Toronto Forma | 308m | 84s | Great Gulf | Gehry Partners

[44 North]

Because he is dishonest...that's why.

Why this project should be approved should be self-evident. But then again, why you should have not voted for Rob Ford should have been self-evident as well...and look what happened.

Dishonest? And an insult? I don't see the need for that. And why these three 80+ storey condos should be approved - and six century-old buildings obliterated - is not self-evident.

And plus, Adam Vaughan's opposition to Theatre Park, points about preservation and density, and the subsequent designation of heritage status for these buildings all hold true. It shouldn't matter who the architect is with a fancy plan...celebrities shouldn't get preferential treatment.

 

[khris]

celebrities shouldn't get preferential treatment.

No, but maybe good architecture should.

 

[fedplanner]

Dishonest? And an insult? I don't see the need for that. And why these three 80+ storey condos should be approved - and six century-old buildings obliterated - is not self-evident.

And plus, Adam Vaughan's opposition to Theatre Park, points about preservation and density, and the subsequent designation of heritage status for these buildings all hold true. It shouldn't matter who the architect is with a fancy plan...celebrities shouldn't get preferential treatment.

Adam Vaughan strongly supported Theater Park. From UT's interview with Brad Lamb regarding Theatre Park:

When I first bought Theatre Park it was daunting, I don't think anyone thought we would get it done. I’m pretty sure everyone said "He's out of his mind, that’s a failure for sure." It was really just absolute determination and refusing to give up belief.

The City was against it initially?

We walked into the planning department, myself and Peter [Clewes], we showed them the building – the original building was different from the one we eventually went with, but it was still beautiful nonetheless – and the planner said, “Listen, if you want me to write you a refusal letter right now I will. This is never going to happen, this is never going to get built.” And I just thought, “Fuck, after meeting us for five minutes, this is what you say?" So Peter and I just left and said, “Oh yeah? We’ll see if this building gets built."

So we worked very hard, and we did have a councillor on our side in the end. He believed in the building and, you know, I saw today in the paper the Massey Tower. Now that building is on a zero lot line. I don't know what stage it’s in at planning. It’s going to be very difficult to approve and perhaps even more controversial than our Theatre Park condos. I’m not a super fan of it, it’s a nice building, but there are things I would have done differently with it. But I think it’s a nice building and it would be much better for the city if that got built. So the planning was difficult, we lost the councillor initially but Adam Vaughan came around eventually. We gave a lot of money under Section 37, we gave a lot of money for an arts contribution. You know, if you buy the land right, and you get enough density and you can sell it for enough money, a million dollars here and there for an arts contribution and Section 37 isn't the end of the world. It’s a $130-million tower, there’s money that can go towards the city that can make things right for them. The interesting thing about the art contribution is that we are working with five international artists right now to narrow down our art park...

OT: Awesome awesome interview. This one and Kyle Rae's provide excellent insight into the sorry state of planning in Toronto.

 

[E.B.]

She's the chief planner for the city, she's a public servant, she shouldn't be commenting on Mirvishs' reputation as a developer.

I didn't know her job included personal swipes and publicly smearing Mirvish & Gehry.

btw, the Mirvish family have been here long time. Can anyone say the same about her.

 

[freshcutgrass]

Dishonest?

Someone called you out on your links to support your argument as flawed. They are obviously not relevant. What other explanation do you have for using them?

And why these three 80+ storey condos should be approved - and six century-old buildings obliterated - is not self-evident.

All opposition to this is of the knee-jerk variety....it's dogmatic. Any sane person who weighs the proposed project against the status quo is going to come to the conclusion that the proposed project is the all round winner. Or....you must really love Tim Hortons.

And plus, Adam Vaughan's opposition to Theatre Park, points about preservation and density, and the subsequent designation of heritage status for these buildings all hold true.

But as people have just proven...those points of yours do NOT hold true.

What you suggest, is that no building can be replaced under your definition of "preservation", which is of course, silly. That's why we have to be able to quantify it. If demolishing Osgoode Hall were part of the proposal, then I can see the opposition. But a couple of unremarkable, dime-a-dozen warehouse buildings is a compromise worth doing.

