Actually, it should become increasingly apparent that brains play a far more integral part in this drama than you think.
I am now going to the kitchen to get a fork...so I can stab myself in my freaking eyeball.
I'm quite sure Mirvish didn't hire Gehry to save money on the architectural bill.
I'm also quite sure you have no clue as to Gehry's working style involving his visions as translated through his mind...to the models...to the actual working plans...to the physical completed building. He has managed to build some pretty interesting stuff...and yea...they tend to be expensive to execute.
Oh really?? Can they take the profits from 700 condos in a Gehry building and transfer that to the remaining two as well? (see where the "brains" bit is starting to be more than just rhetoric)
Mirvish's position had always been that these three towers needed to be tall in order to make sense economically. It was based on the idea that the 50 storeys that the city wanted would only be enough to make a regular (non-Gehry) design feasible but that it took that extra 30-35 storeys to produce the profit to pay for Gehry's flourishes.
This makes sense on a tower by tower basis because if you're already going to the trouble of paying for the carrying costs, development costs, equipment, parking levels, etc. for a particular tower, after (and up to) a certain number of floors you hit economies of scale. On the flip side, if you axe one of the towers, you no longer have that extra profit but you also don't have that additional expense that the Gehry-flourishes would have added to that tower. To quote
Mike in TO (who unlike me, actually works in the development industry and attended the community meeting), the reduction of units "may actually increase the economic viability by reducing carrying costs, speeding market absorption and lowering a number of risk factors".
Ultimately, I have little doubt that we would have seen similar architectural revisions whether or not the city approved the initial proposal. Not even in New York, Dubai or China do they put up towers as architecturally complex and ambitious as those were. No, I can't see into Mirvish's mind, but unless he was willing to throw gobs of money into Lake Ontario, I'm just not buying it.
Eliminating the POW solved a couple of problems...freed up space for a much better project and was a good business move for Mirvish. If you have been paying attention at all I shouldn't have to even be repeating this. Fewer seats to fill in a theatre down market means the remaining theatres are healthier (including the Royal Alex located on this site).
And I think you overestimate the "animation" the existing buildings add to the street. People aren't using POW 24/7. The rest of the tenants in the old warehouse buildings hardly add any animation to the street, unless you count the panhandlers outside Tim Hortons. Obviously, the original podium would have contained components better able to animate the street. And a better animated street requires wider sidewalks than currently exists (far more important element than people give credit to). You can just kiss that goodbye now.
What else is it you lament about the POW????
The shows?...you will still be able to see them...at the remaining venues.
The POMO street facade? I hope you wouldn't trade a Gehry to keep that.
The Stella art? Don't worry...Mirvish Has Stella on speed dial. (wait a minute...you're an art-hating Torontonian...never mind)
I'm an art-hating Torontonian? What are you talking about?
Anyway, Mirvish has said (I believe during the talk with Hume at the Toronto Reference Library, but it could have been somewhere else) that there's enough activity to sustain the POW in addition to his other theatres and that he'd prefer not to lose it, but that if a trade off has to be made then ultimately he doesn't need it. Regardless, I don't care whether getting rid of the POW is a good business decision for Mirvish personally, but only how its demolition impacts the city. I'm sure Mirvish's theatre business and the Toronto theatre scene will do just fine regardless of what happens to the POW.
With respect to how it animates the street, I understand that it's not a round the clock operation, but keep in mind that those 2000 to 4000 people per day who come to see a show (they have two shows a day on weekends and some weekdays) will often have dinner in nearby restaurants before the show or have drinks in nearby bars afterwards. The POW helps to make the neighbourhood an evening
destination in a way that an additional 700 condos units and the expanded gallery space wouldn't have.
With respect to the heritage warehouse housing the Tim Hortons, I never claimed that it animated the street, and I'm hoping that sometime down the line it will eventually get torn down in favour of a tower (the lot is actually a little larger than Theatre Park's lot). And once it is, we'll get back those lost 700 units and hopefully a legitimate gallery space at the base to replace the one that Mirvish now proposes on the roof of the heritage building.
I did not claim that as a blanket statement at all. I am strictly referring to this project, and these players specifically.
Like I've said...if it's the same height, same density, same precedent setting situation, but instead with zero public realm or cultural benefits (ala Aura), then it gets approval from the City (in fact is given height increases).
What we have here, are two men...both of which are Toronto-born and world class in their respective fields, contemplating what is essentially their going out with a bang legacy projects.
And you are telling me we have "gained" from the city-directed dumbing down of this project? Your are indeed rationalizing...or you just have bad taste.
Your comparison to Aura is disingenuous. Aura went up on a bare parking lot in a run-down part of town. This is a totally different scenario.
Furthermore, I'm not trying to suggest that the city hold Mirvish and Gehry's feet to the fire or approach them in a combative manner. I agree that these men are trying to do something special, and I'm glad that the city went out of its way to find a way to approve this project, but ultimately it's not Mirvish's or Gehry's job to properly integrate the development with the surrounding fabric. That's what planners are for, and that's why planners and the city need to be actively involved in this project instead of just rubber-stamping it. That's how you end up with a superior and more well thought out project that takes various considerations into account. The city gains by having the architect and developer sit down and work co-operatively with planning staff instead of against it or despite it. The new quasi-public space envisioned for Duncan Street is evidence of that.
The lack of boldness is not based on what we get....but what we turned down. Step back and think about that.
What's there to step back and think about? Opportunity cost is hardly a profound concept, and it's also premised on the idea that Gehry's initial concept would have gone forward and have been built substantially unchanged
but for the meddling of the city, which I reject outright.
