You're intentionally misunderstanding the point of heritage preservation. Heritage status isn't some kind of unqualified program to protect buildings indefinitely from now until the end of time. It's to prevent what happened in earlier decades where developers would buy up architecturally significant buildings and demolish them before anything could be said.

Saying there is some kind of obligation on anyone's part to 'accommodate' the heritage buildings is nonsense. M-G can make the case to City Council or the OMB that their proposal is worthwhile and that's that.

The ultimate judgement should include heritage concerns, including preservation, but it's not an absolute concern. Let's say M-G did accommodate the 4 heritage properties and we got the typical Toronto frankenstein facadectomy, the original structures would be 90% destroyed anyways, so it's a bit childish to suggest there is some kind of strict ban on altering heritage properties is childish.

I'm not.

I don't think it should be an absolute concern. But it's equally ridiculous to say Gehry should get a blank slate just because he is Gehry. Asking the developer to try and see what incorporating some aspects of the current buildings would look like appears like a reasonable thing to do from a planning perspective. Incorporating a facade into Calatrava's work paid off nicely, for example. It's a nice reminder of what stood there before.

At the end of the day I lean more towards having this thing built than not, but it's obvious that Mirvish is pushing the boundaries here, and an attempt from the city's planning department to incorporate it into a more coherent vision of the city only makes sense - even if the outcome ends up resembling the original proposal more than anything.

This is the most outrageous claim. To begin with, there's nothing even wrong with liking tall buildings. It's a perfectly reasonable thing to be impressed by, no less 'outrageous' than a liking a 100 year old building. More importantly though, you're intentionally avoiding all the other reasons why so many people think M-G is an improvement on the status quo and are reluctant to have some humdrum warehouses, of which there are thousands in North America, grafted onto it like some kind of barnacle.

You're ignoring that people find the architecture drastically more impressive. You're ignoring that people find the street presence better (e.g. handicap friendly...). You're ignoring that people find the proposed uses (e.g. OCAD space, Mirvish Gallery) to be better than a dinky Tim Horton's and some low quality office space. You're neglecting that people like the idea of mixed use projects. You're neglecting that most agree with the idea of creating more homes downtown.

Nobody, NOBODY, is approaching this with the height fanboyism you seem to think.

Hang on there.

Did you see how the exchange started? Someone said old buildings had no feelings, I said that was not an issue, DtTO accuses me of being an anti-development elitist. I'm familiar with his posts and I have no time for him at this stage.

I want to see these warehouses developed, I just personally happen to think that any proposal here would be better if it involved the incorporation of some heritage components, and kept in line with the 40 story buildings around it. This is debatable, it's just my take based on my personal understanding of how cities work. It is not, however, elitist, and it has nothing to do with me not wanting more people moving into the neighbourhood.

Well, great. Thank god we don't build cities around the unsupported personal biases of random internet people.

Haven't people given up on this kind of quest for the Fukuyaman end-of-urban-planning? A city thrives with many different built forms.

No, we build cities around the unsupported personal biases of city planners, engineers, and developers. Meanwhile, councillor Vaughan and the City of Toronto's city planners actually agree with me regarding this project... so there you go.
 
Just look to City Place and Liberty Village to see that more and more families are being raised in condo developments...and staying put, but buying larger units. I don't see a mass exodus nowadays of newly formed families leaving to the suburbs, as was the case in the past.

I live in City Place, and most of the families I see are in the TCHC building (part of the solution!) or have very young kids. Most families with kids relocate when these need to start going to school, unfortunately. I know a bunch of people who have relocated reluctantly - which is a shame. I see a huge opportunity in the entertainment district to include some of them as well as all the other people who want to live and play close to work.
 
I respect the ideas and opinions of all but im not in favour of preserving because if they do so after 60 to 80 years the buildings will need renovation again, instead they can make a museum in the podium of proposed buildings, where pictures, archives and other stuff related to the building should b kept.

what do you guys think?
 
I respect the ideas and opinions of all but im not in favour of preserving because if they do so after 60 to 80 years the buildings will need renovation again, instead they can make a museum in the podium of proposed buildings, where pictures, archives and other stuff related to the building should b kept.

what do you guys think?

A museum dedicated to the old buildings within the new structure elevates their significance to one that would justify not tearing them down in the first place.

I struggle to see the logic in that. Even if the developer entertained the idea for a second, who would determine how much space to devote to it? Who would curate this space? Would the city force them to maintain this space forever or only for as long as the original buildings would have last? Look at the shit-show that has become the Ryerson/Sam's sign issue... And that only involved a sign.
 
Renovating an old building is a fairly standard procedure.

In any case, it's probably unrealistic to expect the interiors of these buildings to be saved at this point.
 
I counted 11,485 members in favour of the new and improved buildings which will win world-wide acclaim and awards for architecture. Again, a Poll would be more accurate. It's a long weekend and my math may be a bit off but it's a good approximation :p

Okay, relative to that, let me offer my earlier metaphor

Just reminding you all: to offer the "do little for the street" anti-warehouse argument vs the heritage crowd will go down as well as "unite the left under the Liberals; the NDP can't win" arguments on Babble.

So, if we take that metaphor into account, what you're suggesting is akin to predicting 11,485 Liberal vs 8 NDP. Well, yes: to use the electoral-forecast metaphor, I'm not denying that Liberal might be "favoured", perhaps by a significant margin. But 11,485 to 8 is a Liberal-vs-Marxist-Leninist differential, not a Liberal-vs-NDP differential. And even with the potential of "world-wide acclaim and awards for architecture" accounted for, the heritage crowd isn't exactly down there w/the Marxist-Leninists or John Turmel or Kevin Clarke or whatever other marginal nutters. Even within Urban Toronto.

