[AlvinofDiaspar]

SPIRE:

But I fail to see why we should celebrate a building just because it's a Gehry design. A lot of you are drooling over the Gehry "brand" yet can't put into words WHY. What is so spectacular about these proposed buildings? Please tell me it's more than just "they are tall" or "they look cool". Please tell me we are not that desperate. What are the building's impacts on the local infrastructure? What does it signify about the way we build density in Toronto? Will it perform well as a building? (What a concept.) Is it sustainable? Is it quality work from Gehry or is it a pastiche of ideas that don't work well in the real world / in our climate? What does it say about what Torontonians think architecture should be and how buildings should be designed to perform in Ontario? What does it say about how we design our neighbourhoods and what sort of population we want to give access to downtown Toronto?

Those are valid questions - but as a city, do we always have to default to practicality (and all too often, at the expense of aesthetics - and dare I say joy)? What is wrong with allowing one project to transcend these demands if the client allows it? We don't seem to have any issue with allowing lesser, joyless projects imposing their ill effects (be it technical, environmental or sociological). If practicality is the judge of all things, all the time a good chunk of the architectural heritage we treasure won't be built, because they aren't particularly practical, then and now.

Let Gehry worry about ideas and practicality - that's his job as an architect.

AoD

 

[diminutive]

But I fail to see why we should celebrate a building just because it's a Gehry design..... I still haven't heard many arguments that are rational and take into consideration real-world architectural concerns. Aesthetics and height are never enough to justify the development of a building, in my opinion.

I don't want to sound pretentious, but as someone who is studying architecture and is constantly hearing about the many varying aspects of building design and performance, (as well as someone who takes an interest in sociology and how cities reflect our society), I am feeling as though the supporters of this project want to glaze over these questions and just want to see something tall and visually stunning put up because we can.

If it helps, I say all this as someone who thinks the Beekman Tower / "New York by Gehry" in NYC is one of the most beautiful towers ever created. It's visually STUNNING. But I will also say that that's not enough to make me support this Toronto project.

Very few people are supporting this project "just because it's a Gehry" or just because it's tall or whatever. Not more than a couple posts above yours, jaycola pointed out that allowing the project to proceed would generate millions in annual tax revenue for the City as well as other economic spinnofs as compared to the status quo. Agree or disagree, but it's an argument you chose to ignore because it doesn't fit your pretentious narrative of 'me-the-englightened-architecture student vs. the boorish-fanboy masses. Others have likewise made arguments that the building would be an improvement over the status quo in terms of housing the Mirvish Gallery or OCAD space. I've made the argument that these buildigns will give a much better street presence and will have greatly improved accessibility.

Is Gehry's design the most practical imaginable? Surely not. So what? If everyone wanted practical, we would all drive Kias, shop at the GAP and never eat out.

Mirvish is assuming that there are enough people who will pay for the luxury of living in these towers. From his perspective, it's practical. Just like BMWs aren't practical cars for most people yet it's still practical for BMW to make them.

Normally I'm critical of the argument you see on UT that most developments (e.g. BAC, Southcore..) are "just" boring glass boxes which don't try anything innovative. Most developments ought to focus on maximizing profits. But here's someone willing to pay for premium design and you crap on him! I've got no idea the economics of M-G. Intuitively I would imagine it would be much more profitable to gut the heritage structures, leave the facades and build as many floors of generic condo as possible. I've got no idea why people view this option as better than what Mirvish-Gehry are proposing...

There's also an irony here in how the Anderson building was given heritage status, in part, because it used a decidedly impractical terra cotta!

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

dimunitive:

I think Gehry himself said that his flourishes add an extra 10% to the cost.

