interchange42 said:
Mirvish and Kofman were quoted out of context at the lunch. When they said this would go to the OMB, they were responding to a question posed something like 'what happens if the City says no?'

We don't know exact timing yet, but it looks like Mirvish/Projectcore want a City decision in the next couple of months. There should be another public consultation soon I would think.

Adam Vaughan has not made a definitive statement on the project, as best I know.

42
Click to expand...

Thanks for clearing that up. I'd also like to hear Adam Vaughan clear the air.
 
freshcutgrass said:
Preservation of a building requires a reason of some kind to do so. There has to be some sort of historical, architectural, cultural, contextual significance. The buildings in question don't rate highly in any of those categories.
Click to expand...

Except there is a reason and the work has been done. These buildings have already been designated heritage.
 
Except there is a reason and the work has been done. These buildings have already been designated heritage.
Click to expand...

Everything qualifies as heritage. Listing or designating buildings in Toronto as "heritage" does not mean they cannot be demolished, as thousands of listed and designated buildings have been demolished. This process does not put a value or merit on the heritage. It is similar to "as of right" zoning....it requires anything beyond the as of right to be looked at on an individual basis. It does not mean the as-of-right can not be changed.

I think Hume said it best....



How sad that a city awash in countless nearly identical glass towers and heritage buildings reduced to a facade would fail to grasp a unique opportunity to do something truly remarkable, something that would turn heads around the world and help bring Toronto into the 21st century.

Perhaps that was too much to hope for. Toronto has seen the future and indeed it is afraid.

How disturbing that a scheme conceived by a proven city-builder and designed by one of the finest architects alive should be greeted with institutional skepticism and civic smallness.
Click to expand...
 
…which is farther in advance than a pre-hearing is normally scheduled. This gives the City and Mirvish/Projectcore time to try to work things out before then, and cancel the pre-hearing if the hearing is no longer required.

42
 
Chris Hume's article irked me incredibly. How is that that Keesmat is "timid" by not embracing this gaudy, enormous monstrosity with open arms? This project is unprecedented for Toronto, North America, and many cities worldwide. And for an architecture/urban affairs critic to not pose a single question about the size/density of this project on a choked, four-lane, congested (both pedestrian and roadway), under-served transit-wise section of downown; nor bat an eye at the loss of several human-scale heritage buildings - the very style of buildings that have allowed King West AND King East to become such a desirable location for investment and development.

As for Adam Vaughan, the man has made his point clear. He supports the project fully. Prior to this, he was against any highrise development and loss of old architecture (points he made about Lamb's building only steps away)...now he's done the full 180.
 
Its because Vaughan is smart enough to realize that this project is a once in a lifetime oppertunity will contribute more to this city than some warehouses ever will.
 
Yes, more homes...the equivalent of 250 stories of condos obviously provides a greater influx of cash for the city than six "warehouses" and a theatre. That's a no-brainer. The costs from the decreases in quality of life surrounding the area, overtaxed infrastructure, localized congestion...how is that a "contribution"?

As for the "once in a lifetime" thing...anything is once in a lifetime. IMO preserving the area's density, historic fabric, and human-scale public realm is "once in a lifetime" as well.
 
44 North said:
Yes, more homes...the equivalent of 250 stories of condos obviously provides a greater influx of cash for the city than six "warehouses" and a theatre. That's a no-brainer. The costs from the decreases in quality of life surrounding the area, overtaxed infrastructure, localized congestion...how is that a "contribution"?

As for the "once in a lifetime" thing...anything is once in a lifetime. IMO preserving the area's density, historic fabric, and human-scale public realm is "once in a lifetime" as well.
Click to expand...

Exactly what metrics are you using to measure "quality of life" in respect of this proposal?
 
I am pissed off too at Hume's comments in the Star today. It's unfair to hit at Ms. Keesmat, including suggesting she is under qualified to have an opinion on this matter.

In addition, he suggests that the City has lost control of development and it has affected the quality of life, and this project will change that. What? The only reason the City has lost control of development is exactly what Keesmat is saying - the City has no way to control ultimately the quality of design in a project like this because design quality can not be locked in with an application and the OMB ultimately decides anyways on many density issues regardless of design quality. The aesthetic is not really their mandate.

If the City gives up on heritage, gives up the height, the current rules allow Mr. Mirvish to sell his development rights to anyone he wants and they can build it without Gehry etc. etc. Until this City gets rid of the OMB oversight and can lock-in a design quality with a no-changes rule, this is the way it is going to remain with this idiotic cat and mouse game.
 
Last edited:
Numerous studies that prove the general malaise brought about by higher density living. As well as being able to deduce that King is a nightmare to drive on, take transit on, even walk on for much of the day, and there are very few parks or schools in the area. So it should be fairly easy to figure out that adding the equivalent of a small city stuffed into a half a block obviously isn't going to improve the situation.
 
They will criticize this project but allow glass boxes like Aura and numerous other crap to be built.
 
44 North said:
Numerous studies that prove the general malaise brought about by higher density living.
Click to expand...

Care to link to some of these studies/articles? As someone who feels a general "malaise" living in a low density areas, I'd be genuinely interested to read them.
 
freshcutgrass said:
Everything qualifies as heritage. Listing or designating buildings in Toronto as "heritage" does not mean they cannot be demolished, as thousands of listed and designated buildings have been demolished. This process does not put a value or merit on the heritage. It is similar to "as of right" zoning....it requires anything beyond the as of right to be looked at on an individual basis. It does not mean the as-of-right can not be changed.

I think Hume said it best....
Click to expand...

Hume is right. We are far too timid. It's funny how the city will allow all these glass boxes to be built in the city in the city but the moment something comes along to challenge the status quo, they will fight it. If they are so concerned about density, height, and transit then they should stop approving anymore developments in this city.
 
44 North said:
Numerous studies that prove the general malaise brought about by higher density living.
Click to expand...

Really? I thought it was the lower density suburbs that have more problems than the higher density areas. Less transit, accessibility, car culture, few amenities, expensive infrastructure etc... It's the whole reason why we've tried to put an end to urban sprawl.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top