But TJ is just being pedantic and supporting the unfortunately myopic status quo, yet he glazes over compromises to the project like it's really just small potatoes.
My general feeling about UT is that it's full of smart, thoughtful people who care about the city and know their stuff. That said, I'm beginning to suspect there's more astroturfing going on in this thread than there would be in 3 Rogers Centres. (That said, though your name provides some irony in this regard, I'm not accusing you, specficially, of it.)
You know, I've done my best to avoid ad hominem attacks but some of this is just crap. I'm tired of seeing myself or others accused of suffering from being MYOPIC, TALL POPPY blah blah blah. Everyone who says that stuff could equally be accused of "my dick is too small" syndrome and "PLEASE PLEASE Let the City I Live in Be Called World Class By Everyone Else" syndrome. I'm not supporting any STATUS QUO I'm supporting the objective reality you have trouble confronting, which is that no matter how spectacular or crappy the architecture of any given project there is a planning process that exists in this province and, you know, pretty much elsewhere.
EVERY project ends up with compromises. If you don't like it you can go move to Montana or somewhere else that allows you to build pretty much whatever the heck you want on land that you own. That's now how it works here and David Mirvish knows it, even if you don't.
I have no trouble whatsoever conceding that the design of these towers is exceptional and far better than, let's say, anything Kirkor might produce. But Gehry isn't putting these in a MUSEUM, he is putting them in a CITY. And that means he has to go through the same annoying process as something designed by Kirkor. If he designed a really gorgeous airplane, it would still have to meet FAA guidelines before American Airlines could start using them and if he designed a computer that made the iPad look like a PET, that would still have to get cleared by the FCC and the CSA and those type of people. If Frank Gehry bought a baseball team and designed their uniforms and stadium, he'd still only be allowed to put 9 people on the field at a time. Which is to say, we live in a society with rules and even the richest, smartest, most creative people are not above them.
To say otherwise is to fundamentally misunderstand what planning is and, frankly what architecture is. You seem to think it's the exact same thing as sculpture, and it is not. That's not "myopic," it's just a fact. If you don't like it, you can offer to represent Gehry and see if the Guggenheim wants to take on a maquette of these condominiums.
What counts is the big picture as it applies to the city. You need to look at what effects a project has outside of the the process, to determine how one should proceed within the process.
If there's anything more subjective than the quality of a given piece of art (putting aside whether a building even meets the basic requirements), it's what the "big picture" of a city should be. Architecture is definitely part of that but the fact remains we elect governments (even, ew, ones with Rob Ford) to guide that process so it's not a bunch of self-interested entrepeneurs making that call.
I like how cavalier you are with other people's art. Your quickness to dismiss in this way is telling....it's clear that the off-the-charts social/civic benefits of this project are of little interest to you. I understand that beauty resides outside the realm of building codes and bylaws, but that does not mean we should not consider it in our decision making process.
This is just a total straw man. Your problem, pal, is you think that not only does your definition of "beauty" constitute an absolute truth, but also that it trumps regulations. You wouldn't care if the Gehry towers had 45-degree floors, or two parking spots, or if he eliminated an HVAC system because it interfered with his aesthetic. I'll say it again: It's not a sculpture, it's a building. Architecture is most certainly an art form and while some people (as is their right) hate Gehry's designs, I do not. Art, though you don't seem to get it, is subjective. That said, I don't hate the design. I still acknowledge it must fit into a larger fabric, not force the city to bend around it, not to obliterate elements of the historical fabric by the sheer force of its awesomeness.
A great building is to meet the building code and bylaws and still be beautiful. I never suggested, contrary to your suggestion, that the beauty is found within those regulations. A great building alters the city (e.g. the skyline) will fitting within its existing fabric.
Moreover, since we're being snippy, you display an amazing amount of naivete if you think the height and scale emerges from some sort of aesthetic perfection and not a profit motive. I hate to break it to you but they are precisely that tall so Mirvish could cut a few off (as he knew would happen) and still make a profit. He knows how much each unit of this piece of "art" will sell for. Not because the proportions and all that achieve some sort of Platonic ideal.
Again, that's the difference between architecture and other arts. Van Gogh didn't add more paint to a canvas because he knew it would generate a higher price at Christie's, but Mirvish does add more floors to make more money.
But please...let's turn the tables for a moment....how does knocking off a few floors make it better then? And why are we expending energy and resources to fight to have it done? Making things shorter seems to be the knee-jerk reaction at City Hall, like that proves they are doing their jobs or something. Why is shorter the universally better way to handle any building? Why is an altered version of any proposal better?
OH yes, let's NOW turn the tables! There is no FIGHT here any more than a council vote on taxes or a court trial is a FIGHT. These processes are all part of living in a democracy. What you are suggesting (if I might be a little hyperbolic and logically extreme) is fascism. When developers try to obtain a maximum height it is, again, so they can make more money, not out of some civic munificence. Making them shorter ends up being the natural reaction because if you let a capitalist take as much as he wants, he'll take it. That sounds all weird and "Occupy," perhaps, but it's a reality. Mr. Developer wants to build a tower as high as he can and sell units for much as the market will bear. that's his right and his job. The city's job is to make all those individual profit seekers work as part of what you might call "the bigger picture of the city." This all seems obvious to me but you've put on blinders because this particular project appeals to your own subjective aesthetics and sense of "what the city should be." That's fine, but don't scold others for not adhering to every element of it.
When someone tries to build the highest towers in the city's history, it is hardly surprising that making them shorter should be the kneejerk reaction. It's not my job to come up with the "perfect" height or density. It's also not my job to work for David Mirvish, designing an amazing piece of architecture that treats the footprint as a greenfield site, which is nearly what Gehry does. The idea that something of this scale should sail through the approvals process simply because some people think it's gorgeous is absurd.
An "altered" version is "better' because it's democratic. I'm not talking about a "building designed by committee," in the broad sense but what I am talking about is taking the amazing and ambitious thing this project seeks to do (along with putting money in Mirvish's pocket) and making sure it doesn't have negative impacts for the City of Toronto. It's not a crazy idea. Again, it's kind of the basis of having planning rules, a city council, even the OMB...It's because we live in a society where we don't defer to the whim of a singular powerful or wealthy person. A democracy, in other words.
