was dull as dishwater....... I just don't agree that either is true here.
On rust, I presume it will be painted.
On alternative uses........the crane is sited very low to the water, and surrounded by park, any building on the site would be remarkably small, and would block sunlight and the visual link between the water and the park and vice versa.
The crane takes up a relatively small space visually and light and sights can be seen through its structure. I think the only alternative here was just a smidge more park space. One can make that argument, but I'd like to see it made concretely by stating what the functional gain or value-added would be. I'm open on the point. But think the choice here is very defensible.
The vast majority of people in and outside the city would not care about the crane being removed. In fact, they would not even notice it is gone. So it is a bit of a waste of taxpayers money to restore it and let it use a major piece of land when it could be used for something more useful like housing or more park space.
The vast majority of the public eat at McDonalds, which doesn't even make an edible hamburger let alone a good one; the vast majority shop at Walmart.....which sells low quality crap in a ugly box while paying its staff exploitively low wages.
Just because the majority may be indifferent to good design, at least conceptually (I think most like it when they see it), doesn't mean we should cater to the lowest common denominator.)
I think the public will be just fine with, if not pleased by the retention of this landmark, even if they wouldn't have asked for it.
The public at large wouldn't likely have asked for a giant owl in the kids playground but I expect it will be a hit with kids and in turn parents alike.
Fair, if you differ in take; but I don't think it's reasonable to imagine that everyone or even most agree with you, absent evidence on that point.
Being cheap and reducing everything to the ordinary is something I would oppose. Every park can't be 'special' but not every park should be five pieces of standard play equipment, one sports field, trees, grass and a drinking fountain.
This park will be a well amenitized landmark, featuring great and interesting views, walking paths, nature, a bit of open-air museum and art gallery, and a spectacular kids playground among other things. You won't mistake it for an ordinary suburban park, and that's a good thing.
