Wrenkin said:
On topic, I'm still of the opinion that we need some formality in the process, and that it's not an indictment of the system that we don't bend over backwards for the latest starchitect. Ok, you like Gehry, but what happens when Rob Ford is reelected and decides that his friend, "Canada's best architect" (he's only friends with the best), should be given a 90 story canvas to work with. Who's to say the architect isn't the best? Subjectivity in this area is ripe for abuse.
Click to expand...

Is it really a matter of 'bending over backwards' though?

When i see comments like this I can't help but feel some perspective is needed, the openness to recognize something as objectively extraordinary. Even if a Gehry doesn't rock your boat ( and really?, a hundred years from now people wouldn't be wondering what the hell we were thinking to walk away from a major Gehry such as this?) or the credibility of Mirvish's involvement and all that he brings to the table in this city, or the sheer monumentality of this scheme (how many proposals of this scale and quality do we really ever see?) who in their right mind could deny the enormous attributes that are a major art gallery and educational facility?

Yet it's more than all this though, it's bigger than the sum of all of these parts, it is the 'objectively extraordinary'... and it's what it says about us as a city if we do take this leap and what it says about us if we don't!
 
Y'all are impatient.

According to the March 20 City Council motion, this development must be discussed at the May 13 TEYCC meeting. The agenda usually comes out a couple weeks before the meeting.

Another date to add to your M-G calendars is Monday, June 16 which is when the 10 day OMB hearing begins.
 
Tewder said:
Is it really a matter of 'bending over backwards' though?

When i see comments like this I can't help but feel some perspective is needed, the openness to recognize something as objectively extraordinary. Even if a Gehry doesn't rock your boat ( and really?, a hundred years from now people wouldn't be wondering what the hell we were thinking to walk away from a major Gehry such as this?) or the credibility of Mirvish's involvement and all that he brings to the table in this city, or the sheer monumentality of this scheme (how many proposals of this scale and quality do we really ever see?) who in their right mind could deny the enormous attributes that are a major art gallery and educational facility?

Yet it's more than all this though, it's bigger than the sum of all of these parts, it is the 'objectively extraordinary'... and it's what it says about us as a city if we do take this leap and what it says about us if we don't!
Click to expand...

Would a court, or an administrative tribunal (e.g. the OMB) find it "Objectively Extraordinary" on review? How would you or the city's lawyers prove that? The solution to that sort of dilemma is you give someone a fair amount of discretion to make that decision, but that kind of power is open to abuse. It's my feeling that this is more likely to occur in development matters than other areas where the city has jurisdiction, because there is more money at stake.
 
Wrenkin said:
Would a court, or an administrative tribunal (e.g. the OMB) find it "Objectively Extraordinary" on review? How would you or the city's lawyers prove that? The solution to that sort of dilemma is you give someone a fair amount of discretion to make that decision, but that kind of power is open to abuse. It's my feeling that this is more likely to occur in development matters than other areas where the city has jurisdiction, because there is more money at stake.
Click to expand...

I like Tewder's "Objectively Extraordinary" term because it raises a challenge. It calls out critics who seem to deny such a quality can exist. Do we not agree M&G holds more objective promise than Aura? Do we have so little confidence in ourselves as citizens that we couldn't devise a system to prevent future abuse? It seems defeatist that arguments against M&G are that worse architecture may follow afterwards.

We already have objectively dull architecture, why not accept the objectively extraordinarily opportunity?
 
Wrenkin said:
Would a court, or an administrative tribunal (e.g. the OMB) find it "Objectively Extraordinary" on review?
Click to expand...

I fail to see how it/they wouldn't?


Wrenkin said:
How would you or the city's lawyers prove that?
Click to expand...

How do they prove anything though? If you present the facts of this proposal, they are indeed pretty objectively extraordinary, and from many different points of view, as already mentioned.


Wrenkin said:
The solution to that sort of dilemma is you give someone a fair amount of discretion to make that decision, but that kind of power is open to abuse.
Click to expand...

No, not 'someone' but the city. In a project such as this there are more stakeholders than just the private developers, right?... which in and of itself is a big indication that this project is objectively extraordinary.

Wrenkin, i don't disagree with your description of the situation as it is by the way, i am just venting about it.
 
They are certainly "objectively extraordinary" as long as one doesn't see "extraordinary" as synonymous with wonderful, but rather out-of-the-ordinary. Whether the designs are pulchritudinous or not is another matter, and entirely subjective. I happen to like them, but only at their proposed heights. They are meant to be grand and eye-catchingly tall, not downsized by timid functionaries.
 
