[waterloowarrior]

The architect, architecture, and developer are irrelevant at this point in terms of the actual planning process. Scale, height, massing, deficiency in development standards, and all the various implications of these issues are what's at stake. Once you have zoning approvals you could see a 3x 80 storey tower joint venture of UrbanCorp and Pinnacle designed by Kirkor and G&C.

If you want to tie the design and zoning together you need a development permit system, something Ms. Keesmaat is strongly advocating for. But under the current system like SLOCRO said "The debate should strictly be: do we want 3 - 80 story condo buildings on this particular site?"

 

[jje1000]

To the Moderator (Interchange). I would like to report SLORCO on the basis he is essentially a troll. He has made baseless comments, and he will not attempt to defend his comments when challenged. I think he should be banned.

Please explain.

Maybe you also need a nice break as well, as you are also continously putting out the same juvenile and tired arguments.

1.) This building design is currently still an initial early iteration and is thus will still change as the design meets reality (climate, programme, financial costs) and is tightened up. The building may not look anything like this shiny model depicts.
2.) You (and many others) are assuming that this design is as good as it gets, and that any compromises is tantamount to smearing paint all over the Mona Lisa. That's being narrow-minded. I have full faith that Gehry has the skills necessary to produce a beautiful design, as he's done at the AGO and around the world.
3.) Consistently smearing city planners is getting tired. You don't like Keesmaat, fine. Now you are projecting their concerns for the building, valid or not, as a personal vendetta/ego and something to be brushed aside in face of percieved 'good planning/architecture'.

Let's just look at these recent comments again:

Side A – The Builders
• Self-made, respected, renowned, entrepreneurs with deep local roots and demonstrated records of success in the cultural realm
• A privately funded architectural masterpiece in the core, with multiple benefits to the city including reduced transit congestion and rare private art contribution

Side B – The Bureaucrat
• Appointed public official using selective regulatory and person attack strategies (“trite & bait-and-switch†comments) to either frustrate or arbitrarily modify the project.
• Highly engaged on Bike lanes and Twitter.

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.

Clearly you have a heavy crush on Chief Planner Keesmat. I will respect that.

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.

This crazy obsession is frankly, stupid. Just let it up and see how things develop in the next couple months instead of uselessly whining about city planners and their 'unsosphistication', please!

 

[freshcutgrass]

"The debate should strictly be: do we want 3 - 80 story condo buildings on this particular site?"

Yes we do (not much of a debate).

We're getting the condos. If not here...then across the street, down the street. Tons of them are coming. It's not a bad thing...in a huge mixed-use commercial downtown like Toronto's, you essentially can't "overbuild" the residential.

So...since we already know we are getting the condo units to the area, the real trick is to grab the gems while you can. Cause most of what you are going to get is of the Pinnacle Centre or 300 Front variety.

And that's why it's pointless to relegate this debate to a simple matter of do we want 2700 more condos (and it's even more pointless whether they come in 60 or 80 story buildings). You're getting them whether you like it or not.

What I would like to end up with, and what is far less guaranteed, is some great architecture and cultural amenities added to the area.

 

[argus]

1) Keesmat made it personal - see "Trite & Bait & Switch"
2) That the final product may not live up to our fondest expecations? Is that an objection? You want guarantees if Life?
3) No one said M&G are supposed to go broke. I hope they do very well.
4) With regards Keesmat seeking solutions, her comments are not constructive.

Keep throwing your propoganda out there, maybe some of it will stick.

1. It's become personal for you. Funny how you fail to mention that the developer ran to the OMB at the first sign of potential trouble - as in when he realized that he wasn't automatically getting what he wanted on the basis of his fame, notoriety and brand-name architect. Planning in this city must deal with developers who can run to provincial overlords. That clearly doesn't bother you. Planning deals with the city, the developer deals with just his building proposal and nothing else. There's a big difference.

2. You have been touting this thing as a masterpiece over and over, and now you tell me there are no guarantees in life? Do you realize that you have undermined your own argument? As I have noted earlier, it's a building proposal, not a building. Either you're unclear about your own assertions, or you are applying the word "masterpiece" to a building proposal that hasn't even hit it's final design stage. Talk about propaganda!

3. I didn't say Mirvish was supposed to go broke. I said he stands to make a tremendous amount of money from this project if it goes forward. There is a difference.

4. According to you her comments are not constructive. That's because you refuse to see the validity of any argument outside your endless lauding of this unfinished proposal as a "masterpiece."

 

[argus]

To the Moderator (Interchange). I would like to report SLORCO on the basis he is essentially a troll. He has made baseless comments, and he will not attempt to defend his comments when challenged. I think he should be banned.

Touchy.

Explain why an unbuilt structure existing only in the form of an incomplete proposal is, in your view, a "masterpiece." Please provide objective measures to define this condition.

 

[E.B.]

Slocro, here's some quotes on Gehry's reputation:

What is the most important piece of architecture built since 1980? Vanity Fair’s survey of 52 experts, including 11 Pritzker Prize winners, has provided a clear answer: Frank Gehry’s Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao.


In February 1998, at the age of 91, Philip Johnson, the godfather of modern architecture, who 40 years earlier had collaborated with Ludwig Mies van der Rohe on the iconic Seagram Building, in Manhattan, traveled to Spain to see the just-completed Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao. He stood in the atrium of the massive, titanium-clad structure with its architect, Frank Gehry, gesturing up to the torqued and sensually curving pillars that support the glass-and-steel ceiling and saying, “Architecture is not about words. It’s about tears.” Breaking into heavy sobs, he added, “I get the same feeling in Chartres Cathedral.” Bilbao had just opened its doors, but Johnson, the principal apostle of the two dominant forms of architecture in the 20th century—Modernism and Postmodernism—and the design establishment’s ultimate arbiter, was prepared to call it on the spot. He anointed Gehry “the greatest architect we have today” and later declared the structure “the greatest building of our time.”

