[salsa]

Actually physically travelling to many of these supposed "world class cities" (ahem... New York, Chicago, Hong Kong) really makes me appreciate living in Toronto. Many of these "world class cities" are great to visit, but not so great for actual living.

Actually, New York (or at least Manhattan) is one of the only places that I envy. Everything is done so much better: architecture, entertainment, parks, sidewalks, public realm, preserving heritage buildings, subway system. There is no contest. In my opinion, Toronto is only better in terms of quality of life, cost of living, urban forest, education, healthcare, safety, and of course Canada as a country is much better than US. However, those things are quite important when it comes to choosing where to live. As you said, Toronto is better for actual living.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Actually, New York (or at least Manhattan) is one of the only places that I envy. Everything is done so much better: architecture, entertainment, parks, sidewalks, public realm, preserving heritage buildings, subway system. There is no contest. In my opinion, Toronto is only better in terms of quality of life, cost of living, urban forest, education, healthcare, safety, and of course Canada as a country is much better than US. However, those things are quite important when it comes to choosing where to live. As you said, Toronto is better for actual living.

So in other words, everything is not done so much better. And the things that aren't done better are kind of a big deal (education, health, safety, quality of life etc....).

Don't get me wrong, public realm and architecture are nice. But they rank more or less dead last on the scale of importance when choosing a city to live in. Personally I think that NYC is a nice place to visit, but you'd have to give me one heck of an offer for me to ever consider living there. There are just too many black marks on NYC and the other large American cities in general.

 

[diminutive]

This conversation is kind of off-track. Haggling over how "world-class" Toronto is just becomes a definitional issue (what are the indicators of 'world class'?) and people's judgements don't really say much beyond their own preferences.

And Toronto's global position, whatever that means, really isn't pertinent to Mirvish-Gehry either way. Again, cities are for people, not buildings. Beyond a very small minimum, things like heritage preservation or architectural quality really don't lead to much. Take the example of Tokyo, which has neither a huge stock of 'heritage' structures nor, proportionately, a huge glut of starchitect designed what-nots.

 

[AlexBozikovic]

Hey all. Here's my piece from The Globe and Mail this weekend about M + G and the planning context.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com//news/toronto/frank-gehry-and-david-mirvishs-tall-order-in-toronto/article15809360/

Fire away..

 

[adma]

if u r sayin that Dubai and other cities cant compete on world stage, for ur kind info....... Dubai hav the 4th best skyline in the world and Hong Kong 1st best skyline in the world and Mumbai is doing better as well but Toronto is not making any progress and is on still phase. during the recent construction boom in Toronto only 20% of the buildings were icons and rest were bullsh.., architecture wise and quality wise. if u say that the quality of buildings in Dubai and other cities is not good, let me tell u something that stop dreaming. u should see the condos in Princess tower, Dubai. it so luxurious that there is no 7 star hotel in Canada that can compete with those condos. at least these cities have some variation in the architecture and façade.
u said visit Toronto, man I did in 2008, I also visited my grandpa in Dubai in 2011, I also visited Hong Kong in 2012, both look better than Toronto and I must say u should visit Hong Kong and Dubai.

IIRC ushahid's already admitted to being a teen and possibly the youngest (or one of them) on UT. So keep that in mind re any naivety.

 

[adma]

1) Yes I am aware local firms designed these buildings but they were world class at the time (the CN Tower is iconic).

How are they any conspicuously more "world class" than what's being built now? Or, come to think of it, why on earth are you uttering the oft-ridiculed term "world class" with a straight face...

2) My understanding is Johnson had a hand on the interiors for the TD Centre - just as he collaborated with Mies on the Seagram building

Compared to Seagram, Johnson's role at TD would have been negligible-to-non-existent; otherwise, one'd be hearing his name bandied about more re the interiors. And because we don't, I wouldn't dwell upon his contribution--if anyone played the primary "Johnson role" here, it was Parkin. (Who was "domestic corporate world class" in much the same way as WZMH.)

3) Stones work hasn't stood the test of time but for his time he was considered one of the best.

Actually, if anything, Ed Stone was even *more* loathed in the 60s/70s than today: and if you want an idea of how, transpose today's glitzy-vulgarity knocks against Trump back 40 or 50 years. (And it's a reason why Ada Louise Huxtable remained a naysayer re the Lollipop Building's merits to the very end.)

4) With the exception of Libeskind's L-Tower none of these architects have made a big impact on our skyline also in the case of Gehry his ROM makeover is far from being his best work (owing to the constraints of having to work around an existing structure).

You mean Gehry's AGO makeover--or Libeskind's ROM makeover? Anyway, if it's all about "big impacts on our skyline" as the plus that matters, or working around preexisting conditions as a minus...yeah, I guess when it comes to architectural judgment, you're the Rob Ford to Ada Louise Huxtable's Kathleen Wynne...

 

[TheTigerMaster]

IIRC ushahid's already admitted to being a teen and possibly the youngest (or one of them) on UT. So keep that in mind re any naivety.

Him and a few others. Personally I think it's wonderful having so many youth taking an active interest in the well being of the city.

