freshcutgrass said:
Hmmm...I must say this is my favourite idea. It covers the preservation angle as well as the clean slate angle. While I think the buildings would do just as well as landfill, if a compromise has to be made, this is the one I would prefer.
Click to expand...

It would be expensive, but a great idea. Save the most important elements of the buildings (i.e. the entrance archways, terracotta tiles). Recycle the brick (old brick, depending on its condition is quite beautiful) and store the elements until they can be resurrected in due time. It's what they did in Edmonton and it's much better than just demolishing and forgetting.
 
Hume's take from the article I posted earlier:

Listening to city planner Gregg Lintern trying to outline his department’s objections to the David Mirvish/Frank Gehry project on King St., one almost felt sorry for him.

Speaking at a meeting of the Toronto/East York Community Council on Tuesday morning, Lintern was unable to say anything more than the triple-towered scheme was “too dense.†Asked what exactly that meant, he couldn’t explain... But perhaps what most frightens our planners is the thought that something could break their patently ridiculous rules and still be better than the crud that doesn’t.

Think small, think small, one can hear them whispering to one another. Make only little plans; they have no magic to stir men’s blood.
 
What scares me isn't this project breaking rules - what scares me is this project setting rules for basically the entire King West precinct - and rest assured, if it happens, they won't be proposing towers by Gehry.

AoD
 
I was referencing your comment about the demolition and possible cheapening once approval is received. I believe this is an area Vaughan will be cognizant of when negotiating a settlement. I share your fear that this development may encourage more heritage buildings to face development pressure from less than stellar architects like G+C. However, fear that bad development may happen should not deter the creating of a high quality development. At some point, I would like to see urban design and community benefits play a bigger role in zoning and the planning process, but I admit this is something ridiculously hard to codify.
 
This is the second time Urban Toronto members wrote to community council en masse to comment on a proposed decelopment. The first was to speak out against the planning department's refusal of Massey Tower. I'm telling ya, you folks have a great thing going...

Keep it up for developments that you are passionate about and will contribute positively to the city.
 
fedplanner:

However, fear that bad development may happen should not deter the creating of a high quality development. At some point, I would like to see urban design and community benefits play a bigger role in zoning and the planning process, but I admit this is something ridiculously hard to codify.
Click to expand...

I agree, I fully supported this project knowing that it may enable the worst case scenario as well. Sometimes we do need to take a bit of risk to go beyond the mere competent. I am confident of Vaughan's ability to ironclad an agreement regarding this particular project, but it will be interesting to see how this project will affect development of the district.

Well, technically you can have a stronger DRP with authority to veto projects - but that of course comes with pluses and minuses of its' own.

AoD
 
Last edited:
AlvinofDiaspar said:
but it will be interesting to see how this project will affect development of the district.
Click to expand...

I don't think it will effect much on height increases (157M) west of here, but I do think you will see some similar heights to Mirvish south of here, with Oxford Place and the future C.F. office tower development.
 
AG:

I take those for granted (height/density, particularly in the context of commercial development doesn't bother me at all)- my main concern is the area northwards - are we aiming for a QRC kind of approach to densification or something less "delicate".

AoD
 
fedplanner said:
This is the second time Urban Toronto members wrote to community council en masse to comment on a proposed decelopment. The first was to speak out against the planning department's refusal of Massey Tower. I'm telling ya, you folks have a great thing going...

Keep it up for developments that you are passionate about and will contribute positively to the city.
Click to expand...

I seem to recall a third time, with the proposal for a tower adjacent to the ROM? Or maybe that wasn't a UT initiative specifically?
 
What side are the restaurant owners along King West taking in the Gehry showdown? Are they taking a side much like their opposition to the Casino?
 
At community council, at that moment, Frank Gehry said he could think of only two buildings in Toronto that must be preserved — Old City Hall and Osgoode Hall. What he was saying was that the four buildings on King Street are not of the same heritage value as some of the great buildings in the city. As the adage goes, if everything is important then nothing is important.

I understand Frank’s point.

As a very talented architect, he recognizes that some structures are of such value to a community that their demolition would be unthinkable. I would, of course, add the Royal Alexandra Theatre, and beyond that I know of many such buildings that constitute the heart and soul of the city.

But there is also the need to understand that the city is a place of growth and renewal.

When the TD Centre was constructed in the 1960s the bank had to consider the demolition of its much-admired head office building. Because TD took that decision, Toronto now has possibly the finest grouping of Mies van der Rohe buildings in the world.
Click to expand...

From the NP article above
 
Brutal.

From National Post:

david-mirvish-before-after.jpg
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top