"Jane Jacobs would still defend it on contemporary sterility..."
That's not enough of an argument in this specific case. Streets have to function well. Buildings have to have some architectural merit or beauty to preserve them. The strip across from Festival Tower has no architectural significance and this part of town has outgrown this cluster.
(1) How, pray tell, does King Street *not* function well with the existing strip across from Festival Tower--other that, maybe, its being too old and too modest and, well, "outgrown" by your standards?
(2) How is said strip devoid of "architectural merit or beauty"--unless you judge said "merit or beauty" through the absolutism of glossy contemporary archi-porn and a few token best-of-the-bests of the past? Yes, maybe it's not "significant" by Old City Hall standards; but the manner in which you state your case treats whatever urbanist paradigm shifts Jane Jacobs begat the same way Fox News treats whatever feminist paradigm shifts Betty Friedan begat. That is, you have to account for things in less blithe a manner--just because *you* say it doesn't "function well", doesn't mean it doesn't.
It should also be acknowledged that the Toronto International Film Festival is probably the single biggest global cultural event Toronto stages. It is the Tourist Board's dream event. That single event hugely raises the prestige and visibility of Toronto globally. Optics are important here.
A large building of scale taking up the entire block would be a welcome addition. Great height is not necessary or particularly desirable in this location, but scale is. This area demands drama, glamour, innovation, flare, sexiness, and modernity. The development must convey all of this.
Yes, "optics are important here". And if you scratch a little more deeply, plenty of TIFF visitors and superstars do *not* find anything wrong with the existing scale across from the Festival Centre. In fact, when they consider what's being lost, they'd think what you're proposing is a waste--and it's nothing to to with overwrought matters of "architectural distinction". It's the old Jane Jacobs trickle-down effect.
What you're proposing is a slick, wooden-headed parvenu rendition of "drama, glamour, innovation, flare, sexiness, and modernity"--wooden-headed in the way you're dismissing existing conditions as nothing more than a trifle. Okay, maybe there is a certain Hollywood crowd that'd go for that; but it might be the kind of crowd which'd demolish a noted Neutra or Schindler design for a glitzy ultracontemporary showoff. (And with the alibi that said Neutra and Schindler "doesn't function well" in 2007.)
Got a SketchUp started on that already.
And the message here is..."Lookit me! Me got a SketchUp!" Me big sophisticated computerized architectural design fellow!"
Finally, re
"Jane Jacobs would still defend it on contemporary sterility..."
It makes no sense, because you didn't quote me properly. "
Over contemporary sterility", not "
on contemporary sterility"...