[diminutive]

If these types of buildings continue to be the norm, we will continue feeding a lifestyle of moving into the city in your 20s and moving out in your 30s.

These things just don't allow people to grow and age in-place, and will be bought and lived-in by people who don't suspect what it's like to live 60 stories up there. We are replacing car-dependency with elevator-dependency, and creating two inherently flawed and highly exclusive cities within the greater city: the core, and the suburbs, with little in-between.

This is a completely false choice. Nobody is trying to say that Mirvish-Gehry, or the highrise condo concept in general, is the end of architecture and the City shouldn't bother with other types of development in other contexts. Personally, and I'm sure 99% of people who like M-G would agree, a city ought to have all manner of development to suit as many individual preferences as possible.

It's also completely natural for areas of a city to stratify along factors like age or family status. This happens in *every city on earth.* King & John is 600m from Union Station. Draw a 600m radius around any major city and you wont see many family dwellings. Naturally, not every area of the city should be the same and not every area of the city should appeal to the same people. That's why people like cities, they offer choice and heterogeneity.

 

[buildup]

That's a compromise that could possibly get the anti-M+G crowd to support the project. At least the people concerned with maintaining the streetscape and heritage. And as it stands, the buildings are currently covered in grey/off-white paint (and one faux stone). If they were sandblasted to show their true brick beauty, I think people would see their appeal.

But according to many here, Gehry isn't one to compromise.

The AGO was his compromise. A good outcome, but he deserves a clean slate here. A visually entertaining project, in an entertainment zone. I expect down the road Mirvish would probably follow up with a better theatre too. That would be outstanding.

 

[syn]

The AGO was his compromise. A good outcome, but he deserves a clean slate here. A visually entertaining project, in an entertainment zone. I expect down the road Mirvish would probably follow up with a better theatre too. That would be outstanding.

I like Gehry and feel that he's one of the great architects in the world, but why does he 'deserve' a clean slate? As an architect it's his job to work within the context and requirements given to him.

A clean slate would be fantastic, but I don't see why he couldn't create an amazing base while integrating these structures to some degree.

I'd love to see a theatre added to this project; I'm sure that would reduce a lot of the opposition to this going forward.

 

[junctionist]

He can be a lot bolder here than at the AGO and still save the buildings. What does he expect? That the city will forget about its heritage because it's him they're dealing with? We're not going to do things that way. The podium glazing matches up with the scale of the old streetscape, which I doubt is a coincidence. If you want a blank slate, you'll be hard pressed to find one in a city that's hundreds of years old.

 

[freshcutgrass]

A clean slate would be fantastic, but I don't see why he couldn't create an amazing base while integrating these structures to some degree.

I suppose anybody could do anything, if one wanted to.

Except the guy who OWNS IT...DOESN'T WANT TO!!

 

[jje1000]

I suppose anybody could do anything, if one wanted to.

Except the guy who OWNS IT...DOESN'T WANT TO!!

The question is- do all the buildings necessarily have to go in order to create a exception piece of architecture? Is there a way that Mirvish could be convinced otherwise?

 

[interchange42]

I get how someone who would hire Frank Gehry would not want to constrain him for the sake of a few mostly non-descript brick warehouses. They would want a full "Frank Gehry" from him.

Their contribution to the health and well-being of King Street has become entirely overhyped. They do quite little for the street in fact, and compared to what Gehry is proposing, detract from it as far as I'm concerned. The problem is the fact of their heritage status. Divorced from that, they are not intrinsic to King Street's future viability on this stretch.

42

 

[jje1000]

Their contribution to the health and well-being of King Street has become entirely overhyped. They do quite little for the street in fact, and compared to what Gehry is proposing, detract from it as far as I'm concerned. The problem is the fact of their heritage status. Divorced from that, they are not intrinsic to King Street's future viability on this stretch.

Well, they haven't exactly been used to their full capacity at the moment. They're covered in ugly white paint and filled with undescript retailers. There are many examples out there where old buildings have been re-envisioned and altered to better integrate them into the city.

 

[urbandreamer]

^I disagree. On the south side--from RTH to John--King Street is an urban failure. Compare the "masters" of 100 years ago to the past 30 years' of meddling with the streetwall ... I'll take old brick over broad brush strokes any day.

Max Dudler otoh, now he's a talented architect I could trust with a "clean slate"!

(Gehry is all Hollywood flash, but are his buildings timeless?)

 

[freshcutgrass]

If I'm walking on the sidewalk in front of the complex, I'd rather see the varied heritage facades than a long, sterile block of glazing.

The staus quo is the varied facades of said heritage buildings. They do nothing for the street. They were never designed to meet the street well in the first place...they were just plain utilitarian warehouse buildings. Washing the paint off them isn't going to change that.

And again, to hear terms like "sterile" to describe Gehry architecture does not lend much integrity to one's argument.

The question is- do all the buildings necessarily have to go in order to create a exception piece of architecture? Is there a way that Mirvish could be convinced otherwise?

Perhaps. But that's like asking the TSO why they can't throw a little death metal into the program. If you want a dog, don't get a cat.

There are many examples out there where old buildings have been re-envisioned and altered to better integrate them into the city.

There's no shortage of facadism in Toronto. And isn't that what should be defined as "trite" here? I love what Allied Reit is doing in this district, but it needs to be supplemented with the occaisional bold statement, like the one proposed.

 

[freshcutgrass]

I feel they would have a much more aesthetically pleasing impact if they were of an equivalent height to the buildings around them. With the Ritz, Lightbox, and Theatre whatever, the area would feel like a magnificent showcase of Toronto's contemporary architecture - all harmoniously put together side-by-side.

I feel....the exact opposite is true. LOL

 

[jje1000]

Perhaps. But that's like asking the TSO why they can't throw a little death metal into the program. If you want a dog, don't get a cat.

I hope you aren't saying that Gehry is incompatible with heritage, that would be underestimating and limiting his skills and qualities- architecture should never be considered as an either-or.

There's a middle path that can satisfy everyone and create a piece of work that can be equally as good as any other.

 

[DtTO]

I'd rather see the varied heritage facades than a long, sterile block of glazing.

Are you kidding me? This will *easily* be one of the most dynamic podiums in the entire city! Sterile? I think that word gets thrown around far too often when people have nothing better to do than complain about change. At least, that's what I gather from your arguments; you just want to look at the same old warehouses which were really never meant to exist in a dense, urban setting (which makes any possibility of their inclusion in this dense project superficial, at best).

 

[Tewder]

I feel like I'm starting to come around to the 'let's git 'er done' side here. It is a great location for a little spectacle.

My big disappointment is with the loss of the POW. I just hate the idea of losing a playhouse of its calibre... and this is the 'entertainment' district right?

 

[junctionist]

Look at the rendering. The slopes on the podium are incredible. Below them, however, is a tall wall of glass several stories high, with just a bunch of slanted columns behind the glass to enliven it. (There are also some big posters for the art gallery in the rendering.) That's how the building meets the street, with a long wall of glass not much different from what aA, KPMB and Diamond and Schmitt would do (for example, the BA Centre or the University Avenue facade of the 4S Centre for the Arts). When a glazed facade like that stretches over a fairly long block, it's not that interesting to walk by.