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

Actually I find Buildup's passion to be refreshing. Apathy has always been this city's greatest threat, not vision or ambition.
 
Sure, passion's great. But dialogue is underrated, too. Passion coupled with impatience isn't necessarily the recipe for success.
 
I don't disagree Lenser but i don't think we've been lacking for dialogue on this project. At some point it will come down to brass tacks, so to speak... which will be the time for passion. It's always the way for anything that requires vision and a leap of faith.
 
As much as I would like to see the project as is, I want to see what's alternatives are being proposed before making more judgements. Saying that we won't want anything if it wasn't the original proposal sounds a bit too extreme to me.

adma is right - it will be interesting to see what the effect of Vaughan jumping ship would be.

AoD
 
Last edited:
AlvinofDiaspar said:
As much as I would like to see the project as is, I want to see what's alternatives are being proposed before making more judgements. Saying that we won't want anything if it wasn't the original proposal sounds a bit too extreme to me.

adma is right - it will be interesting to see what the effect of Vaughan jumping ship would be.

AoD
Click to expand...

I agree with the statement as the original conceptual drawings were meant to wet the lips for something amazing to come. Do we know where we are in the process of elaboration for this project ? Vaughan can be asked to state his position on the project, and it's status as this is his file. The chief planner should point out concerns that lie within her purview, but avoid making any aesthetic judgments of the proposal.
 
fg:

To my knowledge Jennifer K's main focus was height and density - which is very much her file. I don't agree with it, but I don't think for a moment her comments are inappropriate for her role.

AoD
 
I wonder what was going through M DelGrande, D Ford and R Ford's minds when they voted against (32-3-10 absent) the Request For Directions Report back in December....Were they in favour of giving a green light to M+G as designed? Or were they just voting no to be obstinent? (2013TE28.2 and background attchments)
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
fg:

To my knowledge Jennifer K's main focus was height and density - which is very much her file. I don't agree with it, but I don't think for a moment her comments are inappropriate for her role.

AoD
Click to expand...
I apologize for not having the quote, but thought at the time someone would call her on it. Possibly someone did. Can anyone remember the remark which sounded off the cuff.
 
Tewder said:
I don't disagree Lenser but i don't think we've been lacking for dialogue on this project. At some point it will come down to brass tacks, so to speak... which will be the time for passion. It's always the way for anything that requires vision and a leap of faith.
Click to expand...

Yes. On that we agree, Tewder.

As for Adam Vaughn, what happens with him should be of little consequence for a project this colossal; I don't see it hinging on him by any means. His departure from the local scene could change the optics of the thing but it's a moving target anyway and I agree with AoD that what we've yet to see in the way of proposals may still generate significant excitement.
 
Vaughan is the local counsellor and as such has a lot of power in terms of council support when it comes to a vote at the city.
 
Lenser said:
Yes. On that we agree, Tewder.

As for Adam Vaughn, what happens with him should be of little consequence for a project this colossal; I don't see it hinging on him by any means. His departure from the local scene could change the optics of the thing but it's a moving target anyway and I agree with AoD that what we've yet to see in the way of proposals may still generate significant excitement.
Click to expand...

You might want to peruse the motion I referenced above and note who brought it forward and the amended motion as approved.....A Vaughan...he has set the playfield for the rest to follow
 
Frank Godfrey said:
I apologize for not having the quote, but thought at the time someone would call her on it. Possibly someone did. Can anyone remember the remark which sounded off the cuff.
Click to expand...

I think, please confirm, she describe the design as "trite". From that point on she lost me, permanently.
 
Ah, thank you - now I have the context:

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/201...maat_challenges_mirvishgehry_scheme_hume.html

I think she is referring to heritage reference. Not exactly relevant, but it's a minor issue anyways. Oddly enough, I find her general premise - that there is no inherit right to the densities they are asking for, and that they have to hold up their end of the bargain quite valid. At least someone is aware of the potential bait and switch scenario.

AoD
 
Why is density an issue with residential buildings? Each floor only adds maybe 10 units and 20 or 30 residents at most. It's not like office space.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top