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

[freshcutgrass]

I'm just saying that if a project is considered bad planning an art gallery isn't going to change that.

That would depend on whether the flaw lies in the project...or the planning it apparently fails to conform to.

Also, an art gallery could change that if what was "bad" about the project was it's lack of cultural benefit.

The increased residential population of downtown is going to keep on increasing...and increasing in huge numbers. It doesn't matter if the block-by-block density numbers vary. Worrying that hypothetically every square foot of downtown is going to have the same density as this is silly. That's why this "precedent setting" thing is such a false dilemma.

 

[argus]

it shouldn't really be posted adma, as we are trying to debate the issues here, not the debaters themselves.

42

Keesmaat's getting quite the personal slagging as well.


Anyway, the funny part is that I mentioned 60 floors earlier because there is already a precedent that could be used at the OMB by the Mirvish lawyer: The Ritz. Sure, it lies outside the secondary planning area, something that tower foamers couldn't really care less about, but it's likely that the typical OMB adjudicator wouldn't understand that either. So, while 900+ feet still might not fly at the OMB, 700+ feet would. It's hard to believe that neither Gehry nor Mirvish could adapt to that height for three towers, but according to the ardent supporters for this proposal, that's the case.

Let's just hope that Gehry can do tall really, really well. In the absence of a final, fixed inviolable design, we could end up with three tall discount Gehry's - and they'd be noticeable from far and wide. These are going to be condo buildings after all, and like so many other recently-built residential towers, there is always room for *compromising* on the materials.

 

[E.B.]

This woman waffles on what she's concerned with. According to what she's said here, she'd support it as long as there isn't a bait & switch. And I can't think of two less likely people than Gehry and Mirvish to do that.

She's also made out like the proposed density is unprecedented, which is really false...there's plenty of similar density...including Theatre Park right next door. The Mirvish property is actually quite large. Theatre Park is a tiny sliver of property.

I think she made a mistake but has gone too far to back down, which is why she keeps changing the story.

Thank god there is an OMB where egos don't count so much.

+1

I noticed a #amateurKeesmaat has started.

 

[greenleaf]

+1

I noticed a #amatureKeesmaat has started.

uhh....a mature Keesmaat? or was that amateur Keesmaat? Long live the malapropapalooza!

Anyway, this project will change. Some things will be added, some will be taken away (expect a different approach than what most Toronto developers would do. This project has a rookie developer and a very seasoned architect. They will do and have already done things differently). The city will have some of its demands met, as will the developer. It will be a compromise, but either way we will still be getting an authentic Gehry project. I don't think we will see a bait and switch here. Lots of time, effort, and money has gone into the project already, and I expect Mirvish has the deep pockets to keep it going. This is his legacy at work.

 

[buildup]

If you’re wondering why it’s starting to get personal after 2-3 years, this will explain how some of us see the situation:

Side A – The Builders
• Self-made, respected, renowned, entrepreneurs with deep local roots and demonstrated records of success in the cultural realm
• A privately funded architectural masterpiece in the core, with multiple benefits to the city including reduced transit congestion and rare private art contribution

Side B – The Bureaucrat
• Appointed public official using selective regulatory and person attack strategies (“trite & bait-and-switch” comments) to either frustrate or arbitrarily modify the project.
• Highly engaged on Bike lanes and Twitter.

In most cities it would be a blow out one way or another. In Toronto it’s a horserace.

 

[jje1000]

If you’re wondering why it’s starting to get personal after 2-3 years, this will explain how some of us see the situation:

Side A – The Builders
• Self-made, respected, renowned, entrepreneurs with deep local roots and demonstrated records of success in the cultural realm
• A privately funded architectural masterpiece in the core, with multiple benefits to the city including reduced transit congestion and rare private art contribution

Side B – The Bureaucrat
• Appointed public official using selective regulatory and person attack strategies (“trite & bait-and-switch” comments) to either frustrate or arbitrarily modify the project.
• Highly engaged on Bike lanes and Twitter.

In most cities it would be a blow out one way or another. In Toronto it’s a horserace.

This is absolutely ridiculous and undermines the legitimacy of the arguments being made in favour of Mirvish-Gehry.

What is this, some kind of smear campaign?

 

[buildup]

This is absolutely ridiculous and undermines the legitimacy of the arguments being made in favour of Mirvish-Gehry.

What is this, some kind of smear campaign?

Please explain.

 

[freshcutgrass]

What is this, some kind of smear campaign?

Yes...it appears that is what Keesmaat is up to.

 

[argus]

If you’re wondering why it’s starting to get personal after 2-3 years, this will explain how some of us see the situation:

Side A – The Builders
• Self-made, respected, renowned, entrepreneurs with deep local roots and demonstrated records of success in the cultural realm
• A privately funded architectural masterpiece in the core, with multiple benefits to the city including reduced transit congestion and rare private art contribution

Side B – The Bureaucrat
• Appointed public official using selective regulatory and person attack strategies (“trite & bait-and-switch” comments) to either frustrate or arbitrarily modify the project.
• Highly engaged on Bike lanes and Twitter.

In most cities it would be a blow out one way or another. In Toronto it’s a horserace.

If it's personal, you are making it personal. A building proposal is not an architectural masterpiece. It's a building proposal. Like all other residential buildings, there is plenty of leeway for change - for good or for bad - that would be far outside the control of the city. This includes materials. So yeah, you could end up with a masterpiece, or you could end with something far less than a masterpiece.

