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

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

"A building doesn't have to have singularly remarkable history to be a heritage property."

I disagree, and obviously that's where we diverge. You use some of the same arguments as hoarders who never want to throw anything away. There are buildings that should be preserved for sure, but to argue a warehouse is one of them is the same as saying you "should never throw anything away". The costs of preserving everything old becomes prohibitive and it stifles new architectural initiatives. Let's save buildings with architectural and historical importance and stop wasting time and opportunity saving just any building.

And let's stop using the "historical" designation simply as a tool to stop significant and important projects - which I believe to be the case here.

Obviously you're entitled to your position but heritage, unlike art, is defined in the legislation. From the province's guidelines:

(2) A property may be designated under section 29 of the Act if it meets one or more of the following criteria for determining whether it is of cultural heritage value or interest:
1. The property has design value or physical value because it,
i. is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method,
ii. displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit, or
iii. demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement.
2. The property has historical value or associative value because it,
i. has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community,
ii. yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture, or
iii. demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community.
3. The property has contextual value because it,
i. is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area,
ii. is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings, or
iii. is a landmark. O. Reg. 9/06, s. 1 (2).

So, it doesn't need a "John A. MacDonald slept here" sign to qualify.

The building met these criteria in an open and democratic process so while we could endlessly debate how important this specific building is or isn't, the fact remains it is legally designated and Mirvish knew that going in. If you're not going to stand by a deal regarding your history, whether it's this or Ryerson and the Sam's sign, you might as well just throw the doors open and pretend your Dubai or Las Vegas or something.

Secondly, preventing the destruction of old buildings is rather the entire point of heritage preservation. It doesn't mean throwing nothing away - I'm not complaining we bulldozed The Ward - but it wasn't all that long ago people thought tearing down Old City Hall for something "significant and important" was a perfectly fine idea. By your criteria, some 1860 house that didn't house anyone particularly interesting should be torn down to make way for a new subdivision, but that's the entire antithesis of the Heritage Act.

Thirdly, this building was already designated so it's hard to argue that it's being used as a tool to stop this project, specifically. And it's DEFINITELY subjective whether M&G is a "significant and important project." There's a big subjective grey area here (e.g. whether you think the warehouse is important, whether any given person likes the M&G design etc.) but we do have heritage laws. There are plenty of old cities - way older than Toronto - that find ways to blend old and new. Just because we're a young city doesn't mean we should be any less protective of our legitimate heritage.

Everyone who lives in this city should have to read Michael Redhill's book, Consolation (which, coincidentally, takes place largely on 19th Century King Street).

 

[TrickyRicky]

I find this conversation is becoming stale. No one is going to convince anyone who has strong feeling about the project either way. However, at this point I don't think anyone can pretend anymore that this project isn't controversial. A compromise re-working would be acceptable to I feel most people but the die-hard architectural purists and most rigid preservationists.

Personally, I would be happy with this project moving forward in some kind of compromise iteration. Until we get more facts and developments there isn't really anything more I can comment on.

 

[freshcutgrass]

No, stupid is not understanding the value of heritage itself, nor the role old buildings play in a city

But I'd argue that I have a far less myopic view of what "heritage" is as well as the role buildings play in a city. It is not a dogmatic adherence to a philosophy (sorry, but Jacobs wasn't right about everything). To think no building can ever be demolished in the name of progress is simply a stupid notion. To not understand the role new buildings play in a city is equally stupid. To not know when one outweighs the other is the difference between city building and lost opportunities.

 

[Big Daddy]

^ Well put.

 

[buildup]

And there's also offices and subtext, past & present, above the donut shop--Diamond/Myers/KPMB, the Toronto Sun, heck, Eclipse Whitewear itself.

Not sure I get your point, couldn't they relocate into the new building or close by? Are you saying the fact that the Toronto Sun has or had offices there matters?

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

Not sure I get your point, couldn't they relocate into the new building or close by? Are you saying the fact that the Toronto Sun has or had offices there matters?

