Toronto The One | 328.4m | 91s | Mizrahi Developments | Foster + Partners

[wolfewood]

Did I? I am not even necessarily against the idea of tearing down 774 Yonge, but what has been put forward to suggest that the development will be worth it? Nothing, considering the lack of available information. What evidence have you received that would suggest it is a definitive "architectural plus"? Feel free to share it with us? Barring that, it would appear that you have made a leap of faith based on nothing but commentary.

I am saying this as someone who is quite fond of Lord Foster's works over the years, and is happy at the prospect of having a F+P tower at that intersection - I am just not willing to suggest that we should suspend our judgement or rush to tear down a structure with established worth on the sole basis of words in a few trade articles that is high on exaltations and low on concrete details.

AoD

Exactly my sentiments, as well as arvelomcquaig's below. God forbid a developer with no credentials beyond a couple kitschy midrises should be allowed to demolish a huge chunk of historic Yonge (ugly, beautiful or mediocre) without providing some kind of legitimate plan. But apparently the same people who fetishize development have a thing for empty lots too?

 

[Big Daddy]

Precisely. The blind faith for new development is not dissimilar to the out-with-the-old-in-with-the-new mentality that caused so much architectural tragedy in Toronto's history. We need to apply a healthful amount of scepticism especially to projects that destroy beautiful old buildings.

Well, not every old building is a beautiful old building (ex; Stollerys) nor are they necessarily historical nor architecturally significant (again ex; Stollerys). There needs to be a sound criteria for saving buildings and creating hysteria over an old overly renovated architectural eyesore just for the sake of trying to make a point about preservation isn't helping the situation. If it's not clear and obvious that a building should be preserved, isn't that evidence that it shouldn't be?

 

[Automation Gallery]

Well, not every old building is a beautiful old building (ex; Stollerys) nor are they necessarily historical nor architecturally significant (again ex; Stollerys). There needs to be a sound criteria for saving buildings and creating hysteria over an old overly renovated architectural eyesore just for the sake of trying to make a point about preservation isn't helping the situation. If it's not clear and obvious that a building should be preserved, isn't that evidence that it shouldn't be?

+1

 

[freshcutgrass]

Well, I can now see why you Tweeted KWT regarding 774 Yonge. You have already made up your mind that this project is garbage. Maybe if you alert KWT soon enough, she might be able to stop the project in its tracks! Never mind that we have no actual evidence that it will be garbage, and instead what evidence we do have suggests that it will be an architectural plus.

Well, to put things into perspective, Toronto is the kind of place where two generations worth of stellar patronage (Mirvish) and an actual game-changing, world-beating design from the most celebrated architect of our generation is the target of demonizing rather than celebration.

So why would anyone be surprised by the reaction from the grass-roots preservationists on this one???

What this city needs is a proper preservationists process by people who know what they are doing, so we can save what's worth saving, and allow for city-building. The grass-roots bunch are actually detrimental to the city. Grass-roots movements is why we ended up with people like Rob Ford for mayor.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

KGB:

Nice, someone clearly rewrote the history of preservation in Toronto, as if it had been driven by anything but grassroots involvement.

Come to think of it though - UT had been a grassroots site, so really if you are going down that route of denigrating public involvement, just what are you doing on here?

re: 774 - here is your own posting:

Yes. I see that one as a tough call.

I am in favour of preserving Yonge's inventory of victorian buildings. There's enough of them to present a context, especially if we can manage to get most of them restored to their original condition. Stollery doesn't fit this program.

The Problem with the Hue's Kitchen building is that it's pretty much all by itself on the block. A block full (or nearly) of victorians looks good....one gap-toothed one on a block loses the effect. It's also got the entire original street level facade missing (as do most of them). Although it could be re-victorianized. Perhaps if it had stand-alone status, or especially handsome, like the Arts and Letters Club building or something.

But this one..as it is. eh

Clearly, it's not a clear cut case - and in cases like these, wouldn't one suppose caution should be practiced until one has a clear idea what the proposal is?

And in case anyone think that F+P is incapable of working heritage structures into the context - here is Commerzbank in Frankfurt,

Not to say that it is or even should be the solution in this case, given our context - but it's certainly not potential disaster some claim preservation would translate into, when handled by skilled hands.

AoD

 

[adma]

Come to think of it though - UT had been a grassroots site, so really if you are going down that route of denigrating public involvement, just what are you doing on here?

Self-interest?

I like the "had been" part--sometimes, it seems like the UT P&C forum's become the go-to place for real-estate/development-industry astroturfers. (At least the UT home page offers "editorial control", so you can skip the comments much as with newspaper articles)

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I like the "had been" part--sometimes, it seems like the UT P&C forum's become the go-to place for real-estate/development-industry astroturfers. (At least the UT home page offers "editorial control", so you can skip the comments much as with newspaper articles)

I would advise against reading into the tense chosen - and there is absolutely nothing wrong with having real-estate/development industry participation, considering their integral role in development - and their perspective also enlightens.

