verticalvillage
Active Member
That's very interesting. I always thought of UT as more of a mixed demographic.
I'm in Gr.12 by the way...
- Thread starter golodhendil
- Start date
That's very interesting. I always thought of UT as more of a mixed demographic.
I'm in Gr.12 by the way...
waterloowarrior
Senior Member
recent OMB decision with a relevant quote: https://www.omb.gov.on.ca/e-decisions/pl130585-jan-15-2014-1.pdf
[77] The longstanding objective of the planning process, in Ontario, has been to make
the terms for development less subjective and more predictable – for the benefit of
municipalities, developers, and the public alike. At the core of that approach lies the
conviction that the evolution of Ontario's built environment should not depend on
subjectivity, personal taste, or whim, but rather (in the language of the PPS) on a
framework that is "policy-led." If a project fits poorly within a municipality's approved
policy framework, it is an inadequate response simply to invoke some officials' aesthetic
opinion about "excellence of design", no matter how well-intentioned.
[77] The longstanding objective of the planning process, in Ontario, has been to make
the terms for development less subjective and more predictable – for the benefit of
municipalities, developers, and the public alike. At the core of that approach lies the
conviction that the evolution of Ontario's built environment should not depend on
subjectivity, personal taste, or whim, but rather (in the language of the PPS) on a
framework that is "policy-led." If a project fits poorly within a municipality's approved
policy framework, it is an inadequate response simply to invoke some officials' aesthetic
opinion about "excellence of design", no matter how well-intentioned.
adma
Superstar
However, you can also see where my road-trip vs "bored are-we-there-yet kid in the back seat" metaphor comes about. That is, reading my posts may very well be like that proverbial several-hour self-indulgent drudge to Niagara via back roads and sprawl vs. the quick one-hour QEW jaunt.
But, back to the matter of "urban beholding" and my argument that we needn't be martyr to ooh! aah! starchitecture! t/w that end: to return to the matter of NYC, I recently found myself oddly touched by this piece. Perhaps the tone's more "ingenuous" than one normally expects from architectural (or architectural-historical) writing; but it's heartfelt, and surprisingly non-hostile t/w a type of architecture that all too often invites casual hostility--even whatever "pitfalls" here are treated in an affectionately humanized "god bless this mess" way. Now, this is by no means a major architectural pilgrimage spot in NYC--even the fabled AIA Guide brushed it off as a "concrete beehive" in earlier editions; the current edition makes no mention of it whatsoever. Yet, upon reading this (and, for that matter, *remembering* said building from earlier visits, given that it was close to my place of accomodation--and I have to say: especially in the evening, it's a hypnotic thing to behold, and yet oddly earthy and "lived-in" all the same), I have to say: the truly richest, most flexibly cosmopolitan way to take in NYC's urbanity is the ability to appreciate, or the allowance for appreciating, preexisting stuff like this. Or, urbanity *everywhere*. Including Toronto. Including these darned EclipseWhitewearean white elephants in Mirvish/Gehry's way.
Buildup gets his Stendhal sensation from Mirvish/Gehry; I can get mine from the "lesser" stuff of RNA House, knowing darned well that RNA is part of a denser, more diverse urban DNA.
And maybe that can answer E.B.'s asinine "what grade are you in" comment.
junctionist
Senior Member
That quote is excellent for the city. I trust the city's legal department will read the decision carefully.
freshcutgrass
Senior Member
And there you have it folks...the recipe for the predictable sh*tty design in Ontario.
Of course we have to defer to those with good taste to make the subjective calls....and do what the fack they say.
First of all, the problem is that nobody is overwhelmed by anything. Secondly, your feeble attempt at poisoning the well won't work...one does not preclude the other in terms of which "stuff" one likes.
I think you just have a knee-jerk reaction to anything along the lines of M&G. And a lot of times, I would be in your camp. In this particular case...no way.
argus
Active Member
Right on!
Tewder
Senior Member
I sort of agree with you. It begets a city planned by bureaucrats. We all need rules to follow, but we all need to know when to break them. If M+G isn't worthy of some bending, i'm not sure what would be?