As for the builder, he stands to become quite wealthy off this project. Yes, he proposes to "give something back," but let's be clear, he's not going to go broke doing it.

Finally, you may intensely dislike city planning personnel doing their jobs, but that is what Keesmaat is doing - raising issues, engaging the developer, seeking solutions, looking out for the interests of the city outside those exclusive to the developers interests. For you, all of that stands in the way of the building proposal you already promote as a masterpiece.

If you think Toronto is unusual in this regard, then it's clear you've never lived in another city.

 

[buildup]

If it's personal, you are making it personal. A building proposal is not an architectural masterpiece. It's a building proposal. Like all other residential buildings, there is plenty of leeway for change - for good or for bad - that would be far outside the control of the city. This includes materials. So yeah, you could end up with a masterpiece, or you could end with something far less than a masterpiece.

As for the builder, he stands to become quite wealthy off this project. Yes, he proposes to "give something back," but let's be clear, he's not going to go broke doing it.

Finally, you may intensely dislike city planning personnel doing their jobs, but that is what Keesmaat is doing - raising issues, engaging the developer, seeking solutions, looking out for the interests of the city outside those exclusive to the developers interests. For you, all of that stands in the way of the building proposal you already promote as a masterpiece.

If you think Toronto is unusual in this regard, then it's clear you've never lived in another city.

1) Keesmat made it personal - see "Trite & Bait & Switch"
2) That the final product may not live up to our fondest expecations? Is that an objection? You want guarantees if Life?
3) No one said M&G are supposed to go broke. I hope they do very well.
4) With regards Keesmat seeking solutions, her comments are not constructive.

Keep throwing your propoganda out there, maybe some of it will stick.

 

[freshcutgrass]

As for the builder, he stands to become quite wealthy off this project. Yes, he proposes to "give something back," but let's be clear, he's not going to go broke doing it.

One assumes all private businesses intend to make a profit. But if your motive is just pure profit, then you don't hire Gehry, and you certainly don't spend millions of your own money to build a Gehry-designed art gallery to then give free public access to. That's going to seriously eat into any profits.

Again...we don't bring this up about say...Pinnacle Centre. 1880 units of bland architecture and zero cultural benefits. That's pure burn'em and churn'em condo lowest common denominator capitalism. But yea...let's only bring this up when it pertains to M&G.

 

[SLOCRO]

I applaud freshcutgrass' and buildup's absolute confidence and guarantee that M&G would be built as presently proposed (if approved). I thought if we've learned anything on this forum it's that builders are guilty of "bait and switch" until proven innocent.

What is this? A modern guillotine for pedestrians and sheets of ice on John Street in the winter? This is purely a concept - I interpret/accept the images we have now as nothing more than an impressive "sketch on a napkin". The debate should strictly be: do we want 3 - 80 story condo buildings on this particular site? Everything else is just icing on the cake that I would like to see too - but it's just that - icing and a concept. I can't see how the design argument can outweigh anything. We know nothing about materials or how it would be executed. Anyone remember the initial rendering for the ROM crystal? How did that turn out? Was that a prominent architect? But wait - Mirvish has millions and millions of dollars... so does Tridel?!

 

[freshcutgrass]

The debate should strictly be: do we want 3 - 80 story condo buildings on this particular site?

Aside from the fact that neglecting all the other elements of the proposal is counter productive to city building (which is the real big picture here)...the simple answer is that Mirvish wants three 80 story condo buildings here (among other things).

The ROM analogy was not well thought out. ROM hired Libeskind because they wanted a Libeskind...and that's exactly what they got. Mirvish hired Gehry because he wanted a Gehry. It doesn't matter that it's still a work in progress. The final product will be a Gehry...not a Tridel POS. If you have evidence to suggest otherwise, please enlighten us. And while your at it, please offer some kind of evidence to suggest Mirvish is just bluffing with his gallery idea.

 

[buildup]

I applaud freshcutgrass' and buildup's absolute confidence and guarantee that M&G would be built as presently proposed (if approved). I thought if we've learned anything on this forum it's that builders are guilty of "bait and switch" until proven innocent.

What is this? A modern guillotine for pedestrians and sheets of ice on John Street in the winter? This is purely a concept - I interpret/accept the images we have now as nothing more than an impressive "sketch on a napkin". The debate should strictly be: do we want 3 - 80 story condo buildings on this particular site? Everything else is just icing on the cake that I would like to see too - but it's just that - icing and a concept. I can't see how the design argument can outweigh anything. We know nothing about materials or how it would be executed.

Your world view exemplifies everything that sickens me.

a) Your need for 'guarantees' (in life), your view that developers are guilty until "proven innocent". I can tell from your comments that you have never operated in any position of accountability. You lie in the weeds expecting the worst, and occasionally getting it. The worst sort of impotent cynic there is. And how is someone to be "proven innocent" beforehand?

b) You picked-up the term "sketch on a napkin" from the Liebskind story. Good for you. Does this look like a napkin? Look at 8 Spruce Street. "The debate should be simply DO WE WANT 3 X 80 everything else is just icing on the cake". Really? Design is just icing on the cake??? I disagree vehemently with your statement that "design can't outweigh anything". You are a profoundly defeatist person. No-one in the world would be able to plan and execute anything under your negative, defeatist, passive standards.

(freshcutgrass, you are much more mature (sober) and thoughtful, I applaud your patience and measured response)

 

[buildup]

To the Moderator (Interchange). I would like to report SLORCO on the basis he is essentially a troll. He has made baseless comments, and he will not attempt to defend his comments when challenged. I think he should be banned.