My gut says it's too expensive/high profile a commission for that strategy exactly, but I do get the sense that there is more to this lot as well.
 
thecharioteer said:
I find it hard to get excited by all this.

Let's remember the process on the Westinghouse site and that the following facts for that site also applies to this:

1. David Mirvish is not a developer; neither he nor his associate Peter Kofman have the expertise (nor financial capability) to develop, market and construct a project of this scale;
2. He sold the Westinghouse site for these very reasons (having little appetite to joint-venture with another developer following the Stinson fiasco);
3. On the Westinghouse site, he hired a high-profile architect (KPMB) and promised some cultural benefits (a Theatre Museum) in order to achieve his rezoning and deal with heritage issues;
4. Upon completion of the rezoning of the Westinghouse site, he sold it at an extraordinarily high price, to a developer (who then replaced KPMB with Page and Steele).

I believe that this is purely a real-estate play to maximize the value of the land and then sell it. Someone will have to pay for the museums, galleries and extras and the cost of these will be factored into the land price. On top of that, assuming that any zoning achieved on the site will be tied to using Frank Gehry, the "Gehry-factor" will have to be considered as well (a bait-and-switch like on the Westinghouse site will be unlikely).

In the end, the whole concept is premised upon a thriving condo market and the confidence of a third-party developer in building 2,600 units in this location, in incredibly expensive towers, and in paying the land price needed to cover the costs mentioned above.
Click to expand...


That's a ridiculous notion, Frank Ghery would never be part of such a public fiasco, and David Mervish would never Put Frank Ghery's or his own reputation in such a precarious situation.
 
The names Ghery and Mervish are exactly ones that I would expect to be part of a public fiasco.

Gehry and Mirvish, not so much.
 
Grange Park and these Mirvish condos could be the beginning of a surge in Gehry's work in his home town. When announcing the AGO remake, he had lamented that he had't built anything in Toronto and after the AGO was complete, he sounded bitter in an interview that developers and the City didn't have the vision for his kind of work. It sounds like he knows he's nearing the end of his life -- or at least that of his career -- and wants to leave a legacy in the place where he grew up.

A Gehry designed Grange Park will be fantastic! Imagine a fish scales inspired wading pool. How about a garden trimmed in wacky Gehryesque shapes? Gehry designed park benches? Perhaps we'll see his work reshape David Pecaut Square and/or a proper Canada's Walk of Fame as part of this project's Section 37 community enhancement in exchange for density.

We may be on the verge of finally taking back Frank Gehry as our own.
 
Last edited:
AlvinofDiaspar said:
I don't see why the city should dictate whether there is a theatre in the complex - that's David Mirvish's line of business, and if he has a need for it I am sure it will be in his own interest to build a new one. No need to saddle on a requirement that might sink this project. Besides, it isn't like the city exactly doing that great job with all the theatre space it has. Frankly, the increased use of Ed Mirvish and Elgin/Wintergarden as a result of this move might prove to be beneficial to revitalizing Yonge.

AoD
Click to expand...

Exactly. David Mirvish knows more about the economics of owning a theatre that size than all the people who want to save it. It was built for Miss Saigon and was also home to The Lion King. And was built following an era of Cats, Phantom, Les Miz. But that era of mega musicals is over. The shows these days cannot fill a 2,000 seat theatre for extended runs. If the theatre was so necessary, I'm sure Mirvish would have saved it or had a replacement theatre as part of the plan. Mirvish survived the rise and fall of Garth Drabinsky's (crooked) Livent, and watched Aubry Dan's Dancap come and go. There's a reason why he is still here: because he knows the economics of the theatre business.
 
canmark:

The cynical side of me should say that it could be a way to squeeze out potential, Dancap-like competitors by locking up available theatre spaces. That said, it'd probably improve the bottom line of the large theatres that are left.

I do think the public should hold the proponents to account and resist a potential Atlantic Yards scenario.

AoD
 
Last edited:
I hope today's press conference reveals is who is paying for what in terms of the community benefits being offered here in return for these heights that could have significant ripple effects on land values and speculation in King Spadina. For example, is Mirvish offering the land and the initial construction value of the OCAD museum, seminar spaces and public hall for lectures ie. no public money invested. Is OCAD now just a tenant in the future with these spaces? Is all the Section 37 money staying within the project and if so, what is the value of it? That sort of stuff as we need lots of transparency on this one. This may be a political hot potato for Councillor Vaughan in terms of planning. Mirvish could easily sell these lands once he has negotiated the density and Gehry could walk away from the project anytime. We all need to be realistic about what shiny things they are showing to us today.
 