 

[Homer]

Hume is actually pretty right on in his article, slight condescension to JK notwithstanding ....interesting quote from Keesmaat...



So - no real worries about heritage, height or density? Alrighty then...

As E.B. posted on the previous page, let's look at Mirvish's track record - I don't recall any bait and switch by him ever. Heck, he single handedly rescued 1 King W., there was no switch there, even when bailing out Harry Stinson's mess...

and Frank Gehry doesn't strike me as someone who would risk his considerable reputation in some dubious bait and switch..

I think the bait and switch would more likely occur on projects with a design competition and I don't think it would necessarily be on purpose.
For a design competitions, I am not sure there would not be enough time to explore products and details to ensure the design is achievable.

I know for instance on OCAD the exterior panels for the initial design were sourced in Europe but the main problem was the panels were not
approved by CSA for use in Canada and the process to get them approved would take way too long.

On a private project put forth to the city I would hope they took the time to explore materials and some details to see that the proposed
design could be built.

 

[44 North]

Someone called you out on your links to support your argument as flawed. They are obviously not relevant. What other explanation do you have for using them?

I explained my poor posting of the links after being called on it.

All opposition to this is of the knee-jerk variety....it's dogmatic. Any sane person who weighs the proposed project against the status quo is going to come to the conclusion that the proposed project is the all round winner. Or....you must really love Tim Hortons.

Okay, well the apparent blind supporters for projects of this magnitude, ramifications, and destruction are of the knee-jerk variety in how they're quick to dismiss anyone who opposes them. Pot, meet kettle. A strong reason King East and West is such an attractive and profitable area of the city is because of the preservation of older structures and their adaptive uses. The area is bustling whether Gehry and some +80 storey towers are involved or not. If Mirvish sold the buildings to Lamb, I'm sure I'd see a much better use of the buildings than their complete obliteration.

But as people have just proven...those points of yours do NOT hold true.

What you suggest, is that no building can be replaced under your definition of "preservation", which is of course, silly. That's why we have to be able to quantify it. If demolishing Osgoode Hall were part of the proposal, then I can see the opposition. But a couple of unremarkable, dime-a-dozen warehouse buildings is a compromise worth doing.

I get that you're putting words in my mouth and making this into a fallacious black-and-white issue. But my point about Vaughan was that he wanted to "protect the rest of the area", called Theatre Park "the last tall building on the block", and wanted heritage controls to preserve the brick and beam warehouses to maintain the commercial validity of the block. I agree with that, as do many people who grew up and have lived/worked in Old Toronto. You think the councillor was "silly" for making those claims?

I'm not against density increases, or adaptive uses, or integration of heritage. And yes, one white-washed former warehouse housing a Timmies is nothing to write home about. But a row of six similar structures, of a similar age, that have a heritage value (no matter how much your ilk denies it), that are proven to have created a net positive effect since zoning use changes hit the area...what's wrong with preserving that?

 

[TrickyRicky]

I think Gehry's AGO reno was one of the better projects from that era's cultural build-out so I am happy for him to tackle this or some other project; however, there is something not quite right to me about the way this project is being argued for here.

The assumption is that because this is exceptional architecture all other considerations and principles should be jettisoned. I am the first one to criticize mindless adherence to procedure or the law but there is a difference between laws and principles. This project may or may not be worth compromising on the law or on procedure but it is not worth compromising on principles.

Another argument being made is that this is a once in a life-time opportunity because aesthetic architectural concerns are pre-eminent in the hierarchy of considerations. I am for architectural quality and variety but I understand fundamentally that architectural quality and variety are not high on the list of import aspects of a building or even a city. We complain on and on in this forum that Toronto is substandard aesthetically and architecturally and I fully agree. Any yet Toronto is an undeniable success and in many ways one of the best cities in the world. In other words, proof positive that architecture matters but it doesn't really matter that much. This puts into doubt the argument that architecture should be used as the excuse to compromise principle.

At any rate the thing I admire more than architecture or the current buildings on King Street etc. is initiative, so I wish Mr. Mirvish well even if I don't really like this project or it's impact on the area.

