Hipster Duck said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think you're taking my comments too literally. Can we agree that re-electing a mayor with multiple serious drug addictions, from a family accused of drug trafficking, with current allegations of consorting with criminals, possibly orchestrating jailhouse beatdowns. Can we agree its bad for our brand since our brand is partly built upon its reputation for stability and a law and order jurisdiction?

Let me compress 30 years into 25 years. Which towers were built 1976-2000?

You are quibling.
 
Last edited:
buildup said:
Let me compress 30 years into 25 years. Which towers were built 1976-2000?
Click to expand...

Pretty much 2/3 of Toronto's skyline. EDIT: Whatever. This kind of post could lead to some kind of stupid flamewar when we basically agree on things, in principle.
 
Last edited:
Hipster Duck said:
Pretty much 2/3 of Toronto's skyline. EDIT: Whatever. This kind of post could lead to some kind of stupid flamewar when we basically agree on things, in principle.
Click to expand...

Hi Hipster,

Most major CBD towers was built by 1975. Then it was fairly sporadic until ~ 2000. Hell, I remember being excited about the Bellagio, Windsor Arms and that tower at Charles & Bay. Those happened very late 1990s.

Completed
Commerce Court 1972
TD Centre (3 towers 1974)
First Canadian Place 1975
CN Tower 1975
Royal Bank Plaza 1976 & 1979
 
Last edited:
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.
Click to expand...

I don't see this as over-dramatization. I think they both are glaring examples of extreme poor collective judgement on the part of the city. Stupid mistakes by individuals can be overcome much easier and the city is less likely to be damaged as a result. Our city will survive Rob Ford....but will it survive the collective stupidity that put him there?

Lost opportunities are even worse, cause we will never know.



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???
Click to expand...

First of all, this is a giant target, so don't blame the myopic Toronto crowd for having this be the main target on their fuzzy radar. Secondly, you have to remember that the die hard (and bandwagon jumpers) who oppose this project are against things...not for them...so don't be surprised by the seemingly uninterested attitude regarding the obvious perks that come with such a project...it's sort of like arguing with vegans.

(joke interlude....how can you tell if someone is a vegan? Don't worry...they will faking tell you!! )

Forget Gehry and tall buildings for a moment. David Mirvish isn't just interested in the future of the city, he's also almost single handidly responsible for Toronto's reputation as a theatre town (generally touted as #3 in the world). David Mirvish represents a dying breed in this city....the major patron of the arts (that goes beyond paying money to name buildings after you and get a tax credit). And yet he has been portrayed as a major villain of the city for proposing this project...if you ever needed proof of just how collectively stupid this city has become...that is it.

The two cultural benefits that are attached to this project are as important, if not more so, than Gehry (hey, we have the world's largest Mies...why not the world's largest Gehry while we're at it).

It's one thing to pay for a fantastic structure to house a major gallery out of your own pocket...it's quite another to also include a $billion (just a wild guestimate) worth of important art to fill it!! Keep yacking about european cities...what is one reason you think makes them so great...the number of galleries.

OCAD is the pre-eminent art school of the country...the alumni reads as a who's who of the Canadian art world. It's a small unique institution that needs support. A secondary campus at this location would do wonders for it. In fact, the genius of this is how everything about this project plays off each other. The fact that the street experience will be better than what the current buildings offer down there now is almost irrelevant.
 
I totally agree with fresh cut grass. Look at the big picture. We are losing 2 old buildings to totally revitalize the area with art and architecture and add density. Haussmann demolished a whole city in the 1800s to build the Paris that we all see today and admire. I'm sure Paris lost a lot of historic buildings. Arts are very important to a city and if these tho guys are going to add more art with 2 skyscrapers, then so be it. We need more people like mirvjsh.
A city has to evolve. It has to, otherwise it stagnates. The Europe u c today lost and rebuilt a lot of structures throughout hundreds of years. Let's not compare ourselves to them. It's just silly. Let's look at them, learn from them but stop there.
 
Freshcut, you nailed it.

Luckily M+G are builders, normal people would just say screw - we'll leave you with your warehouses then.

My gut tells me they are up for this fight, because they know the majority of the city is strongly behind them.
 
An article about last night's Star Talk between David Mirvish and Christopher Hume yesterday at the Reference Library
http://toronto.curbed.com/archives/...orm-a-facadectomy-to-save-king-st-project.php

I was there last night, and I have to say Mirvish seems really honest (must be in his genes) when he talks about this project and the value it will bring to the city, and he was able to sway my opinion about these warehouses. I mean, I think they're nice and I'll miss 'em, but now I say: bring them down! The heritage lost is much less than the heritage created. It's not true in most cases, when they have torn down beautiful buildings to build awful glass/spandrel boxes, but with this project I think it's worth it. The passion with which he talked about the art gallery and all the public spaces that will be contained in the six floors of the podium made me think he's not in it for the money, but to create a legacy for the city in more ways than one.

He said he was sorry to see the Princess of Wales go, but it was always meant to be temporary, the capacity is not needed right now, and if in the future there is enough demand for a new theatre he'll be the first to build it, and he hopes Gehry will still be around to design it.