Lenser said:
Points taken but the strains I was talking about regarding a mega-project like M-G have more to do with energy and sewage infrastructure than transit infrastructure - .
Click to expand...

The issues with sewer infrastructure is age...not capacity. The only thing that can overload the sewers are massive rainstorms...as we found out last year. The entire city could flush their toilets simultaneously and couldn't overload the system. Hydro power can be upgraded as required (and presently undergoing in that area).

We hire people to take care of this crap...it's called City Hall. It's their effing jobs to make sure infrastructure meets the needs of the growing city.

Build all the 80 storey condo towers you want. We will be better off...not worse. The residential population of downtown is still considerably smaller than the working population. It's probably better to have it be even or in favour of residential...and that's a lot of condo buildings to go. Build as many as you like...can't hurt the city.
 
As per an announcement made by Heritage Toronto: The public meeting for the Mirvish Gehry Project has now been rescheduled for Mon. May 12, 6:30 pm, City Hall Council Chambers.
 
now its been a long time since this project was proposed. they should not just cancel the project or ruin it by some ugly redesign or something else.
we should get the fruit for waiting that long.
 
More time is needed:

The Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning recommends that:

1. The Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning Division report directly to the July 8 and 9, 2014 City Council meeting on the results of the working group for the project at 266-270 and 274-322 King Street West and any changes to the proposed developments, subject to sufficient progress being achieved.

2. City Council request the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, to initiate an amendment to the Official Plan to create a "Site and Area Specific Policy" to permit an appropriate scale of development beyond the scale currently permitted by the existing Official Plan policies, but which is less than the Zoning By-law Amendment currently under appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board, for the block bounded by John Street to the west, King Street West to the south, Pearl Street (not including 11 Ed Mirvish Way) to the north, and 224 King Street West to the east, and that the amendment be scheduled for a statutory public meeting by the Toronto and East York Community Council on June 17, 2014, subject to sufficient progress being achieved.

3. City Council direct the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning to schedule a community consultation meeting for the proposed Official Plan Amendment with the Ward Councillor.

4. City Council direct that notice for the community consultation meeting, be given to landowners and residents within 120 metres of the site.

5. City Council direct that notice for the public meeting under the Planning Act, be given according to the regulations under the Planning Act.


This report recommends a revised timeline for City Council's further consideration of the proposed development at 266-270 and 274-322 King Street West.

The reporting time frame approved at City Council's meeting on March 20th, 2014 was established in light of an Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) hearing scheduled to commence on June 16, 2014.

The time frame was also predicated on having modifications made to the proposed development and the required submission material updated to reflect the revisions, in order to have staff conduct a thorough evaluation and make appropriate recommendations to City Council.

The revised proposal has not progressed sufficiently to fit the established time frame. The proponent also recognizes the timing constraints. As a result, the proponent has agreed to request that the OMB reschedule the hearing to September of this year.

In order to maintain the positive momentum created by the working group process, staff are recommending that City Council adopt an alternative reporting time frame, where the Working Group Status Report, the Zoning By-law Amendment Request for Direction Report, and the City-initiated Official Plan Amendment Report can all converge on the July 8 and 9, 2014 City Council agenda, provided that sufficient progress on the proposed modifications is made to meet the new time frame.
 
"2. City Council request the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, to initiate an amendment to the Official Plan to create a "Site and Area Specific Policy" to permit an appropriate scale of development beyond the scale currently permitted by the existing Official Plan policies, but which is less than the Zoning By-law Amendment currently under appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board, for the block bounded by John Street to the west, King Street West to the south, Pearl Street (not including 11 Ed Mirvish Way) to the north, and 224 King Street West to the east, and that the amendment be scheduled for a statutory public meeting by the Toronto and East York Community Council on June 17, 2014, subject to sufficient progress being achieved."

I'm not sure I understand this but I think it says they want a way to approve a development that might be bigger than current Official Plan / zoning permits, but not as big as the one being proposed. Anyone read the same thing?
 
Yes.

This part: "an amendment to the Official Plan to create a "Site and Area Specific Policy" to permit an appropriate scale of development beyond the scale currently permitted by the existing Official Plan policies" is typical for developments of this size. The Well requires this as well, for example, for its tallest buildings.

This part: "but which is less than the Zoning By-law Amendment currently under appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board" is what the City might try to hold the development to.

Whatever size that might be, we don't know yet. Once the City decides just how much smaller it wants than what is proposed, Mirvish will have numbers to either go with or appeal to the OMB.

42
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top