There is considerable cynicism about this proposal, generally centered around the fact that Mirvish appears too late into the condo market to make this whole thing fly. Paraphrasing what I've read in the papers, and in comments today, maybe Mirvish is not such a brainiac, but heck, discussions have been going on for a year, he's quite serious. Speaking for myself, I am pretty torn about losing the theatre, not that is is architecturally significant, but rather, it is the only one downtown possessing super sightlines combined with all the modern conveniences ( and it can fit a helicopter in its flytower ... remember that? ). Regarding the brick structures on the site now, well, frankly, I don't care about them in this instance, while in other instances I would care. Here is a chance to make a 21st century statement.

Now, having said all that, I feel strongly that this whole effort is, in part, a really loud scream from Mirvish and Gehry concerning our state of architecture. Mirvish has spoken on prior occasions about it. Not much of the new stuff says "Toronto" ... this time I am paraphrasing what the pair has publicly stated over the weekend. And BTW -- only a few have commented on how incredible this would all look when viewed from the back of Gehry's AGO.

As a Torontonian, if it were up to me (given the market) I'd sacrifice the plebian 10 York and 90 Harbour projects, and I would also sacrifice 50 Bloor for good measure, in order to see this built. Gehry offers architecture that makes a statement, and we could really stand some "look at me" stuff rather than stuff that just sort of blends. The northern boundary of Pecaut Square is the perfect place, opposite the upside-down glass cupcake that is Roy Thomson Hall. Add a Pecaut Square remake and voila, we've got ourselves a spectacular and famous new destination point in downtown Toronto. I think the loss of two brick buildings on King is okay, given all that we'd get, and I haven't even mentioned the modern art museums anchoring the whole complex.

In summary I regard this as a really significant corner-turner for Toronto and I want it to succeed, on the strength of Gehry's AGO remake. Gehry really framed this city beautifully in his views from the remade Art Gallery of Ontario; many of the posters here have missed that part entirely. Gehry's really brilliant. I hope he gets the chance to do more in Toronto, his home town. Sure, it's more condos, and there is not much of a down side to that, traffic aside. The cynics in this instance haven't thought things out very well.

Two real "worries"
1) Transit.
2) Losing that really great theatre. But I'm not the impresario here.

I'm looking forward to the press conference.
 
Last edited:
oh just do it. build the things. get it over with. its only a matter of time anyways. all buildings have an end. they are just buildings after all not people. there are still plenty of really nice and elegant theaters still in toronto. with far more historical value then this one. theaters are easy to replace elsewhere. maybe instead of other projects as said by tonyv maybe in those places a new theater could be built. it doesnt really matter where they are built after all if people really want something bad enough they will go for it.
 
Last edited:
Hope Mirvish has the class to send a consolatory basket of ice cream and other comfort food to the tear stained wretches at Toronto Water and Toronto Hydro's capacity planning teams. When you see plan-busting proposals of this sort you really wonder how the hell utility planners - be they telecom, water, sewer, power etc. - are supposed to do their jobs properly. It's unfair to single out this development I know, but there are consequences to this unbridled growth - look at how promises were broken to the TRHA in respect of the Roundhouse because Hydro couldn't fit enough capacity below floor level which they originally thought would be sufficient.
 
dowlingm said:
Hope Mirvish has the class to send a consolatory basket of ice cream and other comfort food to the tear stained wretches at Toronto Water and Toronto Hydro's capacity planning teams. When you see plan-busting proposals of this sort you really wonder how the hell utility planners - be they telecom, water, sewer, power etc. - are supposed to do their jobs properly. It's unfair to single out this development I know, but there are consequences to this unbridled growth - look at how promises were broken to the TRHA in respect of the Roundhouse because Hydro couldn't fit enough capacity below floor level which they originally thought would be sufficient.
Click to expand...

Well, well, that was well said. It's a whole-nuther topic, a topic that never gets a fair hearing.
 
TonyV said:
There is considerable cynicism about this proposal, generally centered around the fact that Mirvish appears too late into the condo market to make this whole thing fly. Paraphrasing what I've read in the papers, and in comments today, maybe Mirvish is not such a brainiac, but heck, discussions have been going on for a year, he's quite serious. Speaking for myself, I am pretty torn about losing the theatre, not that is is architecturally significant, but rather, it is the only one downtown possessing super sightlines combined with all the modern conveniences ( and it can fit a helicopter in its flytower ... remember that? ).
Click to expand...
I found this piece on theatre capacity in Toronto thought provoking. Have only been to the PoW once and wouldn't consider myself knowledgeable on theatre generally so am being educated somewhat by this development.
 
From what I have taken from that piece - it isn't so much so an argument against tearing down PoW but for building additional, non-Mirvish controlled medium-sized theatres, which presumably couldn't be an outcome of this redevelopment project given the players involved.

AoD
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top