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

Last time I bumped this thread the Mods killed my bump. But I am making essentially a political statement. It's not an indictment of UrbanToronto, quite the opposite we are the forces of Light. But is unacceptable that there has been not one chirp of news on M&G in 3 weeks! Nothing. Cricketts. It feels like the city is trying to defeat this through inertia. Lets talk about THE COMMITTEE of interested persons - what came of it?
It would not be overstating the case to suggest that from a purely architectural perspective, this is the ONLY project since the CN Tower that would put Toronto on the global map.
As I think about it, Im not sure Rob Ford has even commented on it - does he know about this project?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/mirvish-king-west-plan-needs-changes-planner-says-1.2466030

I just came across this. I was unaware Keesmat has flatly stated that she would not support M&G unless its was reduced in size. So she's basically a NIMBY obsessed with height over all else. To bad she's a bureaucrat, otherwise I'd vote against her.
 
Last edited:
M & G size

buildup said:
Last time I bumped this thread the Mods killed my bump. But I am making essentially a political statement. It's not an indictment of UrbanToronto, quite the opposite we are the forces of Light. But is unacceptable that there has been not one chirp of news on M&G in 3 weeks! Nothing. Cricketts. It feels like the city is trying to defeat this through inertia. Lets talk about THE COMMITTEE of interested persons - what came of it?
It would not be overstating the case to suggest that from a purely architectural perspective, this is the ONLY project since the CN Tower that would put Toronto on the global map.
As I think about it, Im not sure Rob Ford has even commented on it - does he know about this project?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/mirvish-king-west-plan-needs-changes-planner-says-1.2466030

I just came across this. I was unaware Keesmat has flatly stated that she would not support M&G unless its was reduced in size. So she's basically a NIMBY obsessed with height over all else. To bad she's a bureaucrat, otherwise I'd vote against her.
Click to expand...

I, personally,would not support M&G if it reduced in size...
 
What the heck does this mean?

"I believe we can have three fabulous Gehry buildings … if the massing and scale of the buildings have become more in line with the public objectives." (Keesmaat)

So now she's able to redesign buildings in her own mind?

What are "the public objectives"? or does she mean her own objectives?

So... 60 stories is ok? By what yardstick?

This battle has become strange and is beginning to resemble a personal vandetta by one planner with a stick in a bad place.
 
I think your obsession with height is clouding your judgement as this doesn't come across as NIMBYism as in a personal adversion to height. Her comment references the planning that has been conducted for the area in which these towers greatly exceed the set maximums.

I don't see why a project of a more appropriate scale loses its architectural value. I also strongly disagree with this project being the first time since CN Tower to put Toronto on the world map. It's actually quite ignorant considering the future superstars and those at the height of their fame to build here compared to Gehry who has lost a lot of cache since he stunned the world.
 
Its entirely possible this project will proceed, but only after a procession of bureaucrats and small-minded neighbours (local stakeholders with valuable opinions) have served four courses of humble pie to our celebrated and wealthy interlopers. A series of concessions will be extracted and many locals will be able to point to their thumbprints and thereby stand shoulder to shoulder with the Greats.

So - shorter buildings with old warehouses at base. Most people won't even be able to see the towers since we'll have old warehouses crowding the street. Never mind we have miles of finer historic stock east & west, and south.

Never mind this would be a remarkable opportunity to see what two motivated, brilliant people could do at street level given the opportunity. The warehouses are sacred. Cleese-mat will be crucified if this dies. All the other obstructors will slink away and she will hold the bag entirely on her own. She won't be able to hide behind the zoning rules because that will not explain why she failed to PERSONALLY champion this project instead of spewing tired clichés which have been methodically demolished here and elsewhere.

If she believes most Torontonians are against this she is sorely mistaken IMO.
 
I have my doubts even if the OMB goes against everything they have ever done and rubber stamps this projects as presented. Sales have taking a massive nose dive in the entertainment district. Compounded with cost overruns associated with Gehry designs, I don't see any major developer touching this with a supertall pole and Mirvish needs an experienced development partner or two, three to pull it off. At least there are warehouses in place instead of a flattened dirt patch with a 6 storey deep round swimming pool in the middle found in another Great Lake City where pipedreams stay pipedreams.
 
Last edited:
maestro said:
I think your obsession with height is clouding your judgement as this doesn't come across as NIMBYism as in a personal adversion to height. Her comment references the planning that has been conducted for the area in which these towers greatly exceed the set maximums.

I don't see why a project of a more appropriate scale loses its architectural value. I also strongly disagree with this project being the first time since CN Tower to put Toronto on the world map. It's actually quite ignorant considering the future superstars and those at the height of their fame to build here compared to Gehry who has lost a lot of cache since he stunned the world.
Click to expand...

