These "best cities" would also preserve their older structures, create heritage districts, have height restrictions for areas of the city, and would allocate ultra-high densities to designated corridors that could accommodate them. Creating a hodgepodge of insanely tall condominiums in pockets dotting the CBD/core's periphery - that goes against planning and designation decisions made a few years prior - doesn't sound like something one of these "best cities" would do.

As for praising the "initiative"...I don't see what the hoopla is. It's a property owner wanting to cash-in with the most profitable way there is: ultra-highrise condos, and he's using starchitect power to get his way. A condo project by any other name...it's still a condo. This isn't a public amenity, an infrastructure project, a museum, a government building...it's three condos.


"Yes, but it's really tall, and it's a GEHRY!!!"
 
These "best cities" would also preserve their older structures, create heritage districts, have height restrictions for areas of the city, and would allocate ultra-high densities to designated corridors that could accommodate them.

in other words...exactly what Toronto does.


Creating a hodgepodge of insanely tall condominiums

Do you really think employing hyperbolic descriptions of things is helping your case? Hodgepodge???? At what point exactly does height become insane?


I don't see what the hoopla is. It's a property owner wanting to cash-in with the most profitable way there is: ultra-highrise condos, and he's using starchitect power to get his way.

Actually, incorporating top rate architecture into your condo project is never how the greedy condo developers maximize their profits. If you want to maximize your profits, you certainly don't hire Frank Gehry as your architect. The person who profits most from hiring Frank Gehry....is Frank Gehry. Look at something like Pinnacle Centre....high density with as little design as they could possibly get away with. No redeeming qualities at all...the city gains nothing.

Meanwhile, we have long known how David Mirvish rolls. This isn't just some greedy developer maximizing profits...it's his legacy, and it matters a lot to him. That's why he hired Frank Gehry. But you already knew that (more of your dishonesty coming through).



This isn't a public amenity, an infrastructure project, a museum, a government building...it's three condos.

That's not true either. It will be a mixed-use project, that will include a significant institutional and cultural element. While the Gehry architecture is sure to be a major landmark, the gallery that would house the Mirvish art collection would be the star attraction, as the collection is truly world class and would single handedly raise Toronto's game in the art world.
 
I don't think it's an attack on Mirvish, I think the point is that there are no guarantees tying zoning to design. We can't just give someone extra height because they are a good developer, well-regarded in the community, or have friends on City Council

She's a Planner & Bureaucrat, her job is to decide on planning issues, not make her personal views known on Mirvish.

This is some of what she said "bait & switch"+"trite"+"take promise at face value" etc. You don't think these are swipes?

Gehry doesn't need to hear this crap from a bureaucrat. And the Mirvish family has done more for this city without resorting to baiting, and then going back on promises and plans.

As already stated on this thread, zoning and design can't be guaranteed. But both M & G's reputations are on this being done right.
 
Last edited:
I'm going to call some people out.

Leaving aside for a moment our precious warehouses, from a pure architectural perspective - what projects in the world exceed the Mirvish/Gehry proposal in scale, originality, and beauty? There may be a few that exceed in individual criteria - but I cannot think of anything, anywhere, that it as spectacular in total.

When you add in the local relevance of M & G and the neighbourhood's entertainment theme its incredibly exciting.

Any examples on the planet - built or even proposed?

9-1122.jpg


So I'm one w/Stockhausen. Big deal.
 
These "best cities" would also preserve their older structures, create heritage districts, have height restrictions for areas of the city, and would allocate ultra-high densities to designated corridors that could accommodate them.

^To this point I agree and it reminded me of a quote I saw today, which I think is applicable to this debate: a society is defined not only by what is creates, but also by what it refuses to destroy.

The pedestrian experience/public realm improvements that will be realized through the John Street revitalization project will likely prompt the further revitalization of the side streets and areas surrounding the low-rise buildings in question here, which could prompt the rejuvenation of a unique, low-rise district that will do substantially more in improving the public realm downtown than any one institution (Mirvish museum of art or otherwise) built at this particular location. We just need patience for this to organically emerge, rather than jumping on the first thing that glitters... after which there is no going back.
 
Last edited:
Not possible in a democratic system - courts would have a field day with that idea.

Wrong, cities everywhere turn down proposals on their architectural merits, and offer up zoning exemptions providing they like what they see. Chicago is one of many examples. London's shard is probably another.
 
Is it just me, or does anyone else find the level of opposition to this project something out of the twilight zone? It follows the old saying...no good deed goes unpunished.

You know something is very screwed up, when (as far as I can recall), the first time any city planning official has trotted out the term "trite" to describe architecture in this city, and it's directed at a Frank Gehry design.


which could prompt the rejuvenation of a unique, low-rise district

There's nothing unique about low rise districts in Toronto...the city is full of them. Why does it have to be one or the other? I like the combination of various types of heritage buildings, with the addition of modern high-rises in this area.