(And as an aside, you're also not accounting for the abstainers, fence-straddlers, etc.)
 
I'm often with the heritage crowd on many proposed projects, but I believe that the case for demolition here to create something extraordinary far outweighs preservation. I see the existing buildings here being quite ordinary and really not worth saving.

p.s. I was also trying to be a bit funny to lighten the mood because the discussions were getting quite personal.
 
That's pretty elitist. Screw all the people who want to live in the area, and the opinions of anyone else who lives nearby, we'll just please the few who have some sort of connection to a random warehouse that has contributes nothing of significance to the area.

Your tone is worthier of a "critique" of this circumstance. With friends like that, Mirvish/Gehry doesn't need enemies.
 
I'm often with the heritage crowd on many proposed projects, but I believe that the case for demolition here to create something extraordinary far outweighs preservation. I see the existing buildings here being quite ordinary and really not worth saving.

p.s. I was also trying to be a bit funny to lighten the mood because the discussions were getting quite personal.

Being "funny" makes sense w/a realistic foundation. (Which I provided, w/o denying that the Gehry/Mirvish side might win.)

And there *is* a fair constituency that's guarded t/w unmediated promises of "new and improved buildings which will win world-wide acclaim and awards for architecture", because they know there's more to cities and urban success than that--even when we're dealing w/the pre-existing "ordinary"...
 
guys! instead of fighting we should pray that something good should happen which will be in favour of both parties (people in favour or people not in favour) of heritage building.
 
Ushahid, it's discussion, it's not merely fighting. This Forum is about discussion, so it's going to continue.

The unrelated jokes are off topic, and were deleted. If you have not read the UrbanToronto Rules of Conduct yet, you need to. They are stickied near the top of Projects and Construction, as well as the other Forum sections.

42
 
I wish we could get beyond the height debates as they always essentialise a project down to how tall it is. Tall is perfectly fine and this is a a place in the city to have tall. That said, the streetscape on this section of King is one of my favourites and I fear that this project and the one with on restaurant row will ruin it. I don't mind some of the existing buildings and they are part of what gives this part of Toronto its texture. However this is also a signature project, not just another cookie cutter condo and I think we need to find away to make this project happen.
 
Those of you who discount Gehry as a Star of Architecture, based on your personal ideas of design or function are in the minority. I dare you to find any recent list of the greatest architects of our time where Gehry is not included.

1.) Frank Gehry (born 2.28.1929):

"There is no mistaking Gehry’s works, as they are the most distinctive, and innovative architectural phenomena around. His deconstructive forms are iconic as tourists flock to all of his buildings worldwide to marvel at the architectural forms he creates."

"one thing is clear: Gehry’s buildings (including his private residence) are world’s hottest tourist attractions."

"What is the most important piece of architecture built since 1980? Vanity Fair’s survey of 52 experts, including 11 Pritzker Prize winners, has provided a clear answer: Frank Gehry’s Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao. "

"Toronto-born, LA-based Frank Gehry has become one the world most sought-after architects. His creations are instantly recognisable, stretching the boundaries of structural definition."

"Like it or not, Frank Gehry is the world’s most famous architect."

Architecture is, in it's own right, a tourist attraction and a draw for business and the entertainment industry alike.

While some of you want to preserve these banal warehouses rather than allow something unusual and unique to replace them, I think by far the majority want us to replace them with something new and exciting. I remember walking this strip with my parents when we were young. Ed's Warehouse was a favourite destination of ours for special occasions and visiting friends and family. The Prime Rib and Yorkshire puddings, The waiters in bow ties, the walls lined with ostentatious antiques and art. It was a spectacle. They are long gone but those of us who got to enjoy the place have our photos and memories. I don't think anyone feels that these restaurants ought to have been preserved because of my personal memories.

The density argument is nonsensical to me. We will go on to allow thousands of more units within steps of this location without doubt, but this one project will bring transit and road congestion to the tipping point? I say we cancel 3 or 4 other mediocre projects if that is the case, in order to get this one piece of "starchitecture" built.

To expect Gehry to incorporate these concrete bunkers into his design, in order to preserve some false sense of history that buildings seem to evoke in some is another stupid idea. What significant event or individual came to prominence, either for Toronto or Canada as a result of these buildings presence? These building are just old, and not by any standard other than our own. I can't imagine that any other city in the world would fight to protect these structures when an opportunity such as we are being given presets itself.

20130605-Mirvish-Podium.jpg
BlogTO

Look at Gehry's designs for this project and how they interact with the street. His designs are dramatic and playful, those buildings are staid and lifeless. It would be like incorporating a mausoleum into a splash pad.

I have an idea. Let's for a change throw caution to the wind! Let the project be built just as envisioned by Mirvish and Gehry. We'll fill it with galleries, and public access facilities and homes for those thousands who will be lucky enough to live in them. Let's watch the tourists from around the world come to the city to stare up this architectural marvel and watch how the world turns their eyes toward this city and look on to it as something to aspire to.

Or we can keep these gray bunkers, maybe make them somehow wheelchair accessible and do our best to keep the tagging to a minimum. Maybe a new shade of gray? Something dramatic! We'll place a historical plaque and have it on the tourist maps. I'm confident it will attract dozens.


These-heritage-plaques-which-have-graced-the-front-of-many-old-Cabbagetown-houses-since-the-1970s-are-points-of-pride-for-own.jpg
 
Last edited:

Back
Top