greenleaf said:
Apparently I needed a tl;dr version of my above post:

They are planning to go to the OMB in September.
Click to expand...
Yes, sorry about that. Those city reports always make my eyes glaze over.
Still, even if Mirvish takes it to the OMB, it appears he has capitulated somewhat by agreeing to this working group, whose purpose is to find a middle ground (i.e., a scale reduction of some kind). I'm of the mind that these towers should go forward as originally planned or not at all. I fear the irreverent designs won't look good on a smaller scale. The original heights are part and parcel of integrity of the designs, in my opnion.
 
Strange Advance said:
Yes, sorry about that. Those city reports always make my eyes glaze over.
Still, even if Mirvish takes it to the OMB, it appears he has capitulated somewhat by agreeing to this working group, whose purpose is to find a middle ground (i.e., a scale reduction of some kind). I'm of the mind that these towers should go forward as originally planned or not at all. I fear the irreverent designs won't look good on a smaller scale. The original heights are part and parcel of integrity of the designs, in my opnion.
Click to expand...

Agree 100%, what the city should be fighting for is full realization of the Art Gallery element, free to public, with separate galleries for each artist (this is proposed by Mirvish w/r his art collection). If the approval is conditional on this its an incalculable win for the city. I'm continually bemused how this incredible element is consciously over-looked. Its always a challenge for cities to establish identities, world-class donated art collections within a new structure are opportunities never to be missed. On those rare occasions where such collections are donated, they usually just displace other art at existing galleries.

I'm genuinely worried about the reputation impact on Toronto and on its officials if we lose this art collection. MG is a socially progressive man, but I'd have to wonder whether he'd have second thoughts about placing his art in a public space if M&G is rejected for no good reason. We all have our limits.
 
Strange Advance said:
Yes, sorry about that. Those city reports always make my eyes glaze over.
Still, even if Mirvish takes it to the OMB, it appears he has capitulated somewhat by agreeing to this working group, whose purpose is to find a middle ground (i.e., a scale reduction of some kind). I'm of the mind that these towers should go forward as originally planned or not at all. I fear the irreverent designs won't look good on a smaller scale. The original heights are part and parcel of integrity of the designs, in my opnion.
Click to expand...

Let Gehry worry about whether it looks good or not - to argue that we should not have anything on the site if it wasn't what's proposed sounds like cutting one's nose to spite the face.

AoD
 
what the city should be fighting for is full realization of the Art Gallery element, free to public, with separate galleries for each artist (this is proposed by Mirvish w/r his art collection). If the approval is conditional on this its an incalculable win for the city.

I'm continually bemused how this incredible element is consciously over-looked.
Click to expand...

The fact that city planning considers this element completely irrelevant to the issue tells you just how small time narrow-minded our city planning is.

Toronto has been historically anti-art and it's been an uphill battle since one mayor lost his job over being pro-art...to the election of our current anti-art mayor.

Some big-timers need to step and support this project.

How do you think AGO ended up with that huge donation from Henry Moore...he was impressed how the private sector fought so hard against public opinion and city hall to install the Archer.
 
I'm convinced Keesmatt is so dug in with her "trite" criticisms she has no way of backing down. So she's burying her head in bicycle-policy-land to the exclusion of everything else. She therefore needs to win major concessions (changes of any sort) to justify her delays and stonewalling.

It's legitimate to question whether her credentials were sufficient to have taken on Chief Planner role in a city of Toronto's size.
 
Last edited:
buildup said:
I'm convinced Keesmatt is so dug in with her "trite" criticisms she has no way of backing down. So she's burying her head in bicycle-policy-land to the exclusion of everything else. She therefore needs to win major concessions (changes of any sort) to justify her delays and stonewalling.

It's legitimate to question whether her credentials were sufficient to have taken on Chief Planner role in a city of Toronto's size.
Click to expand...

How was the Chief Planner selected? Wasn't she appointed by Ford?

I'm not trying to downplay her certifications. Just a genuine question about how the Chief Planner is selected.
 
freshcutgrass said:
The fact that city planning considers this element completely irrelevant to the issue tells you just how small time narrow-minded our city planning is.
Click to expand...
Perhaps they just don't want this to play into their decision much because they know that element could easily be removed from the overall plan, or succumb to bait and switch. Or it could simply be removed after a few years and become something else all together.
 
cassius is right - plus there is really no legally defensible mechanism for planning to make exceptions on the basis of this element.

re: Keesmatt and Ford - the former was quite blunt and confrontational about Ford's various schemes - she is definitely far more activist about it than any previous Chief Planner I can think of (some would argue that is a bad thing, though not so sure in this particular context). For the record, I think she is more qualified for the job than any of us.

AoD
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
cassius is right - plus there is really no legally defensible mechanism for planning to make exceptions on the basis of this element.

re: Keesmatt and Ford - the former was quite blunt and confrontational about Ford's various schemes - she is definitely far more activist about it than any previous Chief Planner I can think of (some would argue that is a bad thing, though not so sure in this particular context). For the record, I think she is more qualified for the job than any of us.

AoD
Click to expand...

By that logic, Mayor Ford is more qualified than any of us to be mayor. Not the point.
 
buildup:

There is more to planning than pointing to a project and say "me likey". She is trained as, and have actual experience in planning as a professional activity - I dare say most of us don't. That is the logic.

Quite frankly, questioning her pedigree on the basis of her views on one project is overblown. That's all but a tiny proportion of her portfolio.

AoD
 
Last edited:
Strange Advance said:
Yes, sorry about that. Those city reports always make my eyes glaze over.
Still, even if Mirvish takes it to the OMB, it appears he has capitulated somewhat by agreeing to this working group, whose purpose is to find a middle ground (i.e., a scale reduction of some kind). I'm of the mind that these towers should go forward as originally planned or not at all. I fear the irreverent designs won't look good on a smaller scale. The original heights are part and parcel of integrity of the designs, in my opnion.
Click to expand...

You presume to be defending a design that isn't even finalized. As of now, this is a proposal. No fully conclusive design has been arrived at, so you would have to refer to which iteration you think is the "original" plan. I'm going to guess here and say that you are confusing height for design in this instance.
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
buildup:

There is more to planning than pointing to a project and say "me likey". She is trained as, and have actual experience in planning as a professional activity - I dare say most of us don't. That is the logic.

AoD
Click to expand...

Alvino don't put yourself down so, this is a democracy you have a right to an opinion on Planning & Design even if you're not as qualified as her Ms. Keesmat. Faith in Experts...
 
buildup:

Questing her opinion - and opinion differs, is one thing; questioning her fitness to be the Chief Planner on the basis of pedigree is another thing entirely (especially when it is brought up in the context of her opinions regarding this project). It has nothing to do with democracy.

AoD
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top