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

[bmiller]

pish posh, it's fun to disagree! Isn't that why we all come here?

I think i agree with your agreement to come here and disagree with other posts, whether you agree with them or not. I guess that is your right in a free democratic forum.
I am going to look for something to disagree with you somewhere on this website. It may be a while.

 

[Peepers]

So it looks like Adam Vaughan may not be as big fan of this project as many believe. This is an entry from his newsletter which I saw in a tweet from Jonathon Goldsbie


http://twitpic.com/b7djt3

 

[neubilder]

When will people get the concept that people can only build on land they own? The reason Mirvish proposed this here is simple, and that is the fact that he owns this land.

When will people get the concept that people can't build whatever they want because they own a piece of land?

 

[adma]

And re Adam Vaughan and all of that--to those offering the "gift horse in the mouth" argument: let's remember that rightly or wrongly, there's been a tendency (esp. in the Crombie and Miller eras) among a lot of soberly urban-minded Torontonians to disarmingly regard Toronto itself as its own best gift horse. Yeah, whether that's an entirely good thing is open to debate; y'know, the deflecting away of Olympic + World's Fair schemes, or the Stockholm-syndrome romance over overhead wires and wooden poles laden w/Reg Hartt and Dr Jamie fliers, etc. But it does explain why, to this standpoint, it isn't necessarily the end of the world if Gehry/Mirvish doesn't wind up "boldly going" as presently planned.

As bmiller etc says: it's too early. And as I've said before: we all should henceforth tread cautiously. Which doesn't mean killing or grievously maiming the project...but just being sensible in how we pursue it.

 

[neubilder]

Some people on here are getting pretty excited about a project that hasn't even been given the go ahead. Although the posts are interesting, as is the project, it might be time to take a deep breath, and give the personal attacks a rest for now. If this proposal is ever approved, we can all get back to it,but that may never happen.
This is only my personal take, and does not necessarily represent the mods on this forum.

Everybody have fun tonight, everybody Wang Chung tonight.

You mean Braincandy? Once and if this project is ever approved it will be too late (for those who have oppositions at least).

 

[neubilder]

Nobody but a select group of nerds comes to Toronto to gawk at tall towers. People do come to Toronto to experience vibrant streets and neighbourhoods. In this sense King west here isn't lacking anything that some upgraded tenants and better theatre programming wouldn't fix. Even at its worst, the Royal Alex, The POW, RTH, the Festival Tower, Restaurant Row etc make this a very dynamic and successfully urban area. Towers overhead will not hurt this, to be sure, but busting a block just may (quibble over your own effin' definitions, by the way, I get what Neubilder means!).

Mirvish the reluctant impresario with a daddy complexe wants to build statues and show off his art? Fine, but why not do it in a way that sympathetically adds to what already exists, a strategy that is working very well all over Toronto? Other than selfishly wanting a 'pure' Gehry is there any single credible reason why integration wouldn't be preferred to destruction?

And I doubt that Gehry, if given the option, would choose to decimate the entire block in this manner. A mega-project cannot be sympathetic: it's sheer scale requires ALL of the surface area in order to accommodate the parking requirements of 2600 condos. This isn't sensitive city building this is urban renewal (I'm using the term loosely Alvin - relax) made palatable because the condos aren't just condos - they're sculptures (barf!).

 

[freshcutgrass]

I agree. He doesn't care about the theatrical arts (beyond making lots of money) so he is pulling down a theatre.

You couldn't be agreeing with me, as I never said any such thing. Of course he cares about the theatre..quite a lot. My point was that as big as he is in theatre, art is his first love. He could have put Toronto on the world art scene in the 60's/70's, the way he put Toronto on the world theatre map, but Toronto simply wasn't up to it.

If all you want to do is make lots of money, you don't get into the theatre business.

I will repeat my earlier question as I still don't think there is an adequate response (yet?):
Other than selfishly wanting a 'pure' Gehry is there any single credible reason why integration wouldn't be preferred to destruction?

You keep interjecting terms like "selfishly" to instil a sense of negativity where there is none. What reason other than they looked at all the options and decided on this one do you need?

Eliminating the POW probably kills two birds with one stone, and probably plays a more pivotal role in this whole scheme than most people think.

 

[Hanlansboy]

pish posh, it's fun to disagree! Isn't that why we all come here?

Some more then others! Lol! Isn't that what this is all about? To offer your opinion, and hear others as well, perhaps, to open your mind to new ideas, sadly, not everyone can accept differing opinions, so why join a SOCIAL media? They need to start up a new sector on line, the all new, closed minded anti-social media! lol!

 

[Tewder]

He could have put Toronto on the world art scene in the 60's/70's, the way he put Toronto on the world theatre map, but Toronto simply wasn't up to it.

It was Drabinsky that put Toronto on the theatre map, not Mirvish. Still, we can debate Mirvish until the end of time but it is pointless because I don't really have anything against him.

You keep interjecting terms like "selfishly" to instil a sense of negativity where there is none. What reason other than they looked at all the options and decided on this one do you need?

Your first sentence kind of relates to your second, no? They chose the option that was completely self-interested (destruction) rather than an option that is sensitive to context (integration)... This is negative! It is negative in this specific context. You cannot raise a block of downtown Toronto, a successfully urban block with listed buildings and an excellent performing arts centre, and not expect some people to view this negatively... and do not dismiss the fact that it is an extremely bittersweet pill for many to swallow given that most here would drool over this if proposed for an empty or 'insignificant' block.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

And I doubt that Gehry, if given the option, would choose to decimate the entire block in this manner.

