Big Daddy
Senior Member
500 year old warehouses require so much maintenance and repair the old Italian towns can't afford to do anything else.
- Thread starter golodhendil
- Start date
500 year old warehouses require so much maintenance and repair the old Italian towns can't afford to do anything else.
Big Daddy
Senior Member
Revised new idea - two towers 110 and 115 stores - the college and the museum are built into the base of the two towers - deed the old warehouse to the city with the proviso that it be maintained as a warehouse - let them handle the ongoing upkeep and maintenance - see how quickly they want the old proposal back.
freshcutgrass
Senior Member
That's pretty much what I said. But what's important, is that designating a building does not serve the sole purpose of protecting that building from ever being demolished...full stop. It's simply a stop gap, much the same as applying for densities over and above the "as-of-right" amount. It means reviewing it on a case-by-case basis. The city could simply grant the demolition, as it has many times before....and for a lot less significant structures than they have let be demolished as well. If every non-descript little brick edifice in Toronto were protected from ever being altered, we'd be in big trouble.
I think you must be confused. The amenities proposed for this project are far beyond Section 37 parameters, and far beyond anything proposed by any other developer. Let's forget OCAD for the moment and focus just on the proposed Mirvish Collection Gallery component for now.
It's one thing to provide a 60,000 sqft building to house cultural space (itself worth many million$), but it is another to provide its contents as well. And yet another thing to provide free public access to this cultural space. We are talking about something larger and having more cultural impact than say...a Gardiner Museum. What many people probably don't realize (or care about) is that Mirvish has one of the world's greatest and most important private collections of Abstract Expressionism and Color Field art. It's a vast collection of some 1100 works. the value? Who knows...some single works would be in the millions. And unlike other privately started cultural institutions, this one does not require tax funding and is free to the public. This cosys money...lots of it...to build and operate. This is why taking away profits from condo sales will have an effect on this.
People will travel all over the world to view this collection. This could very well rank #3 in museum attendance in the city, after ROM & AGO. This alone should seal the deal.
The Gehry buildings will actually be a tourist attraction in itself, but the city doesn't even take into consideration the value of iconic design or architecture, so the whole Gehry factor is a mute point. That itself is a fatal flaw....the city's parochial and myopic view on everything.
How many people are going to travel to Toronto to see Aura? Did the city cut the height on that ugly POS...nope, it gave it a height increase!!! How is Yonge & Gerrard better context for a 900 footer??? What cultural amenity did the city gain there...a Bed, Bath and Beyond outlet??
When people propose tearing down Old City Hall or Union Station, you stop and say "wait a minute...who cares how great your proposal is". But this scenario???? You really have to put your stupid hat on to support derailing this project. This debacle should be installed as the new definition of looking a gift horse in the mouth.
Automation Gallery
Superstar
Well we know very well that the City of Toronto wants most heritage bldgs. preserved, but with no incentive or funds for owners to preserve and maintain them
, most landlords don't give a hoot about there status, and why you see so many derelict ones around town,.... im not saying these old warehouses and Mirvish fall in that category
, most landlords don't give a hoot about there status, and why you see so many derelict ones around town,.... im not saying these old warehouses and Mirvish fall in that category
Automation Gallery
Superstar
Well said
We definitely need an overhaul @ City Hall,,,, get rid of these people that have jobs for life and bring in some new blood
Big Daddy
Senior Member
TJ O'Pootertoot
Senior Member
Well, I suppose that's an INTERESTING idea but it really kind of tosses out the entire (alleged) premise of the project, which is that the 3 towers are aesthetically distinct; I believe Gehry's compared them to a candelabra, where each arm balances the others. But now we're dropping the pretense of caring about the "iconic" architecture to get as much height as possible? Paging Dr. Freud!
A bit of semantics. It used to be much easier to destroy a designated building than it is now and that's because we value our heritage. It would be tricky for Mirvish to go into a CRB hearing and argue about how insignificant the buildings are, I suspect. So, we agree it's not an absolute protection but calling it a "stop-gap" is a bit loose. You could call any legislation a "stop-gap" since even being tried for murder doesn't mean you're going to get the maximum sentence, but we still acknowledge that there is a process saying what you can and cannot do.
All the things Mirvish proposes to donate sound quite wonderful and it sounds like you know way more about his collection than I possibly could. It's also partly irrelevant, however. I understand that the value of the paintings exceeds what one might see in a s.37 agreement, but so what? He's not donating THE ART to the city ,he still owns it, right? Moreover, the Planning Act (as far as I know) does not count something like art as an amenity. Museum space, yes.
