[cassius]

Do you honestly not see the height precedent as being an issue? I quite like these building (even, or perhaps especially, their height) but the problem for me is that it'll apply to much pressure to the immediate surroundings. By that I mean the increase in surrounding property values bring increased property taxes in the area. That means property owners either increase rents to cover (making it difficult for a bunch of really great restaurants and businesses to stay where they are) or it means that they'll need to sell their property to a developer or develop it themselves. Either way that can be a really bad thing for restaurant row and the surroundings. Not only will they likely need to develop their properties but develop them tall, height (and historic building demolition) precedent being set and all. Only what we'll end up with instead of the great neighbourhood we have today is a bunch of mediocre, but very tall condos.

For me, if there were some way to allow these towers to proceed without the risks I just mentioned, I'd be all for it. But once they're up its really as easy as going to the OMB and saying "look, they got 80 storeys and so should I" and developers will get their way.

 

[RC8]

First of all, the irony of your post is that this design is set to become the tallest tower in all of Berlin. Crazy isn't it? A city associating exceptional height with exceptional design.

There's nothing crazy about Berlin having the enlightened understanding that 45 story residential buildings should be an exception rather than the rule. They've had the foresight to build a city where a 150m building stands out, now they enjoy the perks that come with that.

But you know, if building M-G meant we get 7 story height limits and reasonable planning (ala Berlin) in the rest of the city, I would tear down the Princess of Wales Theatre myself.

Secondly, it has nothing to do with ambition. It has to do with viability. A smaller tower means that there are fewer units to shoulder the high cost of executing such an elaborate design. I suspect that the German tower is an ultra-luxury building with very high unit costs. Does Toronto have the number of wealthy buyers required to finance such a small luxury project? If not, the only way the project becomes viable is to add units until you reach some kind of economy of scale.

Yes actually, I'm pretty sure we do. There's nothing to suggest Gehry's Berlin tower would not be viable in Toronto - especially seeing as Mirvish already owns the land and always has.

And of course it has nothing to do with ambition. Height rarely does.

freshcutgrass, do you really not understand that the OMB doesn't give a damn about 'high quality design'?

 

[Ramako]

There's nothing crazy about Berlin having the enlightened understanding that 45 story residential buildings should be an exception rather than the rule. They've had the foresight to build a city where a 150m building stands out, now they enjoy the perks that come with that.

Who had the supposed foresight to do what is a moot point. Here and now Toronto's existing built form is incomparable to Berlin's existing built form. My point was that no matter the given context in a particular city or neighbourhood, be it a midrise context (Berlin) or a highrise context (the Entertainment District), special or exceptional architecture is lended prominence, and that's true in nearly all cities and in nearly all contexts.

But you know, if building M-G meant we get 7 story height limits and reasonable planning (ala Berlin) in the rest of the city, I would tear down the Princess of Wales Theatre myself.

If you dream of 7-storey height limits in downtown Toronto, then you and I have drastically different visions of how we want this city to develop and which are probably impossible to be reconciled.

If that's your vision for the city, I can respect that, but what confuses and frustrates me is why you've decided to wage your war on height against the one exceptional proposal in this town rather than against the thousands of poorly designed proposals over 7-storeys that are planned everywhere else across this city. Where are you in the all the other Projects & Construction threads? Why is this project, the one beautiful landmark among so many medicore others, the poster boy for 'too tall'? It's honestly befuddling.

Yes actually, I'm pretty sure we do. There's nothing to suggest Gehry's Berlin tower would not be viable in Toronto - especially seeing as Mirvish already owns the land and always has.

I'm pretty sure we don't. How many ultra-luxury projects have we seen come to market since Trump, the Ritz, Four Seasons and Shangri-La? The high-end buyers are tapped out, and it's investors buying 300 square foot units in mid-market buildings like YC Condos and Core Condos who are keeping the market afloat.

The alternative is that the Gehry design is dumped and a new architect comes on board with some mediocre, mid-market design. But it'll be 20-storeys shorter so who cares right?

 

[Ramako]

Do you honestly not see the height precedent as being an issue? I quite like these building (even, or perhaps especially, their height) but the problem for me is that it'll apply to much pressure to the immediate surroundings. By that I mean the increase in surrounding property values bring increased property taxes in the area. That means property owners either increase rents to cover (making it difficult for a bunch of really great restaurants and businesses to stay where they are) or it means that they'll need to sell their property to a developer or develop it themselves. Either way that can be a really bad thing for restaurant row and the surroundings. Not only will they likely need to develop their properties but develop them tall, height (and historic building demolition) precedent being set and all. Only what we'll end up with instead of the great neighbourhood we have today is a bunch of mediocre, but very tall condos.