The point is, the prior implication that the building wasn't significant because it's just got a lowly Timmies in it is entirely beside the point.
As I pointed out, current use has absolutely less than zero to do with heritage designation and certainly there are many heritage buildings that are left vacant. And his point was that, to the extent that even is relevant, Tim Horton's is not the sole occupant; there are plenty of kinds of businesses making use of it. More relevant is the part (ignored) where he says it has SUBTEXT, PAST AND PRESENT, which is (unlike, "I find the building boring") an argument for heritage preservation.

(That said, you can mock Tim Horton's all you want but it's hard to imagine Diamond, KPMB et al housing themselves in some nothing building. Maybe they know something you don't?)

As for the conversation getting stale, yeah I see what you're saying.

I'm not against the project. I'm against people who don't understand something as basic as the principles underlying our heritage act or our planning process thinking that because the project is so potentially impressive it somehow is above the law. It's not. There's a process and a compromise will be arrived at and, yeah, as with all compromises it will piss off some extremists but most of us will be happy.

That's how the process is supposed to work. Not that you hire a famous architect and he gets to do whatever he wants, just cuz.

 

[freshcutgrass]

I'm against people who don't understand something as basic as the principles underlying our heritage act or our planning process thinking that because the project is so potentially impressive it somehow is above the law. It's not.

I think perhaps it is you who is missing something here. Designating a building does not ensure said building is forever protected from demolition. It simply gives the city the ability to refuse the demolition permit if it wants. Designated heritage buildings can and do get undesignated.

I think you also fail to realize an important aspect of this scenario. Why do you think it was given heritage status, with Mirvish's blessing at the time? Could it have something to do with heritage designated buildings receiving large tax rebates? hmmm....something to ponder eh???

There's a process and a compromise will be arrived at and, yeah, as with all compromises it will piss off some extremists but most of us will be happy.

In this case, any compromise will simply resemble a watered down version of the proposal, with the possibility of losing some major cultural benefits (the gallery or OCAD CAMPUS). And that would be a shame.

The trick is to know when and where to pick your battles. This is a very stupid time to risk so much for so little.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

I think perhaps it is you who is missing something here. Designating a building does not ensure said building is forever protected from demolition. It simply gives the city the ability to refuse the demolition permit if it wants. Designated heritage buildings can and do get undesignated.

I think you also fail to realize an important aspect of this scenario. Why do you think it was given heritage status, with Mirvish's blessing at the time? Could it have something to do with heritage designated buildings receiving large tax rebates? hmmm....something to ponder eh???

I don't see the relevance. If Mirvish had nefarious reasons for allowing the designation, good for him. Still, anyone who owns a designated property knows it comes with conditions and responsibilities. Designation is designation, no matter whether the owner wanted it or didn't it. It met the bar for designation so it's a done deal.

Oh, and you're wrong about the Heritage Act works. Used to be that you could ask to destroy a heritage building and after 180 days there was nothing a municipality could do to stop you. Now you have to appeal their refusal and have a CRB hearing. If they lose, the building stays. If he wants to destroy them, he can certainly ask, but it's awfully arrogant to assume that he can.

In this case, any compromise will simply resemble a watered down version of the proposal, with the possibility of losing some major cultural benefits (the gallery or OCAD CAMPUS). And that would be a shame.

The trick is to know when and where to pick your battles. This is a very stupid time to risk so much for so little.

This is all totally subjective. Neither you nor I have any idea what form a compromise might take. The likely scenario (if we're guessing!) is that the city will want more amenities, not fewer, so I doubt the OCAD campus is in danger. "Watered down," is also totally subjective. My guess is the heights will come down, who knows to where...high 60s? And there will be some effort to integrate the warehouses. I expect M&G were well aware of these probabilities. I don't know how many significant developments get approved without a single change introduced by staff/council but I expect it's somewhere close to zero and it's no surprise to anyone this one is getting more scrutiny.

