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

It's worth noting that these are still conceptual renderings, and not how the actual buildings will look - should they be built.
 
Those conceptual comparisons really sum it up for me. It think that something like this will eventually be built on the site anyways so it might as well be something inspiring to some people. So as an outsider to the neighbourhood I guess I must grudgingly accept this proposal as an expressive addition to the city as a whole. But I can tell you if I lived in the neighbourhood itself I would be a front and centre NIMBY. As small and insignificant as the buildings existing on the site are by comparison, at least they are somewhat human. Gehry's proposal to me is soul-crushingly inhuman but given the alternative soul-crushingly inhuman and also uninspiring alternative, I say go for it.

New interesting human scale areas will grow and densify in the city and that is where I will focus my interests.
 
The more I look at this proposal the less I like the third East tower. Full disclosure I'm recently in the aginst camp but still open to persuasion.

While i find its design striking, I dont think its needed, the first two towers work well by themselves. The east tower is imo a grey, slimmer rendition of the central tower which isnt needed from a purely aesthetic perspective.

The fact that the grey tower will likely house the largest per tower percentage of condo units to finance the amenities of the other two makes it elimination implausible. Yet I would challenge Gehry to work with only the two western towers and allow Mirvish and Projectcore to integrate the heritage component on the east tower in some new architectural form. Hopefully one that maintains the iconicness, but not necessarily the architectural style of the western two.

If Gehry is as great as his claims to fame would make us think, such a task shouldnt be to hard.
 
Hamiltonian said:
I feel like Frank Gehry should've been contributing to Toronto so much. This is only his 2nd project in Toronto...If I became a starchitect, I would make Hamilton the most amazing city ever.
Click to expand...


Architects don't design buildings in whatever cities they feel like - they design buildings for clients who have hired them to do so. And considering all the apparent opposition to this and other, generally daring designs by foreign "starchitects", it's no surprise that more Toronto developers haven't commissioned work by him. Why pay extra for a Gehry design that's only going to be rejected by the city when you can get an aA design for a fraction of the price and hassle?
 
Odd question, but is it possible to have the existing buildings moved?

I can think of some areas in and around the waterfront redevelopment area that could use the character.

Mirvish including the cost of moving these buildings to another location (another developer would have to integrate them of course) could make people a lot more amenable to the loss of them in this area.
 
mrxbombastic said:
The more I look at this proposal the less I like the third East tower. Full disclosure I'm recently in the aginst camp but still open to persuasion.

While i find its design striking, I dont think its needed, the first two towers work well by themselves. The east tower is imo a grey, slimmer rendition of the central tower which isnt needed from a purely aesthetic perspective.

The fact that the grey tower will likely house the largest per tower percentage of condo units to finance the amenities of the other two makes it elimination implausible. Yet I would challenge Gehry to work with only the two western towers and allow Mirvish and Projectcore to integrate the heritage component on the east tower in some new architectural form. Hopefully one that maintains the iconicness, but not necessarily the architectural style of the western two.

If Gehry is as great as his claims to fame would make us think, such a task shouldnt be to hard.
Click to expand...

Maybe the "solution" would be to only allow the third tower (the one that's east of Duncan) to be built. It is sort of the best of both worlds: the Princess Wales theatre and the most interesting warehouses are saved, and we get a unique Gehry tower. Of course, that solution ignores the economics in favour of selling/developing all the land rather than a mere fraction of it while keeping the same amount of resistance and planning intervention.
 
syn said:
Odd question, but is it possible to have the existing buildings moved?

I can think of some areas in and around the waterfront redevelopment area that could use the character.

Mirvish including the cost of moving these buildings to another location (another developer would have to integrate them of course) could make people a lot more amenable to the loss of them in this area.
Click to expand...

Even if it could be moved, the logistics would be hellish. Moving buildings is okay when they're in small town. Not when they're in the middle of a downtown core.
 
TheTigerMaster said:
Even if it could be moved, the logistics would be hellish. Moving buildings is okay when they're in small town. Not when they're in the middle of a downtown core.
Click to expand...

That's where selective demolition comes into play. Demolish the buildings, saving the most important elements (cornices, entry archways, bricks, terra cotta tiles), and store them in a warehouse until they can be appropriately be resurrected at a later time. Edmonton did this a while ago.

Anyways, in my opinion, we hardly need three Gehry towers. The eastern tower should go, and the most aesthetically pleasing facades be transplanted over to that spot. And why isn't anyone raising a Queen-Richmond solution?
 
A couple of questions for those who are against M/G.

1) Mies TD Centre is a revered on UT. If you could have the original heritage buildings that were there or the Mies TD Centre, which would you choose?

2) Don't you want to have the work of two of the great architects of Modernism and Postmodernism in Toronto? It has to be on its current site.
 
Last edited:
Tewder said:
I've been weighing the pros and cons of this project for some time now and finally I am coming on side. The lure of something potentially monumental/iconic here is just too difficult to ignore... well, in fact I think Hume sums it up pretty well. The debate has been a good one though, and an important one (in terms of what we are losing), and we can take some solace in the fact that we would not be rending good urban fabric for just any old development. No, a bar has been established where the pre-existing realm is concerned, and this is somewhat of a victory in and of itself.

As for the POW specifically though, as I sat there recently, amazed by Ramin Karimloo's masterclass in Les Miz, it dawned on me that its loss will be the real sacrifice here. An art gallery can seldom provide the same sort of live, collective experience that a moment in the theatre can... and there is something so very urban in this experience.
Click to expand...

You are correct! I would rather see Convention Centre / Casino development across the street , that demolition of POW...
 
E.B. said:
1) Mies TD Centre is a revered on UT. If you could have the original heritage buildings that were there or the Mies TD Centre, which would you choose?
Click to expand...

It happened when it could have happened; that's all that needs to be said.

2) Don't you want to have the work of two of the great architects of Modernism and Postmodernism in Toronto? It has to be on its current site.
Click to expand...

1) Why does it *have* to be on its current site, and
2) to those of us who find preemptive value in pre-existing urban environments, that comes off as a bit of a juvenile "Don't you want to go out with a Victoria's Secret model" kind of question.
 
adma said:
It happened when it could have happened; that's all that needs to be said.

Why does it *have* to be on its current site.
Click to expand...


adma, I know you're just a kid so I won't be too hard on you. The question is straightforward. And I hope other UT members would chime-in on this one.

1) With hindsight, would you to keep Mies TD Centre over the original heritage buildings?

You ask "Why does it *have* to be on its current site."

The answer is really quite simple. That's what M/G are offering. A fantasy location is not on the agenda.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top