For me, if there were some way to allow these towers to proceed without the risks I just mentioned, I'd be all for it. But once they're up its really as easy as going to the OMB and saying "look, they got 80 storeys and so should I" and developers will get their way.

Indeed, that seems to be the one tricky part. The simple solution in my mind is to give heritage designation some real teeth; i.e. the ability for the city to veto any development and to keep property taxes low. That way the city can make exceptions for exceptional projects without losing the ability to protect other heritage buildings or blocks that might then come under threat by less worthy projects. But unfortunately that's probably not happening any time soon.

The reality is that the precedent has already been set by the many ~150 metre tall towers that have already or are currently going up in the area, which means that the surrounding properties face a similar threat whether or not we get a 270 metre Gehry design or a 170 metre G+C design.

 

[RC8]

If that's your vision for the city, I can respect that, but what confuses and frustrates me is why you've decided to wage your war on height against the one exceptional proposal in this town rather than against the thousands of poorly designed proposals over 7-storeys that are planned everywhere else across this city. Where are you in the all the other Projects & Construction threads? Why is this project, the one beautiful landmark among so many medicore others, the poster boy for 'too tall'? It's honestly befuddling.

If you look around you'll see my problem is not with this specific project, but with all 70+ story residential towers (and there's over a dozen proposed now). The 50 story condos going up in the entertainment district and a few other parts of the city are terrible for the most part, but there's little we can do to stop them at this stage because of the terrible precedent set by Festival Tower and other 'exceptional' developments. The problem with the M-G proposal is best understood in that context.

The Entertainment District East of Spadina was on its way to become a superb mid-rise neighbourhood. That was the actual plan, as intended by planners who thought it through. Then Festival Tower changed all that, and M-G would double the acceptable heights in the area while simultaneously weakening heritage preservation processes.

As I said, if there was a realistic way to get this thing built and stop rather than encourage the construction of mediocre ever-taller residential high-rises, I would take it. Even if it simply meant settling for Vancouver-like height limits.

 

[Ramako]

Personally, the thing I love about Berlin's built form isn't the mid-rise height limits (which many cities have), but the very strong streetwalls that result from needing to maximize space. It's very... cozy. It creates very urban streetscapes. With proper design, that can be achieved even with highrises, which is essentially what Manhattan is.

 

[RC8]

But even if you like Manhattan as a development blueprint, the vast majority of their residential buildings are mid-rise compared to the stuff we are building in Toronto, and are comprised not only of small 'executive' 1 bedroom suites.

Depending on the type of buildings and neighbourhoods we build now, the future of Toronto will be determined as either a) a city of transient single people, or b) a true urban metropolis where you can go through all stages of life (including raising a family or growing old) in an urban setting.

If building 80-story towers is the way we are going to absorb most of the demand for residential units close to the core, I'm afraid families will keep flocking to the suburbs for generations to come. I would have no problem at all with these towers if they weren't delaying the development of healthy mid-rise neighbourhoods like the ones you find in the rest of the world - and which Toronto dearly lacks.

 

[adma]

http://www.dezeen.com/2014/02/03/frank-gehry-berlin-tallest-skyscraper-hines/

Look familiar?

Yeah, *shrug*. If it happens, fine. And if it doesn't happen, I'd still go to Berlin for stuff like this

 

[Automation Gallery]

Oh please, stop it

 

[buildup]

Depending on the type of buildings and neighbourhoods we build now, the future of Toronto will be determined as either a) a city of transient single people, or b) a true urban metropolis where you can go through all stages of life (including raising a family or growing old) in an urban setting.

If building 80-story towers is the way we are going to absorb most of the demand for residential units close to the core, I'm afraid families will keep flocking to the suburbs for generations to come. I would have no problem at all with these towers if they weren't delaying the development of healthy mid-rise neighbourhoods like the ones you find in the rest of the world - and which Toronto dearly lacks.

A chronic problem with this thread is presenting M+G a microcosm of the city, asking it to satisfy all constituencies. Firstly, residents wont all be 'transient single people', there will be couples in M+G. There are also many family neighbourhoods although a family of four of modest income might find it impractical to live in the Core unless they prefer Detroit, Buffalo, or Windsor.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

re: precedent

I see it - but I am willing to take the risk in this case and fight those other battles another day. Override and yank TO out of the OMB if need be.

AoD

 

[Big Daddy]

Over the last eight + years we have seen hundreds of awful or mediocre green/blue glass cubes thrown up in our downtown core that say nothing of the city and do nothing for the city.

