Lets take some chances - lets even risk the dreaded 'bait and switch' which some perceive as a risk particular to Frank Mirvish and Frank Gehry.
Click to expand...

Yea...that's why I accuse Keesmaat of intentionally poisoning the well on this project by attacking the design as "trite" and introducing the "bait & switch" taint, because she knew the superior players, design and cultural benefits were going to be a tough argument to beat. Which is why she attempted to sabotage it.

I don't recall any similar disparities on projects far more likely to be of iffy design or a candidate for bait & switch (which is every project in TO BTW).

I don't like her agenda...and I don't like the way she's pushing it.

And I wouldn't call Mr Mirvish's bluff. He (and Gehry for that matter) are do it right...or don't do it at all types. That impressive art collection has pretty much sat in warehouses for a long time waiting for the right opportunity...and will just keep sitting there as it has for decades if it doesn't get the home David thinks it deserves.

Not that we care...Toronto hates art.
 
Toronto doesn't "hate" art - it's just not sophisticated enough to appreciate it - and to realize the loss if this project is sidelined simply because our planning staff feel 80 stories is too tall. 60 is OK but not 80. Why? Because it might set a precedent. However, I feel that a precedent to allow 80 or more floors to a developer/development that provides significant (beyond required) public benefits is a pretty good precedent to set.
 
Toronto doesn't "hate" art - it's just not sophisticated enough to appreciate it
Click to expand...

Most people...anywhere are not sophisticated in terms of art appreciation. But for the most part, they are oblivious and do not hinder the "sophisticated" art crowd. But in Toronto, art has been associated with "gravy". So what would normally be a benign group elsewhere, has become an anti-art movement in Toronto. This isn't new...look at what I mentioned regarding the Archer.
 
adma said:
Boy, all this Keesmaat-bashing sets a "para dime" for well-meaning naivete in the guise of sophistication...
Click to expand...

Keesmaat thinks if she can throw enough sh*t at the wall m/g will come around to her ill advised way of thinking. Who's the naive one.
 
E.B. said:
Keesmaat thinks if she can throw enough sh*t at the wall m/g will come around to her ill advised way of thinking. Who's the naive one.
Click to expand...

Need I remind everyone, we are not supposed to criticize Ms. Keesmaat. She is a very professional, qualified person - beseiged by greedy developers and trite architects.
 
buildup said:
re:MMM+G (mini, modified M+G)

I will cowtow to the edict to be nice to Ms. Keesmat.
Click to expand...

The edict was not that you had to be nice to Ms. Keesmaat. The edict was to stop being condescending and smarmy in general. Go ahead and criticize her; others are doing it and not being censured.

42
 
If m/g did change the height to 60 flrs, would city planning(I didn't say Keesmaat) be willing to sacrifice OCAD, the Gallery etc. & have article 37 be met by a having a $2-4 million piece art in front of the buildings?
 
buildup said:
I will cowtow to the edict to be nice to Ms. Keesmat.
Click to expand...
Intentional misspelling?;) Personally, I do not know the woman, or indeed know much about her, so I hesitate to vilify her, but when she assigned the word "trite" to this project, I had to wonder if she knows what it means. Love it or hate it, and I'm not really a fervent member of either camp, trite it is not.
To those who think these extravagant towers would be fine in truncated form, that's your position and it's OK with me. I and others think it would compromise and insult the bold original vision. And yes, in that case I would rather they didn't build them at all than slice off 100 metres.
 
“A Frank Gehry building — particularly a tall tower — could add a tremendous amount of esthetic value to the city,” Keesmaat says.
Click to expand...

“If we could take the promise at face value, I’d be right there,” she says. “The tension for us is whether the project will deliver on the promise.”
Click to expand...

This woman waffles on what she's concerned with. According to what she's said here, she'd support it as long as there isn't a bait & switch. And I can't think of two less likely people than Gehry and Mirvish to do that.

She's also made out like the proposed density is unprecedented, which is really false...there's plenty of similar density...including Theatre Park right next door. The Mirvish property is actually quite large. Theatre Park is a tiny sliver of property.

I've also heard her make up scenarios about not sure if the sidewalks could handle that kind of density. Which is nonsense of course...It's a residential building...a much smaller office building would put a much larger strain on the sidewalks, as many more people work in an office buildings and come and go more or less at the same time.

I think she has decided to pick on this project in particular partly because she's making it personal. Mirvish is a well respected, highly influential, well spoken man, who has made no bones about exposing what he thinks is Toronto's fundamental city planning flaws. Hume has also been very critical, and she's getting back at him too.

I think she made a mistake but has gone too far to back down, which is why she keeps changing the story.

Thank god there is an OMB where egos don't count so much.
 
Man between this and the high speed rail thread there sure is a lot of piss and vinegar on this forum. You guys need to go watch some cat videos on Youtube to put you in a better mood :D

buildup said:
You've asked that I not say, "Paris isn't Toronto" - but it isn't. You could just as well have used Chicago or New York as analogies, where this would likely be welcomed in the right spot.
Secondly, I think it does work for the site.
Click to expand...
Well that didn't take long lol. It doesn't matter whether it's Paris or Singapore or Baghdad. I'm just saying that if a project is considered bad planning an art gallery isn't going to change that. BTW, this would likely be turned down in large parts of New York and Chicago as well, both of which have a lot of low to mid rise and heritage areas where skyscrapers just aren't built.
 
MisterF said:
I'm just saying that if a project is considered bad planning an art gallery isn't going to change that. BTW, this would likely be turned down in large parts of New York and Chicago as well, both of which have a lot of low to mid rise and heritage areas where skyscrapers just aren't built.
Click to expand...

I completely agree with your points which are not inconsistent with mine.
M+G represents good planning - exceptional design, good location.
I love the bit about this being a heritage location - its already a forest of towers. One of the most built up in the city. All sides of the site are ringed by towers.
 
Big Daddy said:
Toronto doesn't "hate" art - it's just not sophisticated enough to appreciate it - and to realize the loss if this project is sidelined simply because our planning staff feel 80 stories is too tall. 60 is OK but not 80. Why? Because it might set a precedent. However, I feel that a precedent to allow 80 or more floors to a developer/development that provides significant (beyond required) public benefits is a pretty good precedent to set.
Click to expand...

Well, you're the "para dime" guy, as far as sophistication goes.

acyrologia.jpg
 
While that's a rather cute malapropapalooza, and we could run a contest seeing who can fix every mistake…

it shouldn't really be posted adma, as we are trying to debate the issues here, not the debaters themselves.

42
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top