The majority of the audience (which was overwhelmingly older) oohed and aahed all along, most of them applauded and were rooting for this project. I was surprised, I thought they were all there to complain, but the opposite was true, or maybe they were just brainwashed by Mr. Mirvish's charisma like I probably was, haha. There were a few that booed a couple of times, and some of them complained during the Q&A, most notably Véronique, of Crêpes à GoGo fame, who said tall buildings make people insane, which was funny because I stopped going to her restaurant (I used to live a block away from it on Bloor) because I just couldn't take her rudeness towards customers and all-together crazy attitude anymore. The audience didn't really agree with her and her words made us laugh, so thank you Véronique. I miss your Limonanas, though.
 
FNTS said:
There were a few that booed a couple of times, and some of them complained during the Q&A, most notably Véronique, of Crêpes à GoGo fame, who said tall buildings make people insane
Click to expand...

Isn't Crêpes à GoGo now housed in the base of 18 Yorkville which is a...somewhat...tall building? Interesting.

Carry on.
 
buildup said:
Hi Hipster,

Most major CBD towers was built by 1975. Then it was fairly sporadic until ~ 2000. Hell, I remember being excited about the Bellagio, Windsor Arms and that tower at Charles & Bay. Those happened very late 1990s.

Completed
Commerce Court 1972
TD Centre (3 towers 1974)
First Canadian Place 1975
CN Tower 1975
Royal Bank Plaza 1976 & 1979
Click to expand...

Scotia? BCE? Sunlife? The cutoff you've chosen is rather arbitrary - and the 92-2000 period came after what's basically a property bubble, and it isn't planning that prevented towers from getting built - it's the banks and their conservative post-bubble lending policies.

AoD
 
FNTS said:
An article about last night's Star Talk between David Mirvish and Christopher Hume yesterday at the Reference Library
http://toronto.curbed.com/archives/...orm-a-facadectomy-to-save-king-st-project.php

I was there last night, and I have to say Mirvish seems really honest (must be in his genes) when he talks about this project and the value it will bring to the city, and he was able to sway my opinion about these warehouses. I mean, I think they're nice and I'll miss 'em, but now I say: bring them down! The heritage lost is much less than the heritage created. It's not true in most cases, when they have torn down beautiful buildings to build awful glass/spandrel boxes, but with this project I think it's worth it. The passion with which he talked about the art gallery and all the public spaces that will be contained in the six floors of the podium made me think he's not in it for the money, but to create a legacy for the city in more ways than one.

He said he was sorry to see the Princess of Wales go, but it was always meant to be temporary, the capacity is not needed right now, and if in the future there is enough demand for a new theatre he'll be the first to build it, and he hopes Gehry will still be around to design it.

The majority of the audience (which was overwhelmingly older) oohed and aahed all along, most of them applauded and were rooting for this project. I was surprised, I thought they were all there to complain, but the opposite was true, or maybe they were just brainwashed by Mr. Mirvish's charisma like I probably was, haha. There were a few that booed a couple of times, and some of them complained during the Q&A, most notably Véronique, of Crêpes à GoGo fame, who said tall buildings make people insane, which was funny because I stopped going to her restaurant (I used to live a block away from it on Bloor) because I just couldn't take her rudeness towards customers and all-together crazy attitude anymore. The audience didn't really agree with her and her words made us laugh, so thank you Véronique. I miss your Limonanas, though.
Click to expand...

Best post in last 10 days. Interesting to see the older people are often more open-minded :)
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Scotia? BCE? Sunlife? The cutoff you've chosen is rather arbitrary - and the 92-2000 period came after what's basically a property bubble, and it isn't planning that prevented towers from getting built - it's the banks and their conservative post-bubble lending policies.

AoD
Click to expand...

Well lets explore your theory. My initial point was real estate cycles exist and things can go dormant for long periods. I didn't think that was debatable, btw. I said things where (relatively) slow 1976 - late 1990s.

Is there any period 1976 to 1996 (20 years) with anything like 1972-1976 (4 years)? Feel free to select an arbitrary interval.

Commerce Court 1972
TD Centre 1974
First Canadian Place 1975
CN Tower 1975
Royal Bank Plaza 1976
 
buildup said:
Well lets explore your theory then. My initial point was real esate cycles exist meaning things can go dormant for long periods. I didn't think that was debatable, btw. I said things where (relatively) quiet 1976 - late 1990s.

Is there any other period after 1976 until 1996 (20 years) with anything like 1972-1976 (4 years)? Feel free to select an arbitrary interval. And keep in mind also how small toronto was in 1972. It makes the perios even more impressive.

Commerce Court 1972
TD Centre 1974
First Canadian Place 1975
CN Tower 1975
Royal Bank Plaza 1976
Click to expand...

First of all, what does CN Tower has to do with real estate cycles? Second, my understanding of real estate cycles has to do with the square footage of commercial (particularly, in this context, class A offices) - I don't think anyone would consider the 80s a particularly quiet period in that regard; and the current boom can be regarded as compensation for the early to late 90s. So in other words, the cycle is probably tighter than you've posited. Also note that all the towers you've listed are bank towers - a form of business is a) saturated and b) has moved away from prestige developments to selling and re-leasing space. You'd be hard pressed to find a local firm that demands a statement to be made with architecture.

And back to Toronto getting it done - it's pretty easy to argue that phase happened in the 60s - the 70s was a period of retrenchment, picking the lowest hanging fruit (and no surprise there, given the stagnation of the period) leading to the stasis and wasted opportunities of the 80s.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top