[Peepers]

From http://www.thestar.com/business/2013/10/03/mirvish_heading_to_omb_in_bid_to_save_gehry_project.html:

Despite a virtual redrawing of the original plans, to create a softer look and incorporate design elements that speak to the warehouse area’s important history, opposition from city planners remains unrelenting, Mirvish said during an impassioned defence of the controversial project to Canada’s business elite during an Empire Club of Canada lunch Thursday.

It is infuriating to see how a group of faceless bureaucrats have been allowed to imperil what is probably the most exciting development - in terms of architecture - ever proposed for Toronto.

We can be grateful that the OMB exists for situations like this.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

It is infuriating to see how a group of faceless bureaucrats have been allowed to imperil what is probably the most exciting development - in terms of architecture - ever proposed for Toronto. .

I cant believe they're prioritizing this warehouse over Mirvish+Ghery. Mirvish+Ghery will be infinitely more beneficial to this city than some warehouse every will be. If this weren't in Toronto I'd think this were some kind of sick joke.

We can be grateful that the OMB exists for situations like this

What are the chances of the OMB overruling them? I'm not very familiar with the process.

 

[progressminded]

It's unfortunate to hear that this project has so far failed to gain the support of city planners. If my memory serves me well, it is my understanding that Mirvish had closely consulted with Adam Vaughan prior to proposing these towers in order to find a means to making the project more palatable for the city. I'm curious to see how the OMB approaches this. There isn't really much of a precedent that I know of which could help Mirvish's case, but I might be wrong. Apart from the generous offer of public amenities, I'm curious to see what kind of ammunition he has to defend his case. Hopefully he has something up his sleeve.

 

[Lansdude]

It is infuriating to see how a group of faceless bureaucrats have been allowed to imperil what is probably the most exciting development - in terms of architecture - ever proposed for Toronto.

We can be grateful that the OMB exists for situations like this.

Probably the first time I've agreed with Peepers. This building will give and make back for the city way more than it costs. There should be exceptions for true city-building projects. I'm on board with the "Exceptional Quality" argument but agree I have no idea how the conditions could be sufficiently tightened.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

What was the reason for the denial?

 

[waterloowarrior]

What was the reason for the denial?

It was appealed because Council had not made a decision within the legislated timeframe. After a period of 30-180 days, depending on the type of planning application, the developer gets automatic appeal rights so that municipalities can't just sit on files they don't want to deal with. Municipalities may argue that these timeframes are too short for complex projects. In this case it sounds like the developer felt that there wouldn't be common ground after a year of talks so they decided to start the appeal process. Council will be looking at the project in the the next few months and can decide what their position will be at the OMB. It may end up like Massey Tower where Council approved with a Section 37 agreement despite staff's refusal recommendation. From the article:

The negotiations have been “respectful” and city planners are still working on a report on the project which will go to committee in November and then on to council, said Gregg Lintern, director of community planning for Toronto and East York District

 

[jje1000]

Questions and a Solution

I cant believe they're prioritizing this warehouse over Mirvish+Ghery. Mirvish+Ghery will be infinitely more beneficial to this city than some warehouse every will be. If this weren't in Toronto I'd think this were some kind of sick joke.


What are the chances of the OMB overruling them? I'm not very familiar with the process.

I still feel conflicted. While we don't have many stretches of continuous urban fabric left in the city, the project should be a net bonus for the city. Why can't Gehry design around these buildings like the Queen Richmond Centre West? Maybe a series of winter gardens and atriums where the less attactive buildings used to be, with the museum collection in the older buildings. He's done that before, and I don't see why he can't do it again.

Edit: Quick photoshop job of what could happen- saving selective buildings and shifting them around the site.

 

[fedplanner]

Probably the first time I've agreed with Peepers. This building will give and make back for the city way more than it costs. There should be exceptions for true city-building projects. I'm on board with the "Exceptional Quality" argument but agree I have no idea how the conditions could be sufficiently tightened.

I'm probably the most pro-development member on this forum, but I can understand the city planners' dilemma with this case. The proposal vastly exceeds anything the city could ever have been envisioned on this site. It changes the land-use and character of the strip while resulting in the destruction of several heritage buildings. Although the buildings are architecturally stunning and have a significant community benefit component, it risks setting a precedent for future development in the area. It's a tough place. If there was no OMB, Mirvish would have been laughed out of the planning office with this proposal.

The quality of the design plays little role in the planning process. There is nothing in the zoning which encourages good design. The use of the design review committees are a good start. I also think Peepers could be on to something. Maybe something like the "landmark" zoning provisions they have it NYC which makes it easier to build iconic buildings.

I still hope this one gets approved because it will give back more to the city than it will take away (IMO), but not if the planners start messing with the design or truncate the towers. I seem to recall someone posting a pic from one of the public meetings showing an horrendous attempt to use facadism to incorporate one of the heritage buildings that was presented at a public meeting by the planning department. Tacky.

I wish Mirvish the best of luck at the OMB and I hope there are no compromises on the height or design.

 

[yyzer]

Maybe something like the "landmark" zoning provisions they have in NYC which makes it easier to build iconic buildings.

Hey fedplanner, I am not familiar with NYC's "landmark" zoning provisions, but sounds like a great idea...how can we get this here? We need to champion this project - it is a once in a generation opportunity for our city, and we need to make sure that it doesn't get derailed by bureaucrats focusing on the rules - which are after all arbitrarily created by these same bureaucrats, instead of focusing on the actual end product that we would get - a world icon that would go a ways to defining Toronto in the 21st century.....

