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

[argus]

No.

You should reread waterloowarrior's post. The text does not represent an opinion. Your response is an opinion.

 

[isaidso]

It's also hard to believe that they pick the best development Toronto has ever seen to mount its biggest battle against.

Toronto...you can be a strange bird.

Oh well, at lest there will be plenty of fodder for for the third Unbuilt Toronto.

Agree. It's hard to wrap your head around sometimes. This is really about 2 camps in Toronto who have quite different ambitions/aspirations for their city. I'll just leave it at that. Unbuilt Toronto 3? I was thinking the exact same thing. At the rate we're going it will be full of spectacular buildings.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Agree. It's hard to wrap your head around sometimes. This is really about 2 camps in Toronto who have quite different ambitions/aspirations for their city. I'll just leave it at that. Unbuilt Toronto 3? I was thinking the exact same thing. At the rate we're going it will be full of spectacular buildings.

I wonder if 1 Yonge and Oxford Place will have this much opposition.

So far people seem supportive of 1 Yonge.

Of course the projects aren't really comparable because they don't include the demolition of heritage buildings.

 

[Edward Skira]

^ That's one of the big issues here isn't?

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Planning staff are reviewing the height/density of the plan, not the design. The purpose of the renders and designs are to try to demonstrate that the increased zoning provisions can work on the site and potential issues such as heritage and traffic arising from the increased provisions can be addressed. The purpose of the City's renders was to demonstrate a reduced scale and less heritage impact that would better meet City policy, not to design the project for them. Once approvals are given Kirkor, G&C, or any other firm could design the project, or propose something on a nearby site and use this as "context."

But herein lies the problem - architecture should not be considered a second fiddle to height/density/traffic/heritage matters (beyond the fact that economics of high quality architecture and materials often do require additional concessions to what are more traditionally considered as areas of planning concerns) - the very fact that once approval is given one can default to Kirkor, G&C and others speaks volumes about the ill this artificial and inflexible divide can create. There is something seriously wrong with the city when it can justify projects like Aura and not MG.

AoD

 

[buildup]

But herein lies the problem - architecture should not be considered a second fiddle to height/density/traffic/heritage matters (beyond the fact that economics of high quality architecture and materials often do require additional concessions to what are more traditionally considered as areas of planning concerns) - the very fact that once approval is given one can default to Kirkor, G&C and others speaks volumes about the ill this artificial and inflexible divide can create. There is something seriously wrong with the city when it can justify projects like Aura and not MG.

AoD

If city council wanted to block the Kirkor or the rest they could do it. M+G is not some scary slippery slope. I think we need a break from facadism, there has been a huge volume of it and Im concenred some of it will look silly eventually.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

buildup:

I don't necessarily blame the city - as it stands right now the city has limited ability to block a project on the basis of architectural quality. What I am saying is that this segregated approach isn't really productive at this stage.

AoD

 

[ushahid]

that will be nice to have couple of 200+ skyscrapers near CN tower to cover the empty space in the skyline.

 

[Strange Advance]

^It's not really an empty space. That general vicinity is filling up with a whole host of 400-550 ft towers. There's just nothing of the magnitude of the Mirvish buildings.

 

[egotrippin]

^ That's one of the big issues here isn't?

The location of these towers too. Three massive towers in a very filled out and well-developed part of the city, full of fabric buildings and on a transit line that is over capacity. On the contrary 1 Yonge is down in the vacant southeast end of downtown that has a lot more empty lots and growth potential.

I know it's not as easy as picking any old lot in the city and building, in addition Mirvish already owns the land, but why not make this project the premiere centrepiece of the East Bayfront or Donlands redevelopment? Am I blue-skying too much? There are appropriate places for three 800' + towers crammed together and inappropriate places; King West fits in to the latter.

 

[buildup]

The location of these towers too. Three massive towers in a very filled out and well-developed part of the city, full of fabric buildings and on a transit line that is over capacity. On the contrary 1 Yonge is down in the vacant southeast end of downtown that has a lot more empty lots and growth potential.

I know it's not as easy as picking any old lot in the city and building, in addition Mirvish already owns the land, but why not make this project the premiere centrepiece of the East Bayfront or Donlands redevelopment? Am I blue-skying too much? There are appropriate places for three 800' + towers crammed together and inappropriate places; King West fits in to the latter.

I disagree, King West fits the former.

Three 85 story lowers into East Bayfront? Wouldn't the immediate objection be this is no place for tall towers?

Simply because an objection gets raised constantly doesn't make it true. For example, the University subway is under capacity. In addition when the downtown relief line gets built (as it will) huge amounts of new subway capacity will come on stream underneath King Street. But that's really academic since M+G residents will be walking or travelling against the flow, which is good. One more point - residential is much less dense than commercial. As the G&M infrastructure article said today building dense residential beside dense commercial is good for obvious reasons. Of course all these rebuttals have been articulated 1,000 times on this thread.

 

[egotrippin]

I disagree, King West fits the former.

Three 85 story lowers into East Bayfront? Wouldn't the immediate objection be this is no place for tall towers?

Simply because an objection gets raised constantly doesn't make it true. For example, the University subway is under capacity. In addition when the downtown relief line gets built (as it will) huge amounts of new subway capacity will come on stream underneath King Street. But that's really academic since M+G residents will be walking or travelling against the flow, which is good. One more point - residential is much less dense than commercial. As the G&M infrastructure article said today building dense residential beside dense commercial is good for obvious reasons. Of course all these rebuttals have been articulated 1,000 times on this thread.

Fair points, although I don't have much faith in the city getting their act together on the DRL in the next 20 years even. Perhaps I'm just being prejudiced though, as I'm simply not impressed with the design. It looks like a monument of Mirvish dick-waving with scaled-up Gehry retreads. Clunky and inelegant describes these 3 towers best.

 

[buildup]

Fair points, although I don't have much faith in the city getting their act together on the DRL in the next 20 years even. Perhaps I'm just being prejudiced though, as I'm simply not impressed with the design. It looks like a monument of Mirvish dick-waving with scaled-up Gehry retreads. Clunky and inelegant describes these 3 towers best.

One my pet peeves is when people oppose but do not state their real reasons. So in fact you just don't like the design, your concerns aren't about density as you admit.

For the umpteenth time Tall Poppy Syndrome & Politics of Envy as you imply with your comment about "Mirvish dick-waving". Word to the wise, a little bit of Ego, has been behind a lot of great architecture and other achievements. Its just Life.

 

[adma]

For example, the University subway is under capacity.

In practice these days, it seems pretty well-used as I see it--*especially* St. Andrew station, which'd be Mirvish/Gehry's stop...

 

[buildup]

I use it every day, somewhat crowded which is to be expected at rush hour, nothing crazy. Certainly the exits could be expanded or redesigned.

But, of course most people would just be walking over to the CBD, to Union, or leaving the core on empty trains in the morning...

Adma, I think you and I will still be fighting this out in 50 years, except you'll be defending M+G as context.