AoD

 

[SP!RE]

People only seem to have taken the "practicality" argument out of my post. Fair enough. I am just voicing my stance on the project. Also, do not confuse practicality with "boring". I think an extra 10% can be well-justified if it adds delight to a building. But I'm not convinced that Gehry is intending to create something here that is both visually stunning AND high-performing in our climate. Architecture is not sculpture; it should be visually interesting and have its visual flourishes, yes, but not if said architectural flourishes lead to chronic problems for the end users of the building. But yes, that is an issue that will be left in the hands of the purchasers, owners, and developer here. I realize I'm getting really nit-picky and off-topic here. I often forget that UrbanToronto is a sphere of development news and discussion, which takes a very different approach than discussion within architecture circles.

The bigger and more immediately relevant issue to the city here is to do with PLANNING in this city. I think the way we do development in this city is irresponsible (thinking long-term here), so this project is just one of many that I have some big concerns about. I am, in a way, using this project as a scapegoat... I can admit that. But you have to change the way things are done at some point, and I see this development as an opportunity to discuss some of the big planning and development issues facing our city. I'm glad that our planners seem to feel the same way.

 

[Lansdude]

People only seem to have taken the "practicality" argument out of my post. Fair enough. I am just voicing my stance on the project. Also, do not confuse practicality with "boring". I think an extra 10% can be well-justified if it adds delight to a building. But I'm not convinced that Gehry is intending to create something here that is both visually stunning AND high-performing in our climate. Architecture is not sculpture; it should be visually interesting and have its visual flourishes, yes, but not if said architectural flourishes lead to chronic problems for the end users of the building. But yes, that is an issue that will be left in the hands of the purchasers, owners, and developer here. I realize I'm getting really nit-picky and off-topic here. I often forget that UrbanToronto is a sphere of development news and discussion, which takes a very different approach than discussion within architecture circles.

The bigger and more immediately relevant issue to the city here is to do with PLANNING in this city. I think the way we do development in this city is irresponsible (thinking long-term here), so this project is just one of many that I have some big concerns about. I am, in a way, using this project as a scapegoat... I can admit that. But you have to change the way things are done at some point, and I see this development as an opportunity to discuss some of the big planning and development issues facing our city. I'm glad that our planners seem to feel the same way.

Care to outline the practicality issues? The costs of those factors are placed in the debit column, but whether they are worth it is still, like everything else, a value judgment.

 

[Tewder]

Actually, you presented another false dichotomy yourself - i.e. inclusion of heritage structures automatically = good; carte blanche redevelopment automatically = bad, without consideration of the architectural and urban worth. Wholesale destructive approach has its place in city-building (just think that a good chunk of our worthy civic icons requires that enabling factor); while preservation (meaningfully done, or not so meaningfully done) does exact an opportunity cost on projects that might otherwise be superlative without said constraints. It all depends on what the proponent is bringing to the table - and in this case, I think the proponent was able to justify it.

Agreed, AoD. There are all kinds of factors that should go into evaluating a development proposal. We've seen bad heritage preservation and successful carte-blanche development. Nevertheless, i think it's important to remind that there is a third option here, or there could be at least if the parties involved were open to it.

Because the heritage status of a building should be but one many considerations with respect to whether or not to proceed with this development, and yet it's the only thing that many (but certainly not all) opponents of the project seem to fixate on.

I agree that all factors should be considered, but when it comes to destroying pre-existing urban fabric (one that includes heritage no less) I really do feel that the fixation is somewhat warranted. It should be an uphill battle, in other words. Regardless, I really don't see it as elitist.

I'd love to see these buildings integrated into Gehry's design in some innovative manner, but I can't see a scenario where these buildings can be saved without severely compromising the project wholesale. These lots aren't very large. A Five Condos scenario isn't an option here, and merely plastering their facades onto Gehry's podium would be nothing more than a disservice to the original buildings and Gehry's design. In absence of an elegant solution that satisfies both sides of the debate, I'd have to choose the Gehry scheme.

It's noteworthy how many have expressed this preference for integrating Gehry with pre-existing fabric. I agree that there is not a one-size-fits-all solution to this sort of an approach. I'm just not convinced that an amazingly creative option couldn't be found.

