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

[Big Daddy]

This article basically boils down to:

1. It's too big. Of course the author is unable or unwilling to justify this viewpoint.
2. The guy who wants to build it sold some other property
3. Someone who likes M+G said mean things about the opponents of the project
4. City planners think there needs to be more public space and heritage protection

I know Torontoist can do better than this. There are so many great arguments against this project and the author hit none of them.

This bears a strong resemblance to the city's arguments which are very weak.

I understand the desire to save significant, historical buildings - but not every old building and not at the expense of a project that offers the city so much.

In terms of this project vI like:
- the iconic nature of such a tall and interesting group of buildings
- the fact that it is just two blocks from St. Andrew subway station
- the addition of an art college campus
- the addition of an art museum
- the uniqueness of the design

And yes, I like the aggressive nature of a project that aims to build something world class and make a powerful statement. I also like a developer who takes the time to engage a first rate, internationally reknown architect and tells him to design the best project he has even designed. How many mid-rise ho hum blue glass "City Place" towers do we need? Let's build something exciting, that tells the world something about Toronto, that adds to the city vibe and drives us forward.

To stop, or worse, reduce, this project would be truly sad.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

This bears a strong resemblance to the city's arguments which are very weak.

I understand the desire to save significant, historical buildings - but not every old building and not at the expense of a project that offers the city so much.

And yes, I like the aggressive nature of a project that aims to build something world class and make a powerful statement. I also like a developer who takes the time to engage a first rate, internationally reknown architect and tells him to design the best project he has even designed. How many mid-rise ho hum blue glass "City Place" towers do we need? Let's build something exciting, that tells the world something about Toronto, that adds to the city vibe and drives us forward.

To stop, or worse, reduce, this project would be truly sad.

The fact of the matter is that with or without M+G, these heritage buildings are dead. They won't exist five years from now. They sit on land that is far too valuable and carry too little historical significance. Preservationist will be very lucky if they get a facade. I think most here on UT have come to accept that; not so sure about other Torontonians.

 

[sixrings]

The fact of the matter is that with or without M+G, these heritage buildings are dead. They won't exist five years from now. They sit on land that is far too valuable and carry too little historical significance. Preservationist will be very lucky if they get a facade. I think most here on UT have come to accept that; not so sure about other Torontonians.

someone on here suggested to keep the king street facades but reverse them to the back of the buildings. That is the best plan I have heard yet and would keep me a semi-preservationist happy.

 

[buildup]

My vote would be to let Context continue to dominate the built form of 95% of the city, and to let highly dynamic areas partake in creative destruction. The Core would be a good place to create New Context.

Helpful hint Tall Poppy Syndrome & Politics of Envy advocats - Shadow Effects has lost credability. New rallying cry is Context because its hard to define, easy to use, and can be applied against anything different.

While civic pride is a good lets not get toooo carried away. We have NOT been overrun by great architecture! We have precious little to point to. Listening to some critics would lead you to think we have such a rich abundance of masterpieces we can put new developers through a kangaroo court.

Don't we deserve one masterpiece - just one? Can't you Context people relent? Why marshall all your energies to fight this incredibly bizarre battle over scraps?

 

[fedplanner]

The city's photoshop job wasn't really supposed to be a suggestion to Gehry of how they think he should design it; it was just saying, "Look, if you think about it there IS a way to fit the warehouses in.

I don't think the gaps are THAT huge. I think there are some people here who absolutely love the design and don't want it touched and don't want small-minded bureaucrats touching it with their dirty fingers. I haven't seen too many people outright opposed but I have seen people (like me) with reservations and concerns. Anyone who doesn't have any concerns about something of this scale (as it says in that Torontoist article, I think) is missing the entire point of having a planning department. We live in a democracy and working together is one of the things that come with that and I suspect the difference will get resolved in the fullness of time.

I don't work for the city or M+G so it's not for me to say what an ideal height is or what the street level should look like. It's M+G's job to do that in accordance with the rules of the city in which they're operating and I suspect they'll come up with something nice at the end of the day. The AGO was very constrained, for all sorts of reasons, and Gehry ended up changing his original vision quite a bit and still came up with something great. You're not giving anyone much credit if you don't think they can do the same here.