ChesterCopperpot
Senior Member
From Adam Vaughan's website
TJ O'Pootertoot
Senior Member
I'd agree it's worth bending (but not breaking).
I think the point of the OMB decision (which to many of us seems self-evident) is that a building first has to fit within the policy framework and doesn't get a free pass for being extra nice. Maybe it can get some "bonus points" after
As suggested above, urban (or any) design is subjective but there has been more power given to municipalities to have design review panels and otherwise require "good design," whatever that may be, from projects so there isn't so much crap getting built.Of course, that's because most projects aren't designed by Frank Gehry. But that still doesn't mean Frank Gehry gets to put a 100-storey building in a place zoned for single-family houses just because the design is too stunning to ignore. Now, does he get to put a 100-storey building somewhere zoned for 60 storeys? Or, say, three 80 storey towers in such an area? Well, that's more of a grey area. I would like to see some "bending" from the city and recognition that this is not an ordinary design. But I certainly don't want them to ignore policies developed by experts, over time, approved by council etc. That's a recipe for losing at the OMB, among other obvious reasons. Whoever you think the people with "good taste" are, they still have to answer to the Planning Act, for better or worse.
Really, there's some irony in freshcutgrass's attitude. Planning is political and design shouldn't be. But you're the one making design political by saying something subjectively pretty should trump a democratic, bureaucratic process. It's tricky business either way (and that all goes to earlier points I've made on these boards where I've said, yes they're great design etc. etc. but what some people hear fail to understand is that there is a process in place, whether you are Kirkor or Frank Gehry and that's why height and density and heritage have to be important parts of it, for everyone). If you want council to throw out the official plan anytime some bureaucrat thinks something looks nice, you're asking for trouble.
We all want good design, but asking the OMB and the planning department to be the ones who make that call? Yeah, I'd prefer they stay in their areas of expertise, myself.
Northern Magus
Active Member
Precisely. The towers would be an iconic landmark in a city sorely lacking them. Aesthetically, the towers work when they're soaring enough to evoke spectacle and grandeur, so the city's height reductions would make them comparatively timid and underwhelming. Personally I wonder if the city fears a floodgates effect along the avenues, but this makes little sense given the location here and its proximity to current and future transit lines.
I also remain skeptical that the market will permit them to build all of these towers as high as they'd like -- much like what happened with Trump. In my view 10-15s less would seem to be much more feasible. But I guess we'll see.
freshcutgrass
Senior Member
Look...is there some way I can beg you to please stop repeating the same BS over and over again? I have never claimed that this project, or any project should forego any planning process. I'm saying that good judgement needs to be practised in the process.
You really like to just repeat it over and over and over...don't you??? Again...no one is asking anything to be thrown out. The process allows for this proposal to be approved...that's a fact. All I'm saying is...take all that sh*t you're talking about into consideration...and then approve the facking project so we can all live happily ever after.
How bloody difficult is that to understand.
cassius
Active Member
It does allow for it to be approved, but as has been said before it sets a precedence the city isn't likely to want to set. They were quite hesitant to set a precedence with Festival Tower (and for good reason IMO - look at the neighbours adjacent to it that wouldn't have happened without Festival Tower being there).
If the City can allow for these 3 towers without opening the flood gate I'm all for it.
If the City can allow for these 3 towers without opening the flood gate I'm all for it.
argus
Active Member
In fact, if you reread the text, it implies that the city cannot allow anything special or unique (subjective) without that special or unique allowance then being interpreted as a possible standard or precedent for future ""predictability. So, solely for the sake of argument, planning could allow for a unique project if it had more specific controls to do so - without risking anything like a silly precedent-setting situation we have now.
verticalvillage
Active Member
verticalvillage
Active Member
One thing that always puzzled me about Gehry and his firm is that for an office so dependent on technology, why do they never produce any renderings?
The models are fabulous, but real images showing these buildings in their context would be far more interesting.
(I guess you could count the animation in the promotional video, but even that is limited to the general outlines of the towers…)
The models are fabulous, but real images showing these buildings in their context would be far more interesting.
(I guess you could count the animation in the promotional video, but even that is limited to the general outlines of the towers…)