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

ProjectEnd said:
Well it is consistently the best written stuff on the forum...
Click to expand...

I don't know... to me his persistent use of whole metaphorical statements as adjectives totally disrupts his sentence flow, making his already verbose writing that much more laborious to get through. He's certainly insightful and his metaphors are generally quite apt, but if I have to pore over each word to divine his meaning, I usually won't bother.
 
Last edited:
Big Daddy said:
As per usual, you can't miss an opportunity to insult someone or try to demonstrate your narcissistic tendency.

I was referencing the height of FCP - which in the early 70's would have seemed even more monstrous that the Gehry proposal does to us today. FCP is now an icon in this city making a bold statement about the city being a powerhouse in banking. (At least in Canada). Imagine, the 6th tallest building in the world in 1975 - right here in T.O. What statement would it have made had it been cut back to forty floors?

Look at how many buildings taller than 300 m are either proposed or under construction. In New York, One57, the current tallest condo building in North America at 306 m, will soon be supplanted by 432 Park Avenue (426 m) dwarfing the Tallest Gehry building at 289 m. While we wring our hands about 80 story condos, the world is building tall buildings like never before.

Had FCP been only 40 floors I doubt it would have made any statement at all, at least not of a positive nature. If Gehry's project is chopped, it likewise will make no statement of any significance.
Click to expand...

Yes, you're referencing height. But I'm referencing something far more important to flesh out the bigger picture--aesthetics, and context, both physical and cultural. Which you seem to be totally oblivious to. Because you're so obsessed with Height. Height. Height. Height. Height. As the be-all and end-all. I mean, we're talking about pot, kettle, black re "narcissistic tendencies" here--you're so narcissistic about the height thing that you fail to grasp that, well, a kind of critical consensus still put Mies and Pei ahead of Stone.

To take one example re FCP, to quote Dendy & Kilbourn, "Toronto Observed", 1986

With its uninteresting design and ersatz monumentality, it removed whatever appeal was left to the notion of being 'Tallest Building in the British Commonwealth'.
Click to expand...

And believe me: that's just the tip of a certain iceberg.

Then again, maybe echoing this, you find that 70s-style "bigger picture", uh, "emasculating".
 
Last edited:
FCP is reminiscent of the former World Trade Centre. Somewhat banal, just sometimes scale in and of itself is noteworthy. But, no question, the other bank towers are superior. Someone on this site opened my eyes to BCE which I had thought was ugly...
 
I'm not obsessed with height, I just don't understand why it's an issue here when it doesn't seem to be anywhere else. When a grand, potentially iconic project is proposed, there is a good chance these days that height will be a part of the project, why is it such an issue? Not every project is pushing these boundaries. On one hand we want intensification, but we don't want really tall buildings - planning says 60 floors is enough. Ok but what was the magic formula that brought about that number? Gut feel?
 
"I don't understand one thing that how the heritage is heritage anymore when it is destroyed and a new replica is built?"

Theoretically, but in practice go to many of the town centres in Europe that have been re-built. I guarantee almost any non-informed observer will feel as if that "fake" town centre is better architecturally than any district of Toronto.

One way in which I do support this project is in the way that it stands to differentiate itself and contrast with the new emerging built environment. On a fine grain level I think that this neighbourhood actually gets worse, as much as it gets better, with every high-rise they build. However, if you zoom back the area is starting to become a monotonous wall of blue-grey. This project will contrast and be accentuated in a way that adds to the new district. I personally would not like to live in this district but I am the first to support and outline the importance of diversification of built environments within the city. So from a purely selfish perspective, I don't live or work in the area anyways but can see it from far away and Gehry's building will potentially improve my view.
 
Last edited:
Big Daddy said:
I'm not obsessed with height, I just don't understand why it's an issue here when it doesn't seem to be anywhere else. When a grand, potentially iconic project is proposed, there is a good chance these days that height will be a part of the project, why is it such an issue? Not every project is pushing these boundaries. On one hand we want intensification, but we don't want really tall buildings - planning says 60 floors is enough. Ok but what was the magic formula that brought about that number? Gut feel?
Click to expand...

But you still don't "get" how you misfired w/your FCP judgment call. Look at it this way: it may be the biggest penis in the room, but it ain't the meat, it's the motion. And when it comes to "motion": from an aesthetic and urbanistic POV, FCP was commonly deemed a "lousy lay".

(And re the link I provided: can't help thinking of how many skyscraper geeks might view 45-Foot David Crombie as the Marlo Thomas of 70s Toronto urbanism...)
 
So Urban Toronto is now x-rated? These metaphors are beyond exhausting! It's really a bit much. Not insightful in the slightest.
 
adma said:
it may be the biggest penis in the room, but it ain't the meat, it's the motion. And when it comes to "motion": from an aesthetic and urbanistic POV, FCP was commonly deemed a "lousy lay".
Click to expand...

Hahaha, out of the blue, didn't expect that:D
.. for gods sake, this is about discussing a development that deserves to get built
 
I always thought some posters were complex writers. Now, it looks more as if they are writers with a complex. It's time for a little circumcision, errrr, I mean circumspection about these phallic metaphors.
 
67Cup said:
I always thought some posters were complex writers. Now, it looks more as if they are writers with a complex. It's time for a little circumcision, errrr, I mean circumspection about these phallic metaphors.
Click to expand...

Though speaking of "complexes", when it comes to it-ain't-the-meat-it's-the-motion, I find that a lot of skyscraper-heads are pretty much clueless re said "motion". Y'know, as I've implied before, like young lads who haven't a clue how to treat real-life flesh-&-blood women even though (or perhaps because) they've been thoroughly conditioned by ultra-glossy Victoria's Secret and YouPorn cheesecake.

And again, the sort who'd totally feel that Crombie-era Toronto engaged in an act of "urban emasculation".
 
adma said:
Though speaking of "complexes", when it comes to it-ain't-the-meat-it's-the-motion, I find that a lot of skyscraper-heads are pretty much clueless re said "motion". Y'know, as I've implied before, like young lads who haven't a clue how to treat real-life flesh-&-blood women even though (or perhaps because) they've been thoroughly conditioned by ultra-glossy Victoria's Secret and YouPorn cheesecake.

And again, the sort who'd totally feel that Crombie-era Toronto engaged in an act of "urban emasculation".
Click to expand...

Certainly FCP is not in the same class as TD Centre, or even Commerce Court West, however I wonder if there had been an UrbanToronto in the early 1960s whether you would have derided those in favour of constructing TD Centre as being "skyscraper heads". There is a balance of interests at play here in which we can't just look at what we'd be losing but also what we'd be gaining. I don't think it's unfair to call what is likely to be the last major work of arguably the world's best and most impactful living architect the most optimistic tradeoff that anyone could have possibly imagined for this site. It's a situation that is incredibly reminiscent of our intersection with Mies van der Rohe 50 years ago. These warehouses are indeed valuable, and there's not much in the world I would trade for them, architecturally speaking, but what we're being offered here is one of those very few tradeoffs that I would make in a heartbeat. I take your stance to be one based on principal, as there seem to be few out there willing to stand in defence of heritage, but practically speaking, are these particular warehouses so valuable in your mind that they are worth turning down what could potentially be Toronto's next TD Centre?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top