This is a reasonable response. It sounds like you would like to see the process continue to play out as Mirvish and the city work out there differences to deliver a high-quality development. This is why I believe Vaughan's working group is a great idea to get both sides talking with the help of independent experts and to break the logjam. I still caution that the photoshop concept by the planning department may be very hard to execute from a development standpoint, and the end result that may not be desirable to either side; The Planning Department's concept from a public meeting last year:

Images originally posted by ProjectEnd

I'm confident that the working group will explore the possibility of preserving the heritage buildings and, if so, make sure it's done right.

It sounds like we have a lot in common and I'm from the pro-camp because I believe the benefits from Mirvish+Gehry out way the negatives.

In fairness, I don't think M+G do either. That's been very in flux. Their starting point was obviously ditching the warehouses entirely but I suspect, somewhere in the back of their minds,there is a Plan B.

Or could be the original plan all along. The M+G proposal never did officially file with the city to demolish the heritage buildings IIRC.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

This article basically boils down to:

1. It's too big. Of course the author is unable or unwilling to justify this viewpoint.
2. The guy who wants to build it sold some other property
3. Someone who likes M+G said mean things about the opponents of the project
4. City planners think there needs to be more public space and heritage protection

I know Torontoist can do better than this. There are so many great arguments against this project and the author hit none of them.

If you look at the other Hero and Villain articles (well, except Rob Ford's), they're just summations of what's gone on before. They're pretty short and something on M+G isn't going to get into the sort of detail we talk about here regarding FSI or whatever.

And it doesn't say Mirvish is a villain for selling his own property (though it does mention there are other heritage buildings on Markham Street). what it says is that after opening art galleries and theatres he's trading it all for condos - albeit unique ones (Yes, I know there's a gallery in the condos; I'm summing up the gist of it, as I read it.). And that the process has been divisive. The 300-or-so words wouldn't make for much in a sustained debate but in terms of laying out what's gone on to this point it's all fair enough and some of the people here who disagree with it's fundamental POV are, not surprisingly, rather making too much of it. To wit:

This article was a rather poor performance from Torontoist. The author failed to give any insight into the flaws of M+G or why Mr. Mirivish is now one of Toronto's "villains".

Author claims building are too tall. Of course he provides no justification for this.

It doesn't say they're "too tall." It says they're over 80 storeys tall, and they are. And it says planning staff had concerns about the heights, and they did. And I think everyone on this board knows the "justification" (whether they agree or not) with the notion that they're too tall (i.e. there is nothing else that height right now and it's far in excess of what the zoning permits.)

The author also mentioned the similarities between M+G and the CN Tower. Odd since the CN Tower is also "on the wrong scale", yet has been hugely beneficial to the city.

And it was built on abandoned rail lands and didn't replace a heritage building etc. And it's just hugely illogical to argue that since one, supertall building 40 years ago was "hugely beneficial" (whatever that means; is that a planning argument?) that surely these three are as well. What the Torontoist article says is that the M+G towers would have about as significant an impact on the skyline as the CN Tower, which seems a reasonable assertion to me. Moreover, it's not really a negative statement at all, unless you read it that way.

And the point I read from that, which is the same point I've made here, is that it's perfectly reasonable that staff have concerns about how they fit in, instead of gawking at their sheer beauty and rubber stamping them.

You want them built as is, so you are reading what you want into the article, which is barely even an article.

 

[fedplanner]

The Torontoist piece isn't bad. Read this one instead: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/toronto-has-an-unhealthy-height-obsession/article16124595/

Today, Toronto is as unfinished as ever. It is the Western Hemisphere city with the most tall buildings under construction. But unlike the city Mr. Hope visited, the cranes are reserved for upscale condo projects instead of office buildings...

The problem with all these fancy skyscrapers, from the Trump Tower and Daniel Libeskind’s L-Tower to the undulating balconies of the now-rising One Bloor, is that they represent the lipstick-on-a-pig approach to urban development. At best, these exclusive downtown condos with their “money shot†views are simply turning Toronto into Hogtown with gaudy sequins...