 

[buildup]

I am for architectural quality and variety but I understand fundamentally that architectural quality and variety are not high on the list of import aspects of a building or even a city. We complain on and on in this forum that Toronto is substandard aesthetically and architecturally and I fully agree. Any yet Toronto is an undeniable success and in many ways one of the best cities in the world. In other words, proof positive that architecture matters but it doesn't really matter that much. This puts into doubt the argument that architecture should be used as the excuse to compromise principle.
.

I appreciate your balanced view, but feel you are still undervaluing architecture. If you list the "best cities" in the world, my guess is ALL would have, amongst other things, fine architecture. Interestingly Toronto has been multi-cultural for a fairly long time, in a relative sense, but has only been included amongst the top cities within the last decade - or less. This corresponds to the building boom. Old boring Hog Town no longer.

It's supremely ironic that in Toronto's ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICT we are wringing our hands over third rate warehouses that no-one noticed before this uproar. All to obstruct the most downright ENTERTAINING buildings I've seen anywhere. The New York Times even described them in their travel section! When things come along that are profound opportunities, people have trouble assesing them as rationally. Maybe that's where 'looking a gift horse in the mouth comes from'. Come on - have a little fun, loosen up!! We dont want Montreal laughing at us as usual.

 

[Filip]

I appreciate your balanced view, but feel you are still undervaluing architecture. If you list the "best cities" in the world, my guess is ALL would have, amongst other things, fine architecture. Interestingly Toronto has been multi-cultural for a fairly long time, in a relative sense, but has only been included amongst the top cities within the last decade - or less. This corresponds to the building boom. Old boring Hog Town no longer.

It's supremely ironic that in Toronto's ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICT we are wringing our hands over third rate warehouses that no-one noticed before this uproar. All to obstruct the most downright ENTERTAINING buildings I've seen anywhere. The New York Times even described them in their travel section! When things come along that are profound opportunities, people have trouble assesing them as rationally. Maybe that's where 'looking a gift horse in the mouth comes from'. Come on - have a little fun, loosen up!! We dont want Montreal laughing at us as usual.

If only Montreal could laugh.. It's no longer 1967.

 

[buildup]

I'm going to call some people out.

Leaving aside for a moment our precious warehouses, from a pure architectural perspective - what projects in the world exceed the Mirvish/Gehry proposal in scale, originality, and beauty? There may be a few that exceed in individual criteria - but I cannot think of anything, anywhere, that it as spectacular in total.

When you add in the local relevance of M & G and the neighbourhood's entertainment theme its incredibly exciting.

Any examples on the planet - built or even proposed?

 

[bmiller]

This was always an bigger ambition than Toronto is capable of. Raise your hands if you ever thought this would be built in old conservative T.O. I'm an old Torontonian for decades, and his is way to big for the planners to handle.
It's not going to happen in its current form. No way.
Ghery should tell them to stuff it when it's turned down. I'm on his side.

 

[waterloowarrior]

She's the chief planner for the city, she's a public servant, she shouldn't be commenting on Mirvishs' reputation as a developer.

I didn't know her job included personal swipes and publicly smearing Mirvish & Gehry.

btw, the Mirvish family have been here long time. Can anyone say the same about her.

I don't think it's an attack on Mirvish, I think the point is that there are no guarantees tying zoning to design. We can't just give someone extra height because they are a good developer, well-regarded in the community, or have friends on City Council. So we'd give 80 storeys for Mirvish, 60 for Lamb, and 30 for Pinnacle? Same thing applies for architecture. You can't just give 80 floors if it's by Gehry, 50 for a Clewes, or 20 for a Kirkor/G+C.

 

[buildup]

...We can't just give someone extra height because they are a good developer, well-regarded in the community... So we'd give 80 storeys for Mirvish, 60 for Lamb, and 30 for Pinnacle? Same thing applies for architecture. You can't just give 80 floors if it's by Gehry, 50 for a Clewes, or 20 for a Kirkor/G+C.

Are you being ironic? That is EXACTLY what we should do.

 

[Mike in TO]

Are you being ironic? That is EXACTLY what we should do.

Not possible in a democratic system - courts would have a field day with that idea.