buildup
Senior Member
No, this is about whining on and on about how vital these banal warehouses are and how they need to be retained at all cost. And for good measure, false arguments about density.
- Thread starter golodhendil
- Start date
No, this is about whining on and on about how vital these banal warehouses are and how they need to be retained at all cost. And for good measure, false arguments about density.
E.B.
Active Member
Seriously speaking, what if m/g did comprimised and offered to preserve the east building but not the others. Would that be enough?
buildup
Senior Member
That is funny - Facadism is so theatrical anyway.
argus
Active Member
You think too much.
First of all, the secondary plan for King-Spadina presently does not allow for 80 floor buildings. That issue was no where near being resolved when the applicant decided to move for an OMB hearing. That action checks the applicant out of working with the community and the cit (so much for "city building" effort). If you ever spoke with with Mirvish, he will wax on about these buildings and what they will do for the city, but you don't get a strong impression that he has much interest in the local community (meaning the people who live there included). Some of us get a little tired at being treated like road cones by developers.
Second, as the buildings are out of proportion to the existing building guidelines for the area, so it should not be assumed that planners are instantly ready to toss everything aside to satisfy the applicants desires for a type of trophy or memorial building to Frank Gehry. A number of other developers have worked with city planning in developing a planning regime that has added significant density to the area. The M-G proposal would blow that effort away. There is also the issue of what will come next should the OMB allow these buildings to go forward. Such a decision pretty much puts the developer in full control as they do not have to answer to anyone. You don't leave a lone developer in charge of building a city.
Third, regardless of how much you hate the existing warehouse buildings because they stand in the way of the tall buildings you want, there is still a legitimate heritage argument being made for them. Merely sneering at that argument does not render it as discredited.
Fourth, if you assume that these three structures mean that style has finally arrived in Toronto, then I suggest you don't know your city very well. Making such a statement on the basis of renderings is a pretty sorry route for arriving at this judgement.
As for issues about density, there were 1,700 residents in the King-Spadina area in 2001. There are 8,000 living there today. There are 16,000 residential units built, under construction or under review in that area. The potential population would be around 24,000 if these are all built. Add to that, there are more on the horizon. That's hardly a failure for achieving "density."
Add to that, unlike a rapidly developing neighbourhood like City Place, King-Spadina has a significant employment component. There were 24,000 jobs located in that area in 2001. Today, that number is over 35,000. The potential is for over 50,000. There is significant commercial development effort under way in the area as well.
To be blunt, questioning one extreme development (M-G) is hardly diminishing the ever increasing population and employment density in King-Spadina. Toronto needs a lot of things, but when to comes to development issues, it needs reasonable and sensitive judgement.
Hipster Duck
Senior Member
+1. Best line in the thread.
Cities are made of people and the biggest crime a city can do is stamp out the vibrancy and life spontaneously generated by its citizens.
Interestingly, you can stamp out life both by being overzealously enamoured with the latest, newest starchitecture or by preserving absolutely everything and shunning any incursion of modernity whatsoever. Think Dubai on the one hand, and Venice on the other.
adma
Superstar
At any rate, maybe the more telling "current" metaphor for what's presently afoot isn't Penn Station, but what lies across the street (and until very recently, it looked like "not for much longer").
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hotel_Pennsylvania
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hotel_Pennsylvania
rdaner
Senior Member
There is a wall of an historic hotel preserved behind glass at the Sony Centre at Potsdammerplatz in Berlin. I will post a photo that I took a few years ago later but this discussion reminded me of all of possible solutions that exist in the much more interesting spectrum between the current black or white stances that are now dominant. In addition, I can't help thinking that this provides a great opportunity for the AGO or MOCCA to have additional space on a highly visible street.
freshcutgrass
Senior Member
But 40-65 story buildings are ok?
I don't understand the added floor argument. People are leaning too much on the notion that 80 floors sounds scary.
I also see it more as a block west of the Financial District (with really tall buildings) as opposed to "King-Spadina".
That tactic won't work in this case I'm afraid. Because of the players, "bait & switch" is not a likely scenario.
Praxus
New Member
Had to register just to comment on this... who cares about those boring warehouses... just because something it's old doesn't mean its heritage. Heritage warehouses, give me a break. Good thing there's still no more outdoor toilets around the city, I'm sure they'd be getting a heritage designation too.
Not totally sold on the design for this project; but Toronto should embrace edgy architecture.
Not totally sold on the design for this project; but Toronto should embrace edgy architecture.
argus
Active Member
No, not 65 floors either. The east precinct of King-Spadina has a specific set of tall building guidelines. And it's not about something being "scary." I think you employ the word as a means to shaming people, and it really contributes nothing to the debate. There is more to planing (and by extension, more to city-building than just the height of a tower).
The King-Spadina secondary plan area isn't in the Financial District. There is different zoning in effect.
The tower model is not the final rendering. You are not seeing what will actually be built - unless you you can share unassailable information otherwise.
freshcutgrass
Senior Member
No, I employed the word because you characterized the project in a negative light by saying nothing else other than it was 80 stories. If anybody is creating "bogey men", it's you.
From a contextual point of view, this is more an extension of the Financial District, than it is the King-Spadina district (it's spreading west a couple of blocks, as it is extending south). Not that it matters that much, as tall towers are, and should be, a part of the King-Spadina district.