“This is not a good-looking city,†the straight-talking celebrity chef Anthony Bourdain said on a 2012 visit to Toronto. “Your English-Presbyterian past has not served you well architecturally.â€

The Los Angeles-based Mr. Gehry turned the screws last month. While in town to defend his project and the proposed demolition of the existing Edwardian-era warehouses on the site, he told the Toronto and East York Community Council that Toronto had only two buildings worth preserving – Old City Hall and Osgoode Hall. The truth hurts...

Toronto has achieved far less with far greater means. The streetscapes of rich Toronto are still dominated by shoddy shacks and tacky storefronts. Looking up along most downtown streets – including Yonge, Queen and other prime retail arteries – you notice the disrepair of so many buildings. Most city councils wouldn’t tolerate such neglect, but Toronto’s seems too busy reviewing the next towering condo project to care...

No matter that they go up with almost total disregard for their surroundings, we’re told these skyscrapers provide the density and gentrification that make for a vibrant downtown. But several low-rise buildings side-by-side can deliver the same density as a single 80-storey tower that requires a wide empty zone at its base and, usually in Toronto, has a vacant lot beside it...

 

[buildup]

The Torontoist piece isn't bad. Read this one instead: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/toronto-has-an-unhealthy-height-obsession/article16124595/

FedPlanner was very selective in his edits. I've attached the entire article. What he basically says is Toronto is shoddy and condos alone won't fix this. No-one disagrees with that. In other words, lots of very bad Context.

"Bob Hope once joked that Toronto would be a nice place – when it was finished. That was more than three decades ago, during the building boom that would define the city’s skyline by its gold and marble bank headquarters and its rude and record-shattering CN Tower. It wasn’t exactly pretty, but at least the development spurt suggested a city on its way up.

Today, Toronto is as unfinished as ever. It is the Western Hemisphere city with the most tall buildings under construction. But unlike the city Mr. Hope visited, the cranes are reserved for upscale condo projects instead of office buildings. By 2015, Toronto’s skyline will sport 44 towers exceeding 150 metres in height, up from only 13 in 2005, according to the Chicago-based Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat. Clearly, modern Toronto has a height obsession.

Indeed, theatre impresario David Mirvish wants to outdo them all by enlisting the revered Toronto-born architect Frank Gehry to design three luxury condo towers – totalling more than 250 storeys – for a patch of King Street West that Mr. Mirvish’s father once revitalized with his theatres. Everyone from Conrad Black to Toronto Star architecture critic Christopher Hume seems gaga at the prospect of not one, but three Gehry mega-towers gracing the architect’s hometown.

The problem with all these fancy skyscrapers, from the Trump Tower and Daniel Libeskind’s L-Tower to the undulating balconies of the now-rising One Bloor, is that they represent the lipstick-on-a-pig approach to urban development. At best, these exclusive downtown condos with their “money shot” views are simply turning Toronto into Hogtown with gaudy sequins.

“This is not a good-looking city,” the straight-talking celebrity chef Anthony Bourdain said on a 2012 visit to Toronto. “Your English-Presbyterian past has not served you well architecturally.”

The Los Angeles-based Mr. Gehry turned the screws last month. While in town to defend his project and the proposed demolition of the existing Edwardian-era warehouses on the site, he told the Toronto and East York Community Council that Toronto had only two buildings worth preserving – Old City Hall and Osgoode Hall. The truth hurts.

Montreal has its share of urban eyesores – most of them built during the Jean Drapeau era of the 1960s and 1970s – but the city’s glorious past and collective aesthetic have left it with an architectural ambience that Toronto can only envy. Recently, Montreal has excelled at small-scale urban renewal and beautification projects that showcase the city’s charm and sense of proportion.

Toronto has achieved far less with far greater means. The streetscapes of rich Toronto are still dominated by shoddy shacks and tacky storefronts. Looking up along most downtown streets – including Yonge, Queen and other prime retail arteries – you notice the disrepair of so many buildings. Most city councils wouldn’t tolerate such neglect, but Toronto’s seems too busy reviewing the next towering condo project to care."

