^ I'm all for M-G, but you should speak for yourself with that comment. Will Ferrel is not exactly the most sophisticated person on the planet; he's a comedian. Also, There were many legitimate reasons to be concerned about re the casino, and Toronto isn't the only city to have turned one down! At least city hall here isn't as egotistic as certain other places, where they go as far as controlling your drink size!
 
argus said:
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.
Click to expand...

You must differentiate between listening to concerns and agreeing with concerns. I assume Mirvish didn't agree with your particular concerns, especially after listening to them. Much great architecture were conceived as Landmarks to a person, corporation, or politician. Outcomes tend to be better when someone has tied themselves to it. The fact he could have succeeded relatively easily at 50 - 60 floors is not a reason for compromising. This Landmark will belong to all Torontonians, though inspired by one.

I don't need to hate warehouses to be willing to do this trade. I am amused at the ardent love others suddenly feel.

Why do you assume I love all tall buildings, where do you get that notion?. IMO the biggest eye sore in the city are ROCP & Aura. With Deco College Park and the parkette we could have had a mid-town masterpiece (like we're being offered now...)
 
Last edited:
johnwood said:
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.
Click to expand...
Seriously? Will Ferrel is a funny guy but I lose zero sleep over his opinion of Canada or this city in particular. And I'm OK with the casino not making it in this time around. You just know another administration will launch another attempt sometime down the road.

I just don't believe holding those opinions makes me a neanderthal or a supporter of "boring and ugly" Toronto. For the record, I want to see this project move forward, and at the proposed heights.
 
Well, here's an idea. If you want your project to go through, don't break every single rule in the planning guidelines for the spot where you are building. As things stand this thing doesn't even have a chance at the OMB.
 
Welcome aboard Praxus. Come and join the good fight against the dark forces that have landed on our shores, trying to stop all things Gehry, for they have met a foe that is too great for them to ignore.

Just kidding, or am I?

Btw, I find it interesting that those in the keep-heritage camp are not willing to respond to this question.

What if m/g comprimised and offered to preserve the east building but not the others. Would that be enough or is it all or nothing?
 
Last edited:
RC8 said:
Well, here's an idea. If you want your project to go through, don't break every single rule in the planning guidelines for the spot where you are building. As things stand this thing doesn't even have a chance at the OMB.
Click to expand...

So lets see...

-Keep the buildings as boxy and bland as possible
-No floor plates larger than 750 meters
-No heigher than 47-storeys, maybe less if it casts a shadow
-Incorporate the facades of the heritage buildings into the new buildings
-Provide plenty of parking at the ratios prescribed in the zoning bylaws

No thanks.

I respect the opinions of those who are against these towers because it will result in the destruction of the heritage buildings. The demolition of these structures would be a net loss to the city, but I believe this development, as currently proposed, represents a fair trade off.

It's in city council's hands now and I urge Urban Toronto to share your comments, pro or con, with your city councilor about this development. I believe it was Peepers that provided excellent instructions as to how awhile back.
 
Last edited:
fedplanner said:
So lets see...

-Keep the buildings as boxy and bland as possible
-No floor plates larger than 750 meters
-No heigher than 47-storeys, maybe less if it casts a shadow
-Incorporate the facades of the heritage buildings into the new buildings
-Provide plenty of parking at the ratios prescribed in the zoning bylaws

No thanks.

I respect the opinions of those who are against these towers because it will result in the destruction of the heritage buildings. The demolition of these structures would be a net loss to the city, but I believe this development, as currently proposed, represents a fair trade off.

It's in city council's hands now and I urge Urban Toronto to share your comments, pro or con, with your city councilor about this development. I believe it was Peepers that provided excellent instructions as to how awhile back.
Click to expand...

I think they should get the green light because if Mirvish and Gehry wont get a green light and wont build this thing. no one will ever pay attention to the heritage and the heritage are going to collapse.
 
E.B. said:
Welcome aboard Praxus. Come and join the good fight against the dark forces that have landed on our shores, trying to stop all things Gehry, for they have met a foe that is too great for them to ignore.

Just kidding, or am I?

Btw, I find it interesting that those in the keep-heritage camp are not willing to respond to this question.