 

[argus]

Hey all. Here's my piece from The Globe and Mail this weekend about M + G and the planning context.


Fire away..

It isn't proposed for the "Entertainment District East Precinct," but for the east precinct of King-Spadina - for which there are now three sub precincts: east, west and the Spadina corridor.

 

[ushahid]

Him and a few others. Personally I think it's wonderful having so many youth taking an active interest in the well being of the city.

that's what other people don't understand.

 

[ushahid]

every city has a beautiful part and an ugly part im talking about the beautiful part. I was born in Sharjah- approx 29 km away from Dubai. then moved to Pakistan and two years ago moved to Canada I love Canada its so damn beautiful and people are so nice, I just want Toronto to look like other cities like Dubai, Singapore or Hong Kong.
salsa what about this.(Toronto)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:St_James_Town1.jpg
http://www.google.ca/imgres?start=1...&page=9&tbnh=194&tbnw=230&ndsp=23&tx=54&ty=79
http://www.google.ca/imgres?biw=136...bnh=201&tbnw=251&start=0&ndsp=15&tx=168&ty=88
http://www.google.ca/imgres?biw=136...nh=178&tbnw=264&start=54&ndsp=20&tx=18&ty=109

 

[Peepers]

Hey all. Here's my piece from The Globe and Mail this weekend about M + G and the planning context.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com//news/toronto/frank-gehry-and-david-mirvishs-tall-order-in-toronto/article15809360/

Fire away..

I am curious what you mean by "generous" in the second last paragraph:

I hope they have continued to progress, and that we’ll see them built in a form that’s more generous to the city.

If these buildings are built as currently conceived - Mirvish and Gehry will have bestowed the greatest architectural gift ever on the city of Toronto. I don't know how they could be more "generous".

I also don't believe that this is an "opening bid" by Mirvish - or at least I sure hope it isn't. I hope Mirvish is serious about building these towers at the scale already proposed. I hope that Mirvish is uncompromising with the city and makes it clear in no uncertain terms that if he does not get approval he will sell the land to other developers so that they can put up series of monotonous 40 story boxes that are pleasing to Ms Keesmaat.

I don't know how the chief planner can make the claim that the area has a lack of public spaces when directly across the street from this project is a huge public square that is usually deserted (even during Tiff!). Obviously she is unfit for the job and if it was up to me I would fire her (she seems to be as bad as Bedford who was useless).

Maybe the public opposition being voiced by Keesmaat and Vaughan are just part of a negotiating strategy that they think will help them to extort more section 37 money out of the developer? If that is their plan they risk killing the goose that is about to lay the golden eggs and they should not be allowed to put such an important project like this in jeopardy.

 

[Canadian Chocho]

And here I thought thinking I was escaping the RoFo thread...

 

[salsa]

every city has a beautiful part and an ugly part im talking about the beautiful part. I was born in Sharjah- approx 29 km away from Dubai. then moved to Pakistan and two years ago moved to Canada I love Canada its so damn beautiful and people are so nice, I just want Toronto to look like other cities like Dubai, Singapore or Hong Kong.
salsa what about this.(Toronto)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:St_James_Town1.jpg
http://www.google.ca/imgres?start=1...&page=9&tbnh=194&tbnw=230&ndsp=23&tx=54&ty=79
http://www.google.ca/imgres?biw=136...bnh=201&tbnw=251&start=0&ndsp=15&tx=168&ty=88
http://www.google.ca/imgres?biw=136...nh=178&tbnw=264&start=54&ndsp=20&tx=18&ty=109

Yes Toronto has a few slabs as well. But you were saying that Toronto is not a world class city because we don't build as many towers as those 3rd world cities. My point is that you shouldn't judge a city based on it's skyline because it doesn't mean that it's great to live there. Of course those cities have some nice buildings too, but Toronto is a different kind of city and we shouldn't necessarily copy what Dubai does.

 

[salsa]

So in other words, everything is not done so much better. And the things that aren't done better are kind of a big deal (education, health, safety, quality of life etc....).

Don't get me wrong, public realm and architecture are nice. But they rank more or less dead last on the scale of importance when choosing a city to live in. Personally I think that NYC is a nice place to visit, but you'd have to give me one heck of an offer for me to ever consider living there. There are just too many black marks on NYC and the other large American cities in general.

I guess I contradicted myself. I'd say that Toronto is better at less obvious or tangible aspects such as quality of life. But as a tourist, I'm thoroughly impressed with Manhattan in terms of the physical urban environment (architecture, public realm, etc...), which is what I meant when I said "everything is done so much better". Whenever I come home after spending a few days there, I really see an overwhelming difference that sometimes I forget to appreciate that Toronto is a more liveable city, even if we're not number one for biggest, tallest, greatest, or good looks. We can't have it both ways unfortunately.

 

[Peepers]

I just noticed this interesting graphic accompanying the Globe & Mail story. It makes clear that the area that these towers are proposed in is hardly low-rise with most buildings in the 40 story range! At street level there is little difference between a 40 story and an 80 story tower. From a skyline viewpoint however Toronto by Gehry will provide needed punctuation! Imagine how boring the skyline would be if every building was the same height!