On balance the article isn't critical of M+G its just saying other things need to happen at all. If this is as critical as it gets, that I'm cool with it. Nice try Fedplanner, I read the G&M too

 

[TheTigerMaster]

You want them built as is, so you are reading what you want into the article, which is barely even an article.

I'd prefer if M+G wasn't built as is. My major concern being the lack of public amenities, which is something that City Planning has brought up. To a lesser extent I'm concerned about the heritage preservation. I do feel that if they can be elegantly included in the design then they should be. I also look forward to seeing what people have to say regarding the height of the towers at the community meetings. City Planning seems concerned about the size of the buildings and I want to see if they can make a more compelling argument for shrinking the buildings to fit their framework

 

[MetroMan]

This is a reasonable response. It sounds like you would like to see the process continue to play out as Mirvish and the city work out there differences to deliver a high-quality development. This is why I believe Vaughan's working group is a great idea to get both sides talking with the help of independent experts and to break the logjam. I still caution that the photoshop concept by the planning department may be very hard to execute from a development standpoint, and the end result that may not be desirable to either side; The Planning Department's concept from a public meeting last year:

Images originally posted by ProjectEnd

I'm confident that the working group will explore the possibility of preserving the heritage buildings and, if so, make sure it's done right.

It sounds like we have a lot in common and I'm from the pro-camp because I believe the benefits from Mirvish+Gehry out way the negatives.



Or could be the original plan all along. The M+G proposal never did officially file with the city to demolish the heritage buildings IIRC.

I like how the heritage buildings are incorporated in this concept but it dismisses an important benefit of a brand new block: wider sidewalks. King St. West is growing tremendously and it needs wider sidewalks. If we miss this opportunity, it won't ever be fixed.

 

[fedplanner]

FedPlanner was very selective in his edits. I've attached the entire article. What he basically says is Toronto is shoddy and condos alone won't fix this. No-one disagrees with that. In other words, lots of very bad Context.

buildup, I always try to quote less than 50 percent of an article due to copyright concerns and provide a link for the entire article for those that want the full story.

On a unrelated topic, I was fortunate enough to be relocated to the NYC area in the past year. NYC is booming and the only time it felt overpopulated was when all the tourists and suburbanites were in midtown for New Year's Eve celebrations. It's a city that works (although I disagree with the 1000 foot ultra luxury condos that provide only 80 or so units. Hopefully Mayor de Blasio will find ways to implement his housing goals and build, build, build the tens of thousands of affordable and workforce housing units. 200,000 according to that once source.

But the oddest real estate developments I've seen take place on the Jersey side. What many Torontonians may find particularly interesting is a two three-tower developments that have recently broke ground across the Hudson that come close to rivaling M+G in height and density. The city and state of New Jersey even provided major tax breaks worth $600 million to encourage the development of the market-rate units, which apparently is how things get built here. (Strange, I know.) The problem is that the towers are an architectural mess!

http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/2012/12/jersey_city_panel_approves_thr.html
http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/...year_tax_break_for_journal_square_towers.html

http://newyorkyimby.com/2013/10/boom-times-resume-in-jersey-city.html

My favorite quote comes the City Planning Director:

But Director of City Planning Robert Cotter implored the council to approve the Journal Square 2060 Redevelopment Plan.

“This is an amendment to an existing redevelopment plan that already allows taller building to be built in this area,†Cotter reminded the council. “Right across the street from this 42-story building will be another tower that has already been approved. And that high rise will be 72 stories.â€

None of the opponents to the 42-story building raised concerns last night about the 72-story building.

As for complaints about added commuters on the PATH trains, Cotter recalled the 1980s when cars were so packed that they routinely passed train stops altogether.

“We’re not dealing with that anymore. So, improvements have been made and more are on the way…Unfortunately the way things work in this country is you have to establish the need for something, like more mass transit, then make the case for getting money to build it later.â€

Approving this amendment, he said, was critical to redevelopment in Journal Square, which has been stalled for years.

