TheTigerMaster said:
Is it possible that this will go to Council for approval if all else fails?
Click to expand...

I don't really know how this will shake out. It will go before council, but will depend on staff recommendation and how Councillor Vaughan wants to proceed. Council has overruled staff before. Council tends to defer to the ward councillor on these issues since they have a greater understanding of all the issues and opportunities. I can't get a read on Clr Vaughan, but I'm sure he's read the tea leaves. Historically he is also willing to go great lengths to avoid the OMB. IIRC he avoided it in his first term on Council despite massive amounts of applications in the ward.
 
I don't want to see the project go ahead if the heritage issue isn't properly addressed.
Click to expand...

The heritage issue has been properly addressed....the Royal Alex stays.....intact and unmolested...no facadism. As it should be.

Thinking that tacking the facades of the warehouses onto a new construction is somehow an improvement on this proposal is insanity.
 
yyzer said:
and so they shouldn't.....incorporating second rate warehouse facades into these sleek towers would be absurd - an absolute travesty...

the level of ignorance and lack of perspective demonstrated by the some of the heritage crowd is breathtaking....
Click to expand...

Yeah, but you can learn from them in other ways. Like, as a real estate agent in Mississauga, you might learn a bit in how to market vintage Shipp-Built dwellings, or the funky-70s early stuff in Erin Mills/Meadowvale. And if you don't have that knack within your own turf already, look in the mirror re "ignorance and lack of perspective". (Of course, you *might* have that knack. I don't know.)
 
TheTigerMaster said:
M+G will be yet another opportunity lost to the conservatism seen amongst some in this city. I suppose selling the banal status-quo will be easier than doing something extraordinary.
Click to expand...

Exactly! There is so much talk about precedent setting but refusing M+G also sends a messsge to the development industry: don't be bold, follow a formula using familar architecture and design, and don't go higher than the tallest building in an area.

I still have yet to see a post justfying how building to 60 storys is acceptable but building to 80 storys is seen as a negative.

The attractive base I posted a couple pages back is that of the Empire State Building. As a pedestrian walking in front, it feels like a 4 story building thanks to the use of setbacks. Ghery's building in New York also does a great job at the base. Setbacks, building coverage, and ground floor uses can be regulated in zoning, and I wish Toronto planners would dedicate more energy studying how to better integrate tall buildings at street level instead of the usual mantra of too tall, too dense, and too few parking spaces.
 
I understand the heritage preservation crowd and if it heritage issues that result in Mirvish's downfall it has the silver lining of telling future developers that Toronto's preservation laws are rock solid. But for the life of me I do not understand the fear of a 80 story precedent but 60 story buildings are seen as acceptable.
 
freshcutgrass said:
The heritage issue has been properly addressed....the Royal Alex stays.....intact and unmolested...no facadism. As it should be.

Thinking that tacking the facades of the warehouses onto a new construction is somehow an improvement on this proposal is insanity.
Click to expand...

No heritage building will be safe when heritage laws are weak and applicable only when developers feel like caring, not even the Royal Alex.
 
adma said:
Yeah, but you can learn from them in other ways. Like, as a real estate agent in Mississauga, you might learn a bit in how to market vintage Shipp-Built dwellings, or the funky-70s early stuff in Erin Mills/Meadowvale. And if you don't have that knack within your own turf already, look in the mirror re "ignorance and lack of perspective". (Of course, you *might* have that knack. I don't know.)
Click to expand...

Funnily enough, I love the Shipp built stuff out here...anyways, this is the only proposal to date where you will see me advocating sacrifice of heritage - for what to me seems an obvious and self-evident greater good for the city.....

I have to wonder why there is no similar fight to preserve restaurant row across the street - to me, a greater loss than the warehouses....

As for M-G, I would ask, which makes Toronto a better place? Keeping the existing buildings, or building 3 world icon towers? I am baffled that there is even a debate about it.....
 
junctionist said:
No heritage building will be safe when heritage laws are weak and applicable only when developers feel like caring, not even the Royal Alex.
Click to expand...

About 100 pages ago in this thread, someone mentioned that NYC has a special bylaw for 'monument' type buildings, which allows the developer to build outside of regular planning parameters - a great idea, imo, and I wish someone on council would propose such a bylaw here....this would prevent future 'regular' condo and office proposals from benefiting from height and density precedent, and would also prevent any heritage issues here from impacting other regular projects...in New York they must have a definition as to what constitutes 'monument' status, so there is no arguing over what is and what isn't...

/just a thought
 
Last edited:
fedplanner said:
This may be a minority opinion, but I do not accept the narrative that a 60-storey building is acceptable while an 80-storey building is a negative precedent or somehow decreases the quality of life of an area. A well designed building, especially at the base and its interaction with the street, is so much more important than height.
Click to expand...

jje1000 said:
I completely agree with this point. Which is why I support Mirvish Gehry going as high as possible while retaining as many of the existing heritage buildings on site as they can.
Click to expand...

I completely agree with fedplanner's point. Which is why I support Mirvish Gehry going as high as possible while getting rid of most of the heritage buildings so that we might have an interesting, animated sidewalk across the site. What's there now is being hyped beyond belief. The half storey height at ground level does far less for it than what Gehry is planning.

42
 
greenleaf said:
I can't get a read on Clr Vaughan, but I'm sure he's read the tea leaves.
Click to expand...

Hey, I don't admire the guy, but my take is he supports the project, unlike the Casino, Airport, Loblaws, and Walmart, problem is he is trying to get the NO GROUP on his side. Adam is not afraid of tall buildings and will eventually work out the best deal for the residents of his ward. My take is this gets approved:)
 
I am going to start by saying that I in no way am advocating this, but just tossing the idea out there since I don't think it has been discussed. This is an extraordinary project and I think all the outcomes need to be laid out.

As part of a compromise, what if Vaughan/the committee proposes to de-list some of the heritage buildings so as not to set precedent?

Has this ever been done? (Is there precedent for that?) And if it is done, what would be the appropriate amount of trade off in s37 $?

If it is done, I would gather a City of Toronto Museum would be an appropriate trade off (including an agreement for providing operating/staffing funds).

Any other thoughts?
 
I don't know about past delisting of buildings from the heritage list, but I believe it would be seen as the same as demolition of a listed building when tested. I don't think the technicalities would rule the day. I still say precedent would be set. Maybe the way out in this case is to require reconstitution of (at least some of) the buildings somewhere else.

The City should start collecting funds towards a City of Toronto Museum, especially in cases where city heritage may be compromised or at least altered through the process of development. That strikes me as reasonable. I would not dare to guess what final s37 $ amount would be appropriate though—that's for the City and the developer to work out—but I don't see enough s37 $ coming from this development to fund Mirvish's gallery plus City of Toronto Museum operating/staffing here. Between the gallery and OCADU, Mirvish already proposes quite a significant s37 give.

42
 
No heritage building will be safe when heritage laws are weak and applicable only when developers feel like caring, not even the Royal Alex.
Click to expand...

Again...no one is suggesting any heritage laws be weak....only that they use good judgement wielding them.


I am baffled that there is even a debate about it.....
Click to expand...

I am not the least baffled. In fact, it fits the Toronto narrative pretty accurately. If there were a mayoral election today, one third of this city would vote for Rob Ford.
 
I dont accept this notion modern towers are ok providing they are tucked behind, obscured, or diluted by old structures at street level.
M+G should not accept having their project play second fiddle on their own site to a couple of warehouses.
There's something phony and apologetic about this approach. Slippery slope arguments...
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top