Here we have a developer who not only hails from this city but is well-heeled, interested in the future if this city and is offering cultural and educational benefits well beyond what the city might have asked. He further sought out a world class architect to deliver a monument of a development as opposed to the garish glass monstrosities that litter our downtown - and THIS is the project we want to stop?? Because.....it's too tall???

I can't think of a single city that wouldn't love to have such an opportunity as this and yet here in Toronto, we think it's too tall, or an old warehouse is more important. I have Friends who live in various cities in the United States, - where nothing is happening - and they don't get it. They don't have such an exciting proposal in their city and can't understand why we would oppose such a project when they would die to see it built in their city.

I really think a lot of the opposition here is based on people who use this thread is their personal soapbox to espouse their version of Utopian city design. And it's tiresome to listen to people who constantly tout european cities that we should emulate as if those cities don't have any problems of their own.

This project is a game changer and if it sets a precedent, great, let the precedent be for superior design and cultural benefits - isn't that worth a few extra floors?

 

[RC8]

The point is not to stop this project, but to press for a long-term solution that doesn't jeopardise the potential of the neighourhood by encouraging the construction of more, much larger, green/blue glass cubes. It's not that it's too tall or too destructive, but that it would set a standard for what is acceptable in terms of height and (lack of) heritage preservation that the city cannot easily reverse. In case you weren't paying attention, the OMB already ruled that they don't give a damn about cultural amenities or excellence of design.

If this thing is approved, it must be done differently than it was with Festival Tower unless you want the exact same thing to happen again. This project cannot be evaluated as an isolated case.

For what it's worth, I agree that if we don't get any towers by Gehry by the time this is all said and done, it would be a huge wasted opportunity.

 

[buildup]

There are myriad reasons why the Toronto brand soared in recent years. Partly Canada's improved fiscal health and Toronto economic and cultural vitality. But it's delicate and can just as easily revert to the previous brand - ugly, stodgy, bland, boring etc.

Our brand can withstand Ford since any city can make a mistake. A re-election would place us with Venezuela, Italy, Mozambique in governance. That would be hard to recover from!

Another disaster would be a confirmation of this 'Toronto-The-No' murmur. The city that can't get it done. No mass-transit progress, no casino (for better or worse), no M+G. Seriously! Some people make small decisions well, but cramp up on big opportunities. Please do not be a city that fears success, fears boldness. Our quaint modest neighbourhoods are safe and secure. A few 85 story masterpieces plopped into a downtown thicket of 40 story boxes is not the end of the world.

When real estate goes cold, it can stay cold for 20 years (1975-2000?). This cycle will not last indefinately, lets try to get one spectacular complex out of this boom. Don't begrudge the city that one token victory.

 

[Hipster Duck]

There are myriad reasons why the Toronto brand soared in recent years. Partly Canada's improved fiscal health and Toronto economic and cultural vitality. But it's delicate and can just as easily revert to the previous brand - ugly, stodgy, bland, boring etc.

Our brand can withstand Ford since any city can make a mistake. A re-election would place us with Venezuela, Italy, Mozambique in governance. That would be hard to recover from!

Another disaster would be a confirmation of this 'Toronto-The-No' murmur. The city that can't get it done. No mass-transit progress, no casino (for better or worse), no M+G. Seriously! Some people make small decisions well, but cramp up on big opportunities. Please do not be a city that fears success, fears boldness. Our quaint modest neighbourhoods are safe and secure. A few 85 story masterpieces plopped into a downtown thicket of 40 story boxes is not the end of the world.

When real estate goes cold, it can stay cold for 20 years (1975-2000?). This cycle will not last indefinately, lets try to get one spectacular complex out of this boom. Don't begrudge the city that one token victory.

Buildup, there are about 3 overdramatized comparisons in this paragraph.

The first is comparing the possible reelection of Rob Ford to the state of democracy in a 3rd world failed state. I would make that comparison if Rob and Doug decided to use whoever's loyal to them in the TPS to stage an armed coup on Parliament Hill. Ha, if that happens, I'm withdrawing all my Canadian assets and fleeing the country. I'm not going to do this if Rob Ford gets reelected (which I sincerely hope he doesn't).

The second is comparing the inability to build MG with the possible reelection of Rob Ford. The latter is not as bad as governance in Mozambique, but it's surely more dire and unbecoming of us than an 80 storey building not being built.

The third is to say that the years 1975-2000 were a cold era for real estate. Are you serious? This was the era of real estate assets becoming a major economic force in the world; the real value of homes appreciated faster during this period, and the subsequent one, than in any other period in modern industrial history. Apart from the current 2001-present boom, basically every building over 500 ft other than TD and CCW was built during this time - including Toronto's 3 tallest current completed structures.