I'm not against the museum or disrespecting it as insignificant but again, you're suggesting you don't understand how the planning process works. The city and owner NEGOTIATE s.37 agreements. If the city determines it would like to see affordable housing units or a day care centre, Mirvish can't say, "How dare you! I've already given you "one of the world's greatest and most important private collections of Abstract Expressionism and Color [sic] Field art." It's very nice of him, but it's largely irrelevant to the PLANNING PROCESS. The job of city staff is to say what amenities they think are required. And it's not like they're really hard-nosed about this. How many condos get built and have some useless slot of green space or some random not-very-impressive "public art" shoehorned in? As you point out, they didn't do much with Aura. But a) it's a new planning dept. now b) two wrongs don't make a right.
So, I get and agree that Mirvish is going above and beyond, but he's also going a bit sideways.
Again, I don't support DERAILING the project but you seem to think that the planning department evaluating it as anything other than triumphant and iconic is "derailing it." It's absurd. This is PRECISELY how the planning process is supposed to work and, for the umpteenth time, you'd be foolish to think Mirvish didn't know all this (that they'd have concerns about heights; that they wouldn't rubber stamp nixing the warehouses etc.) going in.
It's funny you ended with saying this is a new definition of looking a gift horse in the mouth since you seem unaware that the traditional definition is taking something that looks awesome, only to find out there is something more troublesome hiding within. See, NOT looking it in the mouth is the bad thing. Giving a peek has been considered the right thing to do since, you know, Ancient Greek times.
alklay
Senior Member
I am not sure we are "giving a peek" insomuch as demanding that the horse have a few more legs.
This project is worthwhile on many levels. I hope the "committee" does not diminish the project's strengths, for the sake of a compromise that pleases no one.
This project is worthwhile on many levels. I hope the "committee" does not diminish the project's strengths, for the sake of a compromise that pleases no one.
Last edited:
Public art does not come from s.37 funds. It gets its own percentage, and it's not all to be dismissed.
42
Big Daddy
Senior Member
Yes, but lets not forget these buioldings themselves are being designed as art.
SP!RE
°°°°°°
Private residential condominiums are not public art, regardless of how you want to twist it.
Big Daddy's comment has little to do with what's being discussed, but… anyone viewing a Frank Gehry building is welcome to accept it as a piece of art, public or otherwise, and that would not be a stretch. Ultimately we would like to see every building design be good enough to be considered art. Isn't that really what Big Daddy is getting at here? (Not that we'd all agree on which buildings would qualify…)
Certainly it would be a leap for the City to recognize the design of the buildings themselves as counting toward the percent for public art program, although there certainly could be an argument made to support that in a case such as this. There's no indication at all that Projectcore would intend that to be the case, just to be clear. Meanwhile, we do know that Frank Stella has been engaged to create art throughout the complex, although we do not know specifics of that yet or if any of it would qualify as part of the percent for public art program.
None of that was the point of the earlier conversation. 'Pootertoot was conflating s.37 benefits with public art. I was only hoping to remind people that the two are separate benefit streams from any project.
42
Certainly it would be a leap for the City to recognize the design of the buildings themselves as counting toward the percent for public art program, although there certainly could be an argument made to support that in a case such as this. There's no indication at all that Projectcore would intend that to be the case, just to be clear. Meanwhile, we do know that Frank Stella has been engaged to create art throughout the complex, although we do not know specifics of that yet or if any of it would qualify as part of the percent for public art program.
None of that was the point of the earlier conversation. 'Pootertoot was conflating s.37 benefits with public art. I was only hoping to remind people that the two are separate benefit streams from any project.
42
greenleaf
Senior Member
Come all and let your voice be heard: There will be a public forum February 18 from 6 – 9 pm at City Hall (100 Queen St.W., Committee Room 1 on the second floor).
TJ O'Pootertoot
Senior Member
Sorry for conflating them; they're both things required through the planning process, was more my point. (Well, s.37 isn't REQUIRED but it's obviously a part of projects of this scale.) And that we've all seen that some developers make more of a commitment to producing worthwhile art than thers.
I have no problem saying the design of these (especially with an art gallery and school included) counts as the public art quota. Whatever problems this project has, I don't doubt it's commitment to the art part of things.
I still think to call the design of the buildings themselves art is....stretching it. Is the Empire State Building or the Taj Mahal art? Maybe? It's a whole other debate. But buildings (at least modern buildings, as opposed to the Taj Mahal) must conform to a legislative context, be it the Ontario Building Code or the Planning Act. Creating something remarkable within those constraints is certainly a kind of art but I disagree with the notion that, as presented, the buildings are works of art and that to knock a few storeys off would be compromising the aesthetics like painting a moustache on the Mona Lisa. And I wasn't the one who suggested losing a whole tower! Like all compromises, some people on either side will be disappointed with where this ends up but I suspect the overall silhouette/aesthetics and general principle of the design will be quite safe, even if it comes down a few floors or whatever.
Register123
Active Member
Didn't the Bedrock Citiesque enterance on the Cinema Tower count as their public art? Barf.