I'm not sure what "risk," there really is. That Mirvish will throw up his hands and hire Kirkor? Or give up and build these same towers on land he doesn't own elsewhere? This is the process, even for really pretty buildings. There's a certain amount of naievete here about what's going on.

I personally have little patience for the OMB but some of the best results I've seen have come from negotiations undertaken once they're involved. You can fearmonger about losing OCAD or somehow affecting Gehry's aesthetic but I look at the working group (which I gather met for the first time on Tuesday) and see no reason to assume they won't come up with something that works for everyone.

 

[urbandreamer]

What if they removed the paint and restored these warehouses to new condition--what King West needs is more red brick.

 

[nopacnone]

This is how the pro-heritage people here should see this: in the year 2500, Torontonians will either look at this corner as a 500 year old warehouse or a 400 year old canadian icon's biggest project.

 

[Big Daddy]

I don't see the relevance. If Mirvish had nefarious reasons for allowing the designation, good for him. Still, anyone who owns a designated property knows it comes with conditions and responsibilities. Designation is designation, no matter whether the owner wanted it or didn't it. It met the bar for designation so it's a done deal.

Oh, and you're wrong about the Heritage Act works. Used to be that you could ask to destroy a heritage building and after 180 days there was nothing a municipality could do to stop you. Now you have to appeal their refusal and have a CRB hearing. If they lose, the building stays. If he wants to destroy them, he can certainly ask, but it's awfully arrogant to assume that he can.



This is all totally subjective. Neither you nor I have any idea what form a compromise might take. The likely scenario (if we're guessing!) is that the city will want more amenities, not fewer, so I doubt the OCAD campus is in danger. "Watered down," is also totally subjective. My guess is the heights will come down, who knows to where...high 60s? And there will be some effort to integrate the warehouses. I expect M&G were well aware of these probabilities. I don't know how many significant developments get approved without a single change introduced by staff/council but I expect it's somewhere close to zero and it's no surprise to anyone this one is getting more scrutiny.

I'm not sure what "risk," there really is. That Mirvish will throw up his hands and hire Kirkor? Or give up and build these same towers on land he doesn't own elsewhere? This is the process, even for really pretty buildings. There's a certain amount of naievete here about what's going on.

I personally have little patience for the OMB but some of the best results I've seen have come from negotiations undertaken once they're involved. You can fearmonger about losing OCAD or somehow affecting Gehry's aesthetic but I look at the working group (which I gather met for the first time on Tuesday) and see no reason to assume they won't come up with something that works for everyone.

I would be amenable to two, 120 story towers and let them keep their old warehouse, but I'm also sure the city wouldn't accept that either. Basically the city wants the project downsized for reasons no one knows but them and whoever their political masters are. Maybe some old friends of Harry Stinson are getting back at David - who knows.



new idea - Two towers, 110 and 115 storeys - the old warehouse becomes the college - the museum is in the base of east tower.

 

[Strange Advance]

^^I like your thinking. I, too, would find that most agreeable as an alternative.

 

[E.B.]

I would be amenable to two, 120 story towers and let them keep their old warehouse, but I'm also sure the city wouldn't accept that either.

new idea - Two towers, 110 and 115 storeys - the old warehouse becomes the college - the museum is in the base of east tower.

Better idea, 110 and 115 floors - the old warehouse converts back to a warehouse with loading docks, trucks backing in with the beep,beep,beep and traffic congestion. Now that would make it a real heritage site.

 

[waterloowarrior]

The Mirvish-Gehry Dec 2013 staff report was the most-read Council report of 2013 https://twitter.com/jen_keesmaat/status/423986695835353088

 

[adma]

This is how the pro-heritage people here should see this: in the year 2500, Torontonians will either look at this corner as a 500 year old warehouse or a 400 year old canadian icon's biggest project.

So, what's wrong with a 500 year old warehouse? Italian towns aren't any poorer for having them within their midst.