You do your argument a disservice by purposely mischaracterizing the players involved, by saying Mirvish has no local interest (what??????) and is just another greedy lying developer. And we don't need to see the final design drawings to know that it's going to be a "Gehry". These people don't have stirling reputations for nothing.
buildup
Senior Member
the secondary plan for King-Spadina presently does not allow for 80 floor buildings. That issue was no where near being resolved when the applicant decided to move for an OMB hearing. If you ever spoke with with Mirvish, he will wax on about these buildings and what they will do for the city, but you don't get a strong impression that he has much interest in the local community (meaning the people who live there included). Some of us get a little tired at being treated like road cones by developers.
The "no where near" comment is telling and undoubtably accurate. Just because you claim to live in the University/King area also doesn't mean you a natural veto on everything. As an aside, who has contributed more for the community in question than Mirvish? You perhaps?
Second, as the buildings are out of proportion to the existing building guidelines for the area, so it should not be assumed that planners are instantly ready to toss everything aside to satisfy the applicants desires for a type of trophy or memorial building to Frank Gehry. A number of other developers have worked with city planning in developing a planning regime that has added significant density to the area. The M-G proposal would blow that effort away. There is also the issue of what will come next should the OMB allow these buildings to go forward. Such a decision pretty much puts the developer in full control as they do not have to answer to anyone. You don't leave a lone developer in charge of building a city.
So working with Counsellor Vaughn for a year counts as running roughshod? Everything there was outside the guildline when built including Metro Hall, Lighthouse, Lamb.
Third, regardless of how much you hate the existing warehouse buildings because they stand in the way of the tall buildings you want, there is still a legitimate heritage argument being made for them. Merely sneering at that argument does not render it as discredited.
I don't hate them.
As for issues about density, there were 1,700 residents in the King-Spadina area in 2001. There are 8,000 living there today. There are 16,000 residential units built, under construction or under review in that area. The potential population would be around 24,000 if these are all built. Add to that, there are more on the horizon. That's hardly a failure for achieving "density."
Add to that, unlike a rapidly developing neighbourhood like City Place, King-Spadina has a significant employment component. There were 24,000 jobs located in that area in 2001. Today, that number is over 35,000. The potential is for over 50,000. There is significant commercial development effort under way in the area as well.
Good news! Its others who have argued about density. I'm in favour of it.
The "no where near" comment is telling and undoubtably accurate. Just because you claim to live in the University/King area also doesn't mean you a natural veto on everything. As an aside, who has contributed more for the community in question than Mirvish? You perhaps?
Second, as the buildings are out of proportion to the existing building guidelines for the area, so it should not be assumed that planners are instantly ready to toss everything aside to satisfy the applicants desires for a type of trophy or memorial building to Frank Gehry. A number of other developers have worked with city planning in developing a planning regime that has added significant density to the area. The M-G proposal would blow that effort away. There is also the issue of what will come next should the OMB allow these buildings to go forward. Such a decision pretty much puts the developer in full control as they do not have to answer to anyone. You don't leave a lone developer in charge of building a city.
So working with Counsellor Vaughn for a year counts as running roughshod? Everything there was outside the guildline when built including Metro Hall, Lighthouse, Lamb.
Third, regardless of how much you hate the existing warehouse buildings because they stand in the way of the tall buildings you want, there is still a legitimate heritage argument being made for them. Merely sneering at that argument does not render it as discredited.
I don't hate them.
As for issues about density, there were 1,700 residents in the King-Spadina area in 2001. There are 8,000 living there today. There are 16,000 residential units built, under construction or under review in that area. The potential population would be around 24,000 if these are all built. Add to that, there are more on the horizon. That's hardly a failure for achieving "density."
Add to that, unlike a rapidly developing neighbourhood like City Place, King-Spadina has a significant employment component. There were 24,000 jobs located in that area in 2001. Today, that number is over 35,000. The potential is for over 50,000. There is significant commercial development effort under way in the area as well.
Good news! Its others who have argued about density. I'm in favour of it.
Last edited:
argus
Active Member
Sure my response is accurate. I spokes to Mirvish at one of the public meetings. Local planning is not his problem according to him. It's other people's problem. And when things didn't go his way, he moved on to the OMB. He didn't care about the secondary plan (which, you should know, is a city planning document). He is building his personal landmark and he's not terribly interested in listening to anyone else's concerns.
As for councillor Vaughan, he worked long and hard with Mirvish - just as he worked with members of the community. The fact is, this proposal offers no middle ground. Had Mirvish come forward with something in the range of 50 or even 60 floors, there would be a strong chance that he could have proceeded relatively easily - even if there was opposition. The OMB rules on envelope, and citing precedent is the simplistic route that many OMB decisions get founded upon.
And to comment on your silly point about presuming a veto, I'm not claiming to have a veto. I never said anything like that. The fact that you phrase your response in such a way indicates no sense of proportion. Do you want to have some sort exchange, or engage in petulance? Maybe you should first question your assumption that your automatic like for any and all tall buildings, and your subjective opinion about what constitutes style, are not universal grounds for proceeding with a project.
Regarding the existing warehouses, it sure reads like you hate them.
johnwood
Active Member
no wonder Will Ferrel hates Canada and thinks its boring and would rather die than live in Canada, because we have so many numbnuts who just want to make Toronto boring and ugly, for example killing the casino and now these beautiful towers. Toronto needs to let things happen especially if it involves beautiful buildings like these. we have enough ugly towers, time for some nice ones.
freshcutgrass
Senior Member
That's because he's already heard them...and from probably far more important persons than yourself. You make it sound like someone who's investing their money and using their land somehow doesn't have an important perspective on the issue?! ha ha