Its absurd to say Big Daddy is obsessed with height. 99% of Toronto is under 50 feet. The proposal in front of us is 3 X 85, so its the objectors who are obsessed with height, or anti-obsessed. Don't invert the argument.

You are being disingenuous saying scale plays no role in architectural value. Its not everything, but sometimes its something. I'm not drawing parallels but in ancient architecture, scale was often pursued with obsessive zeal - Chartres, the Pyramids, Empire State. People love small and quaint, they also love monumental, they love context, they love breaking context. Torontonians want something DIFFERENT here - something that breaks the mold, something dare I say refreshing? The conversation is so timid.

I love talking walks btw - aside from the CN Tower what architecturally has put Toronto on the world map (since you strongly disagreed my assertion)?

I'm not sure how you measure the amount of 'cache that Gehry has lost sine he stunned the world'. Is it 17% less cache? Is it still 50 times the cache of most other people building here right now?
 
maestro said:
I have my doubts even if the OMB goes against everything they have ever done and rubber stamps this projects as presented. Sales have taking a massive nose dive in the entertainment district. Compounded with cost overruns associated with Gehry designs, I don't see any major developer touching this with a supertall pole and Mirvish needs an experienced development partner or two, three to pull it off. At least there are warehouses in place instead of a flattened dirt patch with a 6 storey deep round swimming pool in the middle found in another Great Lake City where pipedreams stay pipedreams.
Click to expand...

You are a real downer. Ambitious much?
 
buildup said:
Its entirely possible this project will proceed, but only after a procession of bureaucrats and small-minded neighbours (local stakeholders with valuable opinions) have served four courses of humble pie to our celebrated and wealthy interlopers. A series of concessions will be extracted and many locals will be able to point to their thumbprints and thereby stand shoulder to shoulder with the Greats.

So - shorter buildings with old warehouses at base. Most people won't even be able to see the towers since we'll have old warehouses crowding the street. Never mind we have miles of finer historic stock east & west, and south.

Never mind this would be a remarkable opportunity to see what two motivated, brilliant people could do at street level given the opportunity. The warehouses are sacred. Cleese-mat will be crucified if this dies. All the other obstructors will slink away and she will hold the bag entirely on her own. She won't be able to hide behind the zoning rules because that will not explain why she failed to PERSONALLY champion this project instead of spewing tired clichés which have been methodically demolished here and elsewhere.

If she believes most Torontonians are against this she is sorely mistaken IMO.
Click to expand...

First off, your screwing up Keesmaat's name does you zero favours. It's like if I called you BleedOp. I mean, really - is that the best you've got?

Secondly, your dire, florid predictions come off terribly anxious, cynical and gloomy. Not to mention your over-exaggeration of "miles" of great old stock buildings already on hand.

You're trying too hard. I get that you're anxious that the project get off the ground, without fatal compromises. But you're creating a lot of your own smoke and mirrors.

The situation remains quite fluid - your grandiose predictions notwithstanding.
 
^ I am not obsessed with height, I am obsessed with great architecture . With few exceptions we have been overwhelmed with ponderously poor architecture during our recent condo boom, and the one time a developer goes out of his way to bring in a world renowned architect to design inspiring, iconic buildings the city suddenly develops a conscience?. This project is too massive yet somehow developing Southcore with some 16 buildings wasn't? So tapering is more important than good design? I don't believe that the height limits established here were arrived at by some scientificically proven methodology so pure it cannot be adjusted or amended for a world class project.

We all know the reason for the city's position - they are afraid of setting precedence - and that the whole ball game. There is no room for exceptional once in a lifetime projects in Toronto because the city doesn't know what to do - so all must comply with arbitrarily "tapering" based height limits that can't be realistically justified. This is good planning?
 
Lenser said:
First off, your screwing up Keesmaat's name does you zero favours. It's like if I called you BleedOp. I mean, really - is that the best you've got?

Secondly, your dire, florid predictions come off terribly anxious, cynical and gloomy. Not to mention your over-exaggeration of "miles" of great old stock buildings already on hand.
Click to expand...

You're right my John Cleese reference was nonsensical. I can do much better! Its just very frustrating watching someone in a position of power managing their career and refusing to be bold.

With regards your second point, I hope you are right but my comments express my precise view of how things are proceeding, or failing to proceed. We shall see.

As an aside I had a wonderful walk today along Front to Distillery and back along King. Miles of great old stock buildings all superior to the warehouses.
 
Miles, indeed. Again with the exaggeration. When it comes to demolishing its own past, Toronto has proven itself to be ruthlessly efficient. What remains are a relative handful of gems and set pieces. We could have far more lovely old stock remaining than we do. The city is hardly a faithful steward in that regard, and a certain amount of vigiliance is called for.

Not to defend the warehouses in question, those on the Mirvish+Gehry site; in this case I think the sacrifice is worth it.
 
Lost in all of this: will Adam Vaughan's impending jump to federal politics make a difference here...
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top