I do agree though that in the absence of any will for this third option we do have to consider what an amazing opportunity a development like this presents (still would be sore about the POW though!!).

 

[diminutive]

People only seem to have taken the "practicality" argument out of my post. Fair enough. I am just voicing my stance on the project.

But then, I think the way we do development in this city is a bit disastrous, so this project is just one of many that I have some big concerns about. I am, in a way, using this project as a scapegoat... I can admit that.

I took your argument to be: nobody has given a good reason why these are good developments beyond the celebrity factor of Gehry, their height and their unusual appearance. There needs to more focus on "real world architectural concerns." Taken together, it makes Toronto look like a bunch of uncultured, desperate yokels running off the cliff like lemmings for some unconcerned starchitect.

My point was that that's not true. You're purposefully ignoring all the arguments which have supported this project over the past ~130 pages, most of which go far deeper than 'ZOMG 80s GEHRY!1!'

The questions you're asking are almost tautological since you leave "real world architectural concerns" so vague. For instance, if David Mirvish sees demand for unique, luxury condos, then hiring an architect who will make a suitably distinct project which draws attention and justifies premium pricing is very much a "real world architectural concern."

It's been suggested that the project may be more acceptable if it was "toned down" a bit. Less exotic design would necessitate less height and could incorporate the existing structures. Yet that completely ignores the architectural concerns of this project. Why on earth would the City approve the functional destruction of 4 heritage structures and the POW in exchange for a couple run of the mill condo buildings? If the regulatory climate requires something exceptional to proceed (e.g. London and the Gherkin..) then coming up with an exceptional design is very much a real world concern for the developer.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

diminutive:

I think he has a point - in the sense that buildings aren't sculptures - that they serve more than mere aesthetic purposes, and that those practical purposes demands concrete solutions. That's a reality an architect must address - and it is in no-one's interest when a building leaks or otherwise suffer from a multitude of technical or planning failures that is costly to remediate. That said, I think as a city we need to take some risk sometimes in order to allow the creation of something truly unique and inspiring. It is more comfortable to stay with the known and the risk free, but it can come at the cost of potential greatness.

As to scapegoating - this project demands a lot (loss of heritage row, high intensity use of the site and associated pressure on surrounding areas, infrastructure, overall planning vision) but also gives back plenty (high calibre architecture, high quality mixed uses, significant intensification on a site proximate to the core). If I am going to scapegoat, I will pick another project that demands plenty and gives back little - a certain one at Yonge/College comes to mind. I think that's far more illustrative of a system punishing the superlative but would readily bend to the mundane.

AoD

 

[diminutive]

^

Yes, of course, a building which leaks or is horrendously energy inefficient or for some reason does not perform the tasks it was assigned well cannot be said to be a successful building, even if it has the most stunning design imaginable.

Without trying to sound unduly naive, why would we worry about that? Mirvish and such are perfectly intelligent people; I would seriously hope that if they are willing to invest years of their lives and put billions of dollars into this project that they ought to be able to build a decent condo building at the end of the day.

I don't understand why there is an assumption that M-G isn't being designed first and foremost to accomplish the tasks it's designed for. Looking at 8 Spruce Street, which is very similar to what we see here, there don't seem to be any signs that the building's essential functions were sacrificed.

 

[SP!RE]

AoD, your read of my post was much more accurate to what I was trying to say, so I appreciate you reiterating my argument for diminutive.

Also, your last point about choosing which projects to go after, is a point well taken, and one I will consider very seriously. There are certainly projects out there in Toronto that offer far less to the greater good than this project.

That said, it still scares me how many people on UT routinely feel that developers are systematically persecuted (lol) and that projects like 501 Yonge should just be approved as they are initially offered up by their developers, before the planners or city have a chance to make suggestions/demands for improvement.