Lopez echoed this theme when explaining her vote in favor of the amendment.

“While I appreciate the views of the residents and I have met with them to talk about their concerns, I feel it is important to settle this dispute and get this project moving forward rather than dragging it out,†said Lopez. “This is an area in need of redevelopment and this is a viable project that will help accomplish that.

/offtopic

 

[jje1000]

I like how the heritage buildings are incorporated in this concept but it dismisses an important benefit of a brand new block: wider sidewalks. King St. West is growing tremendously and it needs wider sidewalks. If we miss this opportunity, it won't ever be fixed.

We can always work around the heritage buildings, i.e. like at 481 University Avenue where they're carving a colonnade out of the existing building. Alternatively, if they go with facadism, the entire facades can be pushed around at will, like what they're doing with the heritage houses on Jarvis.

Heritage is an element of architectural design, it doesn't necessarily need to be an unmovable piece that needs to be designed around.

 

[junctionist]

The fact of the matter is that with or without M+G, these heritage buildings are dead. They won't exist five years from now. They sit on land that is far too valuable and carry too little historical significance. Preservationist will be very lucky if they get a facade. I think most here on UT have come to accept that; not so sure about other Torontonians.

Lots of people here support heritage preservation. If Mirvish and Gehry don't get their way to build the project in its current iteration, I doubt that anyone will consider demolishing these buildings. To see Mirvish and Gehry fail to destroy these heritage buildings with their ambitious proposal would not motivate developers to propose demolishing them for second-rate developments. When we keep the heritage laws strong, these destructive development proposals subside. When the heritage laws were created in the 1970s, the practice of buying up entire city blocks with many historic buildings and then levelling the blocks for a single modern project declined considerably. Then came a flurry of heritage restoration projects in the 1970s-1980s.

This development tests the city's ability to preserve its heritage. If it succeeds as proposed, we'll probably lose a lot more heritage buildings in other places with bad precedent established. Developers will be able to point to some aspect of their architecture that's positive to justify demolishing heritage buildings, even if the buildings don't end up being that likable. For example, a developer might say that "Our proposed building will incorporate an iconic triangular precast concrete motif designed by S + P. Therefore, we feel that demolishing this block of 24 heritage-designated Bay and Gable houses in Cabbagetown is justifiable--the new architecture will be outstanding."

A lot of developers will see the Mirvish-Gehry proposal is a way to test the waters to see if you can override various legitimate planning regulations and laws by bundling flashy architecture and some extra public amenities. The second-rate developers won't get Gehry to design their buildings; they'll just give P+S a better budget, and they'll get approvals because this development will set the precedent that heritage can be disregarded if you're proposing unique architecture.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

I like how the heritage buildings are incorporated in this concept but it dismisses an important benefit of a brand new block: wider sidewalks. King St. West is growing tremendously and it needs wider sidewalks. If we miss this opportunity, it won't ever be fixed.

Yeah I was going to mention this as well. I'm surprised that this was proposed since City Planning seems to be concerned about sidewalk capacity.

I cant support preserving the facade unless it is moved back. That has the potential to be a genuine diasatser. Perhaps it can be brought back and incorporated into the design like how we see with Queen Richmond Centre?

 

[jje1000]

A lot of developers will see the Mirvish-Gehry proposal is a way to test the waters to see if you can override various legitimate planning regulations and laws by bundling flashy architecture and some extra public amenities. The second-rate developers won't get Gehry to design their buildings; they'll just give P+S a better budget, and they'll get approvals because this development will set the precedent that heritage can be disregarded if you're proposing unique architecture.

This is what's happened before again and again though in different contexts. From what I heard, one of the architects involved with Casa noted that the architects behind Cinema Tower had used Casa's parking structure to justify their own above ground parking structure. Of course, we know how different one is from the other, especially in how they interact with the street. The same goes for the TIFF Lightbox, and the deluge of proposals that flooded in afterwards.

This is essentially another potential case of the "He did it, why can't I argument." That argument is hard to argue against, because of a general desire for "fairness".