/my 2 cents

 

[fedplanner]

The current zoning regulations need to be changed or an overlay district which supersedes the underlying zoning needs to be put in place in areas to foster high quality development. Mayor Bloomberg has been pushing for rezoning to encourage new development all across NYC. In Toronto it seems like city planning is more reactionary and the developers of high quality development have to bicker through a bureaucratic mess.

http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/201...ns-could-bring-more-skyscrapers-midtown-east/

The Department of City Planning unveiled plans this week for new zoning regulations in the area that extends from roughly East 39th to East 57th streets between Second and Fifth avenues.

The plans identified key areas in that stretch of Manhattan that would be ideal locations for new, iconic buildings that could rival the Chrysler Building in height. They also proposed a controversial extension of the Midtown East commercial district to include parts of Turtle Bay, from East 42nd and East 45th streets between Second and Third avenues.

I also want to say that I remember reading about some historical examples of overlay districts which promoted the construction of some of the city's tall iconic buildings, but for the life of me I can't find a reference for it online.

 

[eastcoastanddown]

I still feel conflicted. While we don't have many stretches of continuous urban fabric left in the city, the project should be a net bonus for the city. Why can't Gehry design around these buildings like the Queen Richmond Centre West? Maybe a series of winter gardens and atriums where the less attactive buildings used to be, with the museum collection in the older buildings. He's done that before, and I don't see why he can't do it again.

Edit: Quick photoshop job of what could happen- saving selective buildings and shifting them around the site. View attachment 18583

With the location of those existing buildings and the magnitude of the proposed structures, I am guessing that leaving them there would make construction of the towers almost prohibitively more slow/expensive/complicated.

 

[qwerty1]

I find the notion that the scale of these buildings are bad for the hood because there isn't requisite infrastructure questionable to say the least. Regardless of whether these buildings are rejected, how many more buildings will go up in the district? If the problem is infrastructure I'm sure city planners will stop development in the neighbourhood today. If the problem was infrastructure they should have stopped growth in the district 5 years ago.

I could see some justification in modifying the scale of this project. Maybe 2 towers instead of 3 so there's actually some spacing between the buildings.

The real problem is that Mirvish dared to do something outside of the norm. How dare he rock the boat! Doesn't he know there's a formula? Doesn't he know we need to after-the-fact rationalize our growth by pretending to control and channel it? Doesn't he know that FCP must remain the tallest building in the city in perpetuity? Don't the planners need to look like they're planning? And that all buildings must taper at a 40 degree angle from FCP lest the unruly denizens of surrounding hoods object to change in a dynamic city?


It's funny. The last 10-15 years has seen boatloads of banal garbage go up in this city and a lot of it in this very neighbourhood. Yet, the moment something visionary comes along here come the "planners" to throw water on the fire. It's way too bold!!!

 

[interchange42]

It's not fair to blame the planners. Their job is to evaluate each proposal according to how it meets established criteria, the various by-laws and guidelines that the City has enacted over the years.

Those rules are well meaning; they were set in place to create livable buildings, blocks, neighbourhoods and by extension a whole city.

So, when you establish only one set of rules, you have to aim them at buildings in a broad way, so that a whole city fabric can be woven based on the rules. In fact, the "fabric" metaphor is just about every planner and enthusiast's favourite figure of speech when describing a well integrated building or neighbourhood.

I think the problem is that the fabric metaphor is entirely too apt.

Yes, sure you want your city to be made of a good fabric, like you would a suit or coat or shirt or jacket. All of those items have other components however, like buttons.

If a city's rules do not allow for some buttons to be built, all you end up with is a t-shirt. I want something tailored, and I dare say most people want more than just a t-shirt of a city too. So, we need rules that also allow some buttons to stand out from the fabric. Like New York City's landmark zoning regs understand, there are spots where the fabric needs to be punctuated and held together by buttons.

It's the buttons that we remember in other cities that we travel to or dream about. The cities are no good certainly if the buttons just stick up out of patchy fabric, but any great, worthwhile, memorable, pride-worthy place has buildings that are akin to buttons, and not just fabric.

So, sorry for banging the metaphor gavel so long (Gakk, now I can't stop!), but the fabric metaphor works, and it's just that very few people understand its logical conclusion, and we don't seem to have planning rules to get to the logical conclusion.

Politicians who prefer suits over togas could spend some time thinking about how to get us some more buttons.

(See I can't stop now.)

42

If that didn't make any sense, read it again…

 

[Thanos]

Out of curiosity, would it be possible to move the existing building elsewhere? Maybe around Cherry street?

 

[qwerty1]

Interchange42:

Law, in virtually any area of it, is a blunt instrument. However, the fact that Mirvish has been "working with" the city indicates to me their is room to get this project approved in some form resembling how it's currently conceived. I don't know enough about the approval process to comment on how that happens but there is clearly room for it to happen. If ever there were a case to make an exception this would be it.

Perhaps I shouldn't blame the planners for a "lack of vision". Perhaps that isn't their job. I 'm sure many public servants will tell you the public and politicians quickly beat you into a compliance mindset. Innovation and vision, much though it's demanded, tends to get beaten out of people by the internal and external politics. If you try something and fail it's actually not okay. Given that, I'm probably expecting too much. There's too much risk involved in approving something so outside the norm.

Then again, this could be Mirvish blowing hot air and being absolutely unwilling to compromise his "vision" in any regard. Maybe there are reasonable compromises that could be made to get this approved.