What if m/g comprimised and offered to preserve the east building but not the others. Would that be enough or is it all or nothing?
Click to expand...

To be honest, E.B. (aside from the fact that the east building is the least "distinctive" of the lot; so, if push came to shove, heritage types might consider that *most* expendable, unless the prospect of the Royal Alex being bookended/overwhelmed is a factor), the reason for "not willing to respond to the question" is because you're not worth responding to, especially if the "welcome aboard" is directed at somebody who makes statements like this

Praxus said:
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.
Click to expand...

And if you want to know *why* the "keep-heritage camp" obsesses so much, it's not because of the raw Mirvish/Gehry proposal in and of itself, but because of the way it's awakened that kind of Sunday-painter-urbanist stop-the-heritage-gravy-train ignorance. I mean, not just *these* warehouses; but implicitly, *all* warehouses? "Heritage warehouses, give me a break"?!?

Hey, Praxus: Zap. You're frozen. With that in mind, anyone who utters "Heritage warehouses, give me a break" is truly the stoopidest supposedly-urban-minded individual relative to Toronto.

And anyone who defends/embraces/welcome-aboards that kind of individual is showing some pretty wonky judgment as well.

Though conversely, I find it interesting that nobody's been willing to respond to *this* post of mine

adma said:
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
Click to expand...

...even though the backstory there offers a *lot* of points and subtleties to ponder re these discussions about history, heritage, heritage worth, etc, etc, etc.--and "points and subtleties" far richer than if one were to simply concentrate on a prima donna potboiler like Old Penn Station. (Though it's probably safe to say that the E.B.'s and Praxuses of the world wouldn't, even on a Wiki-style "scaleable knowledge" level, give a whoozis about the Hotel Pennsylvania were they to visit NYC--much less whether it's "heritage" or not.)
 
E.B. said:
^adma, I'm laughing and thinking you need to take a valium and a vacation.
Click to expand...

Yeah, to New York. With you. Where I'd force-feed you the full existing urban environment (Hotel Pennsylvania and all) until you vomit.
 
As someone who use to live (5 years ago) at University and King I too would like to keep the buildings. I do agree with some people on here that this is downtown so there should be no limit to height. I totally agree with that. However there are already buildings here and ones that could should be historic. I have no problem with the Mirvish project itself but I just have a hard time destroying these buildings. If there was a parking lot that this was proposed on then it would be a emphatic yes. Now we have all heard the argument well Mirvish doesnt own a parking lot and this is what he owns so what is he suppose to do? How about sell these buildings and buy a parking lot! Wouldnt that make sense. The city must have a Green P parking lot downtown that they could trade with Mirvish which would allow him complete freedom. By the way Mirvish just sold that block of land on Bathurst which at least to me contained no historical buildings and could have seen a bull dozer. The problem with not respecting these rules even when we would like the alternative is that we lose things like the Sam the Record Man Sign, or how when the city rejected the Majestic Electronics building behind dundas square being torn down for condos, the owner just turned to arson. Toronto doesnt have very many historic or older buildings, the few of them, even if they dont seem very significant, should be respected.
 
Adma, I saw your posting on the hotel across from Penn Station and I meant to respond that I very strongly agree with you! It's not a spectacular example from the Guilded Age, but it is an important structure. Those buildings make up the fabric, it's where ordinary businesmen stayed. Reminds me vaguely of the Park Plaza at Bloor & Avenue. When properties like this get picked off one by one, everything is lost.

My point has been that I get neither any intact fabric feeling with the King/John warehouses, nor do i see them as individually interesting.

But your next comment confirmed my sense that the "keep-the-heritage" camp has fixated on this project instead of others. Because its high profile and symbolic.
I love the M/G proposal. But I would NOT trade it for the decrepid 2-story Victorians on Yonge Street which we MUST get around to restoring through tax incentives.

And if you want to know *why* the "keep-heritage camp" obsesses so much, it's not because of the raw Mirvish/Gehry proposal in and of itself, but because of the way it's awakened that kind of Sunday-painter-urbanist stop-the-heritage-gravy-train ignorance. I mean, not just *these* warehouses; but implicitly, *all* warehouses? "Heritage warehouses, give me a break"?!?

No-one here would support this M/G on King West of Spadina!
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top