We just need patience for this to organically emerge

We have had patience, and now the Arts & Entertainment District is starting to really congeal. It was the Mirvishes who got the ball rolling decades ago, and it is the Mirvishes again who are ready to push it to the next level.

The downtown core is going to be filled with tens of thousands of more condos. Let's make sure we put all our efforts to making sure the really great stuff never gets built, and quietly let the Pinnacle International style stuff get a free ride. Cause that really makes a lot of sense (to a city that thinks Rob Ford makes a great mayor)
 
"A society is defined not only be what is creates, but also by what it refuses to destroy."

That's banal. Society's are also defined by what they create.

"The pedestrian experience/public realm improvements that will be realized through the John Street revitalization...could prompt the rejuvenation of a unique, low-rise district that will do substantially more in improving the public realm than any one institution (Mirvish museum of art or otherwise)."

To paraphrase Keesmat, where's our guarantee? Maybe it will just remain the ordinary place it is. What would be "unique" about this neighbourhood your envision?
 
Offer - three extraordinary towers by the world's leading and Toronto born architect. A World Class art museum. An Art College. Located in a second-rate Art & Entertainment district which has long ceased to be low-rise.

Answer. no thanks

Why not? Things are coming along nicely just as they are, have your heard we're widening the sidewalks of John Street and planting trees and benches

There a subconscious envy afoot. Small people would rather crush the ambitions of hugely accomplished people than address their own limitations.
 
MODERATOR

Please take a look at post #1751 by adma? This is the most offensive post I've seen. I'm sure he's only a kid but still.
 
MODERATOR

Please take a look at post #1751 by adma? This is the most offensive post I've seen. I'm sure he's only a kid but still.

Right. A 'kid' with the ability to understand and relate this debate to the Stockhausen controversies 11 years ago. As picard notes, adma's comment may be in poor taste (and I don't necessarily think it is), but to label it as 'offensive' only belies your fundamental misunderstanding of his post.
 
This debate is so polemic and pointless. With any proposal, regardless of scale and content, there will always be issues to improve and weaknesses. There's never such a thing as 'perfect.'

So, yes, obviously there would be issues with a very large project like M-G. The public and the planning department ought naught step out of the way once Gehry's name is mentioned. Where possible these deficiencies should be addressed and, if impossible to remedy, balanced against benefits.
Yet so much of the criticism of this particular project has been outright wrong, which makes it impossible to either address or weigh against other benefits. Not all criticism, but most. It's frustrating to see the Chief Planner pouring cold water all over something which is an opportunity if nothing else rather than try to fix what we can.

Infrastructure wise, it's ridiculous to act as if 'downtown's full' or there's simply no way existing infrastructure can accommodate M-G. It's especially dishonest for the City's Chief Planner to make the argument that it's an unreasonable burden. The City's official plan calls for the area's population to nearly double over the next two decades (roughly ~70k new residents, plus more jobs)! This isn't some kind of unexpected or unreasonable project; it represents a small fraction of development the City has been encouraging and planning for for years now.

Transit wouldn't be impacted terribly. Either residents who would have moved into M-G will move into other surrounding developments (no difference..), or will move further away to a different area and make longer commutes, putting more pressure on infrastructure than would otherwise have been the case.

'Height' doesn't matter, in and of itself. Given tower design, the differences between typical point towers in the area and M-G's towers would be indistinguishable from street level. The podium would be the major impact on street life, which all the evidence suggests is being built to contemporary urban design principles and will frame King St very nicely. Bandying about some warmed over Jane Jacobsian notion of 'human scale' is ridiculous since the street-presence of this project isn't an ~80 story glass wall but 6 storeys, which is highly typical of successful urban streetscapes.

The only semi-legitimate argument is one of heritage preservation. Naturally the City has an interest in heritage preservation. Only the most dogmatic and impractical would take the position that heritage is sacrosanct and cannot be altered. City's aren't museums to the past. It's perfectly normal to destroy heritage structures for any number of reasons. The issue isn't black and white; accepting that heritage status isn't sacrosanct isn't the same as saying it's worthless or we should replace the Acropolis with a Cinnabon. Not everything is Penn Station.

Any judgement here are inherently subjective, but on balance it seems clear that M-G represents a sizable improvement over the existing structures in many ways. The six story podium will better frame King Street. The architecture is clearly unique whereas the existing warehouses are routine. The new structures will provide better retail, commercial and institutional space. The new structures will be more 'mixed use' than the current ones. In other contexts this won't always be the case. There's no need to be dogmatic about the issue.
 
Last edited:
I really don't think we are being fair to JK but taking a letter written by Hume which obviously he gets to selectively put in quotes from her that supports his criticism. To suggest that her opinion is wrapped up in a nice bow with these selected quotes is ridiculous.
 

Back
Top