AoD

 

[freshcutgrass]

KGB:

Nice, someone clearly rewrote the history of preservation in Toronto, as if it had been driven by anything but grassroots involvement.

Come to think of it though - UT had been a grassroots site, so really if you are going down that route of denigrating public involvement, just what are you doing on here?

AoD

I'm not against grass-roots movements...they are good for things like stopping Spadina Expressways and saving Island homes. The problem is they know no bounds, so it has to be tempered.

People really need to stop seeing everything as black & white.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I'm not against grass-roots movements...they are good for things like stopping Spadina Expressways and saving Island homes. The problem is they know no bounds, so it has to be tempered.

People really need to stop seeing everything as black & white.

There is also a fairly arguable public interest case against the Island Homes (considering who benefits from them, vs. the alternative), so really, your "black and white" case is only that way to you and others that might share your interest in it. The tempering should happen, but not to any one persons' dictate.

AoD

 

[freshcutgrass]

Self-interest?

I like the "had been" part--sometimes, it seems like the UT P&C forum's become the go-to place for real-estate/development-industry astroturfers. (At least the UT home page offers "editorial control", so you can skip the comments much as with newspaper articles)

That's all very nice, except you're attempting to characterize me as something I am pretty much the opposite of. So your argument is really just a straw man.

It's shame how you waste all that verbosity.

 

[yyzer]

I think that perhaps the biggest problem that a lot of people are having is that we don't know what is proposed for the site, hence the apprehension over the demolitions... if it turns out to be something very special, perhaps all will be forgiven, if not, then Mizrahi will be properly demonized... I believe FrankieFlowerPot aka ChesterCopperPot has stated over at SSP that an application is expected by the end of the month... hopefully we will see by then..

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I think that perhaps the biggest problem that a lot of people are having is that we don't know what is proposed for the site, hence the apprehension over the demolitions... if it turns out to be something very special, perhaps all will be forgiven, if not, then Mizrahi will be properly demonized... I believe FrankieFlowerPot aka ChesterCopperPot has stated over at SSP that an application is expected by the end of the month... hopefully we will see by then..

Indeed - that's exactly the point. He could very well have proposed something special that would be worth demolishing 774 Yonge, but without any information, it's impossible to make that call. There is also the issue of timing as well - the project (whatever it is) hasn't received approval, much less any indication it is a certainty. To tear everything down at this very early stage is premature at best. For example what happens if he decided to flip the site after clearing it, or withdraw the project after approval?

Demonizing someone is worth squat, I much rather see a building saved until one proves their worth.

AoD

 

[freshcutgrass]

There is also a fairly arguable public interest case against the Island Homes (considering who benefits from them, vs. the alternative), so really, your "black and white" case is only that way to you and others that might share your interest in it. The tempering should happen, but not to any one persons' dictate.

AoD

It's obvious you don't stop to read posts very carefully.

As I have said on multiple occasions, this issue should be carefully administered and executed by a panel of "experts" appointed by the City. Not grass-roots protesters, not local councillors and not by popular opinion...or even by Council vote.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

It's obvious you don't stop to read posts very carefully.

As I have said on multiple occasions, this issue should be carefully administered and executed by a panel of "experts" appointed by the City. Not grass-roots protesters, not local councillors and not by popular opinion...or even by Council vote.

And who would be selecting this panel of "experts", exactly? Appointed by whom at the city, according to what criteria and elgibility? On what basis will those judgements be made, with what level of authority and responsibility? How will it fit within the context of heritage legislation at the provincial level? You made it sound so very easy when the city doesn't even have the resources to properly fund heritage services to determine much other than on a per-case basis.

AoD

 

[freshcutgrass]

He could very well have proposed something special that would be worth demolishing 774 Yonge, but without any information, it's impossible to make that call.

The people who are "making the calls" don't factor in "special" in their decision making process one way or the other. So that's really a non-starter.

It's a $billion project with an architects name attached to it. Safe to say it is a significant change to the current use.

There is also the issue of timing as well - the project (whatever it is) hasn't received approval, much less any indication it is a certainty. To tear everything down at this very early stage is premature at best.

Developers clear building sites ASAP for very practical and sound business reasons. If the City wants to avoid empty lots in the interim, then it can simply change it's policy regarding property taxes on vacant buildings awaiting redevelopment. Easy peasey.

For example what happens if he decided to flip the site after clearing it, or withdraw the project after approval?

He would be perfectly entitled to do that. I don't see how temporarily keeping a couple of doomed little buildings intact is the main issue here.