I think the Gehry project has many merits but I don't think it should escape criticism either. It, like any project, needs to go through due process and there is likely room for improvement.

Without trying to sound unduly naive, why would we worry about that? Mirvish and such are perfectly intelligent people; I would seriously hope that if they are willing to invest years of their lives and put billions of dollars into this project that they ought to be able to build a decent condo building at the end of the day.

Because that IS naive. Plenty of celebrity architects have created disasters for notable clients.

But, admittedly, that's not really the city's responsibility, as you and others have said. That's just a personal concern of mine.

 

[diminutive]

Because that IS naive. Plenty of celebrity architects have created disasters for notable clients.

To take Gehry's recent NYC skyscraper, which I'd hardly characterize as a "disaster," why would we expect this? The M-G buildings are conceptually similar to the NYC tower, so I' don't see why we'd suddenly have a disaster on our hands.

Can you list how you think M-G is sacrificing "real world" architectural concerns beyond generalities?

 

[SP!RE]

If it's going to be an iconic project, I expect it to aim for LEED goals as a minimum. This is 2013 --- truly iconic architecture seeks to be sustainable.

My concerns relating to "real world concerns" relate to sustainability, as well as issues such as leaks and vapour transmission through building assemblies. Looking at the expansive areas of custom-designed, curvaceous glazing on his models, I feel as though the institutions in the podium of this project are going to have some serious leaks and issues relating to longevity. A lot of Gehry's work has been successful in warmer climates, but I'm a bit worried how successful it would be here in Toronto. Designing a building for the extremes of Toronto is a lot different than designing a building for warmer or more moderate climates.

Several of Gehry's designs have had him sued for cracks, leaks, and mould issues, not long after their completion, and in his project for Bard College, the roof had issues that were attributed to Gehry's design specifications not taking properly into account the climate's variability. Gehry tends to blame "value engineering" as the culprit in his designs that have had leaks and mould problems. What is concerning about this in the case of the Mirvish & Gehry project is that there is so much "value engineering" in Toronto's condominium market already, and in order to make a reasonable profit, the same thing will happen on the Mirvish & Gehry project.

These concerns are not reasons for the buildings to not be approved, but they remain concerns of mine. Maybe I'm naive, but I don't trust Gehry's office anymore than I do other architecture firms, who make misguided compromises in their designs because to beef up a roof structure or change an assembly to suit our climate negatively impacts the look of their envisioned design.

For planning issues, my primary concerns are the continued demographic homogenization it will encourage in the neighbourhood, and the over-provision of parking (encouraging vehicular use and traffic). Lower-cost housing is a desperate need in downtown Toronto, and will be even more-so in a few years. And yet again, as I have said earlier, I think this project encourages the precedent set by other condo projects in Toronto. The "point tower" is very overdone and we really need to find ways to explore mid-rise development, especially in areas outside downtown.

 

[Big Daddy]

SPIRE:



Those are valid questions - but as a city, do we always have to default to practicality (and all too often, at the expense of aesthetics - and dare I say joy)? What is wrong with allowing one project to transcend these demands if the client allows it? We don't seem to have any issue with allowing lesser, joyless projects imposing their ill effects (be it technical, environmental or sociological). If practicality is the judge of all things, all the time a good chunk of the architectural heritage we treasure won't be built, because they aren't particularly practical, then and now.

Let Gehry worry about ideas and practicality - that's his job as an architect.

AoD

AoD has said it best, "do we always have to default to practicality"? When New York was building the Empire State Building or the Rockefeller Centre or the Chrysler Building, one could easily argue they were building to excess. But in reality they were building the very nature of New York. It built a city full of people with pride, willing to take chances - these buildings were making a statement to the world. Big, Bold, Brash - "If you can make it in New York, you can make it anywhere".

This project too is designed to make a statement to the world. What would you have it say? “Toronto, - Just enough”? or should the world look at our architecture and say nothing at all?