Unless you have access to the inner workings of Gehry's mind, I wouldn't be so quick to make definitive statements like that. Do recall however his comments about the state of architecture in Toronto.

A mega-project cannot be sympathetic: it's sheer scale requires ALL of the surface area in order to accommodate the parking requirements of 2600 condos.

First off, I have already point out to you that facade preservation can easily accommodate underground parking structures and second, why do we need "sympathy"? We didn't request such when we built RTH, Metro Hall, TIFF - and they are all proximate to the site.

This isn't sensitive city building this is urban renewal (I'm using the term loosely Alvin - relax) made palatable because the condos aren't just condos - they're sculptures (barf!).

Yeah, sometimes "sensitive" city building leads to mediocrity - and besides, I am sure preserving a few facades while putting a tower on top of it (or right next to it, a la Theatre Park) all is the epitome of sensitivity.

AoD

 

[freshcutgrass]

It was Drabinsky that put Toronto on the theatre map, not Mirvish.

Toronto's position as a theatre centre predates Livent (even Drabinsky admits this), and certainly has outlived it (what's the name on his prized theatre now?). But it was a nice 10 years of busloads of Americans (that made up more than half the audience). And it was Mirvish that employed all the Canadians.

And let's not forget that without Mirvish, this whole block (including the Royal Alex) would have been a parking lot 50 years ago.

most here would drool over this if proposed for an empty or 'insignificant' block.

{{{ proceeds to remove cork from fork }}}

 

[neubilder]

Unless you have access to the inner workings of Gehry's mind, I wouldn't be so quick to make definitive statements like that. Do recall however his comments about the state of architecture in Toronto.

I wouldn't make recommendations about what I can think or not think, but I know that the first thing you learn in any school of architecture is understanding and appreciation for history and context, and integration thereof. A first year student would be given failing grades for choosing to demolish this block rather than integrating with buildings as good as some of these.

First off, I have already point out to you that facade preservation can easily accommodate underground parking structures and second, why do we need "sympathy"? We didn't request such when we built RTH, Metro Hall, TIFF - and they are all proximate to the site.

You have already pointed this out to me? Gee, thanks Aod Thumbs up!
No, facadectomy is irrelevant because it is lip-service not preservation. We are talking about the Mirvish block here, not projects built in the 60's, 80's, or on open parking lots. We could talk about the Coliseum in Rome but that wouldn't be relevant now would it?

Yeah, sometimes "sensitive" city building leads to mediocrity - and besides, I am sure preserving a few facades while putting a tower on top of it (or right next to it, a la Theatre Park) all is the epitome of sensitivity.
AoD

I'm not sure that A.G didn't somehow hijack your avatar. Can I request that you simply don't address my comments and I won't address yours?

 

[Tewder]

Toronto's position as a theatre centre predates Livent (even Drabinsky admits this), and certainly has outlived it (what's the name on his prized theatre now?). But it was a nice 10 years of busloads of Americans (that made up more than half the audience). And it was Mirvish that employed all the Canadians.

The elder Mirvish offered a nice subscription series to theatre-starved hosers, one that consisted largely of imported touring companies. He is a hero for saving and restoring the Alex, to be sure, but essentially he was the only game in town... which seems to be how the Mirvish organization continues to like it!

Love him or hate him, Drabinsky produced and developed original works in Toronto that went on to tour the world and earn acclaim. This is what put Toronto on the map, along with his landmark production of Phantom (at his newly restored Pantages theatre) that transformed the city into a theatre destination for a number of years. Mirvish jumped on this bandwagon, for sure, creating some successful local sit-down productions of foreign imorts but most of his efforts to develop anything new have tanked... and he himself seems to confess he is incapable of filling his seats. Maybe he should have stuck to hanging paintings up all along?

... You're right though. Ed Mirvish saved the Royal Alex, resuscitating a derelict part of town that has only become more vibrant over time with the adding of Roy Thompson Hall, The Bell Lightbox and the Princess of Wales. I understand his ambition to push this even further, but why in such a destructive way? I understand his love for art but why not add this to an already successful mix, along with Gehry towers??

 

[freshcutgrass]

Maybe he should have stuck to hanging paintings up all along?

I know...what a loser eh.

 

[adma]

Though actually, in the event that this project gets nixed for whatever reasons that may or may not telescope from Councillor Vaughan's concerns etc etc...there is another conspicuous Mirvish-owned site out there that could be extremely well suited, if not more so, for David Mirvish's collection and other beneficial cultural add-ons. And a Gehry could have a field day there, but in a way that's arguably more "integrative" into the Toronto fabric.

You know what that site is? None other than...HONEST ED'S.

And it's altogether plausible--after all, some of us may remember in the aftermath of Ed Mirvish's passing, there were unfounded murmurs that the days could well be numbered for Honest Ed's. After all, low-grade retail honky-tonk isn't necessarily David Mirvish's thing, etc. Yet it's hard for me to believe that he'd shutter the store for anything humdrum and mundane and generic...

I'm a little shocked that nobody else so far has considered that default possibility yet. (Maybe because we're too shell-shocked by the present scheme.)