Solcro, give an example of Mr Mirvish pulling a "bait & switch"?

I'll patiently wait for you examples.

 

[SLOCRO]

Slocro, here's some quotes on Gehry's reputation:

What is the most important piece of architecture built since 1980? Vanity Fair’s survey of 52 experts, including 11 Pritzker Prize winners, has provided a clear answer: Frank Gehry’s Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao.


In February 1998, at the age of 91, Philip Johnson, the godfather of modern architecture, who 40 years earlier had collaborated with Ludwig Mies van der Rohe on the iconic Seagram Building, in Manhattan, traveled to Spain to see the just-completed Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao. He stood in the atrium of the massive, titanium-clad structure with its architect, Frank Gehry, gesturing up to the torqued and sensually curving pillars that support the glass-and-steel ceiling and saying, “Architecture is not about words. It’s about tears.†Breaking into heavy sobs, he added, “I get the same feeling in Chartres Cathedral.†Bilbao had just opened its doors, but Johnson, the principal apostle of the two dominant forms of architecture in the 20th century—Modernism and Postmodernism—and the design establishment’s ultimate arbiter, was prepared to call it on the spot. He anointed Gehry “the greatest architect we have today†and later declared the structure “the greatest building of our time.â€

Solcro, give an example of Mr Mirvish pulling a "bait & switch"?

I'll patiently wait for you examples.

Is Gehry the builder or the architect? Then re-read my post. This is a case of reading too quickly. What's with the troll crying and the wikipedia definition? Who challenged the museum in Bilbao? Toronto is a prime example of projects where architects get their proposals value engineered. Since we know that, how can we (as argus so eloquently and simply pointed out) judge an incomplete proposal as a masterpiece, or use that as any justification for it to be built?

 

[freshcutgrass]

Toronto is a prime example of projects where architects get their proposals value engineered. Since we know that, how can we (as argus so eloquently and simply pointed out) judge an incomplete proposal as a masterpiece, or use that as any justification for it to be built?

Anywhere market driven housing is built is a prime example of value engineering (which isn't the same as bait & switch). The only thing that sets Toronto apart perhaps, is that it is building so much more than most.

We know this isn't the case, because logic tells us that market-driven value-engineered projects don't hire Frank Gehry as the architect, nor do they offer anything more than they have to. Of course we have to consider who the players are, and their reputations. It doesn't matter if we (or Gehry for that matter) has seen the finalized design....is anyone honestly telling me they doubt this project, as planned, will be anything less than great? Com'on.

And it isn't a case of justifying whether to approve the density based on these merits....we are getting those condos one way or another anyway. The point is to approve the project so we end up with something much better than we usually do...which is the condos, dull architecture and a Shoppers Drug Mart as a cultural benefit.

The point is that we really have nothing to lose, and everything to gain, so why piss away this opportunity?

 

[buildup]

An extraordinary proposal, sponsored by credible people.

Poo-pooed as it may not come out exactly as advertised, where is my guarantee of satisfaction?

We approve banal crap all around the city and moan about glass boxes, then when we are presented with something that probably exceeds our wildest expectations we start backing away with SNL Debbie Downer gloom and doom scenarios...

Doesn't anyone see how perverse this mindset is? How in the world can anything get accomplished amidst such negativity, pessimism, and bureaucratic double speak. I'm still dumbfounded at someone's admonition that M&G stand to make some $ on this. Is that some sort of accusation?

a) Tall Poppy syndrome (check)
b) Politics of Envy (check)
c) Debbie Downer (check)

 

[waterloowarrior]

Stop taking this as an attack on Gehry or Mirvish. It's been explained dozens of times in this thread that the planning system is not based on who the architect is is or which developers are more trustworthy or build better buildings. We have rule of law in this country, not approvals based on who you like best. The name of the developer and architect are completely irrelevant from a legal and planning process standpoint. And the materials and design of the building aren't even on the table right now, we are just looking at the blank "zoning box" and some other performance standards like amenity space and parking as part of the zoning application and potential Official Plan Amendment. Trying to ban posters because they are posting accurate information about the process is just crazy.

 

[E.B.]

Is Gehry the builder or the architect? Then re-read my post. This is a case of reading too quickly. What's with the troll crying and the wikipedia definition? Who challenged the museum in Bilbao? Toronto is a prime example of projects where architects get their proposals value engineered. Since we know that, how can we (as argus so eloquently and simply pointed out) judge an incomplete proposal as a masterpiece, or use that as any justification for it to be built?

I read the full content of your post the first time. However, you have not read mine, as you haven't given me an example of Mirvish pulling a "bait & switch". I will continue to wait for it. you have 80 yrs of the mirvish family business to pick from.

Gehry is the architect, we can judge his work based on Gehry's passed involvement & performance. I assume you know of his past projects, let me know which one came out vastly different from his final adjusted plan?

btw, projectcore is the development team & Mirvsh has final say on the project.

 

[400WellingtonGuy]

Rumours are that the man himself is in town next week. That should bring the life back to this thread. 8 days without a post - wow!

 

[argus]

Does this mean that there will be an "update" on the design proposals?

 

[400WellingtonGuy]

It's about time don't you think!

 

[400WellingtonGuy]

Does this mean that there will be an "update" on the design proposals?

Just confirmed by City Planning Staff (formal notice should be out tomorrow):

Community Consultation Meeting
Tuesday May 27th
6-7 Open House
7-8:30 Presentation and Q&A
Metro Hall