This project gives a great deal to this city in function, density and facility. It says we are builders, risk takers and people with moxie – just like the CN tower did in its day. Mirvish said he would build another theatre when the demand warrants it. I think we HAVE to build this project or continue to sit at the side of the architectural roadside and watch the world go by. Take a moment to look at the exciting architecture going up around the world. So far, aside from the CN tower and Absolute, we have nothing.

And AoD is also right on when he says “Let Gehry worry about ideas and practicality - that's his job as an architect.”

 

[SP!RE]

This project too is designed to make a statement to the world. What would you have it say? “Toronto, - Just enough”? or should the world look at our architecture and say nothing at all?

There are numerous firms from Toronto that have, time and time again, received recognition outside Canada and in international architectural circles for their work. Often for smaller projects, yes, but please don't pretend we don't have plenty of recognized talent here that have been looked up to for their quality architectural work.

Do you read any architecture and design publications? Or will you only be satisfied when a Toronto building takes up the cover of pop-culture publications? If so, then we are arguing for two very different types of recognition or greatness.

The ROM achieved plenty of attention for Toronto and architecture, but it achieved very little for the city in the end. It was never supported by architecture circles and it's still seen as a disappointment by most architects I've heard speak or have spoken to. Which is saying a lot, because architects have to be *very* careful what they say about architects. (Though I guess the fact that Libeskind isn't based in Ontario makes it safer for them to speak out.) But Toronto Life and the press drooled over it. Is that the point?

 

[diminutive]

For planning issues, my primary concerns are the continued demographic homogenization it will encourage in the neighbourhood, and the over-provision of parking (encouraging vehicular use and traffic). Lower-cost housing is a desperate need in downtown Toronto, and will be even more-so in a few years. And yet again, as I have said earlier, I think this project encourages the precedent set by other condo projects in Toronto. The "point tower" is very overdone and we really need to find ways to explore mid-rise development, especially in areas outside downtown.

Is there any info at this point on what M-G's parking situation will look like? Why are you suggesting there will be an "over-provision" of parking? All the other developers in this area have been trying to get amendments to under-provision parking relative to codes. Why would M-G burden their units with super expensive parking spots?

As for whether the point tower is overdone in Toronto and we need more midrise, that general issue is overdone. Point towers are popular because they are genuinely good designs. I live in a midrise building in Europe now. It's fine, there's nothing wrong with it, but it's hardly some kind of revolutionary built form. If anything they tend to exacerbate some of the worst traits of point towers (e.g. extremely deep units with poor light exposure) without any obvious benefit that a well designed point-podium wouldn't address just as well.

Concerns of homogenization and affordability are misapplied. Those two trends are symptoms of the fact that this area is extremely attractive to young, childless professionals. Unless you make the area somehow unattractive to those people, that trend will continue. Projects like M-G increase the housing stock and reduce pressure elsewhere in the city, leading to overall more affordable housing (see Page 5, condo affordability is relatively flat in TO). You can easily find the counterfactual in cities like San Francisco, which have refused to accommodate new units for fear of spurring gentrification, only to see the steepest affordability crisis in the country as everything else gets bought out.

My concerns relating to "real world concerns" relate to sustainability, as well as issues such as leaks and vapour transmission through building assemblies. Looking at the expansive areas of custom-designed, curvaceous glazing on his models, I feel as though the institutions in the podium of this project are going to have some serious leaks and longevity problems. A lot of Gehry's work has been successful in warmer climates, but I'm a bit worried how successful it would be here in Toronto. Designing a building for the extremes of Toronto is a lot different than designing a building for warmer or more moderate climates.

Though I wouldn't discount that these concerns are possibilities, the basic take away of this is that you don't have any specific proof. At this point it would be impossible considering the design isn't even finalized... And he has done projects in cold climates (e.g. Minneapolis) before with no unusual problems reported.