It has nothing to do with “self hating”, it has to do with being immobilized by indecision and/or lack of direction. The original proposal was elegant, bold and daring but the planning department was not prepared for this type of development. The latest proposal is a complete redesign – a compromise – removing most of the intriguing Gehry flourishes and does nothing to eliminate the original "concerns" of height and density, all it does is save an old warehouse and a theatre that Mirvish himself said he can’t fill.
Take the subway issue for example. We all know we need a DRL as soon as possible – but we now have three provincial premier candidates and a multitude of mayoral candidates each with their own vision for transit in the GTA. Will we ever get the DRL? It seems unlikely to happen any time soon as the city is once again hamstrung with political nonsense – not unlike our planning department – but there is no point in haggling over Keesmats political ambitions or her need to put her stamp on the biggest project in the city’s recent history – whats the point?
I do however lament the loss of what could've been one of the world's great architectural masterpieces performed by a world renowned, locally raised architect right here in our Toronto. As Mirvish himself said "they are no longer doing the Cadillac version" and are doing the Toronto version. The latest proposal is downsized substantially and takes away much of the Gehry and supplants the practical. Some don’t care and are simply excited about 92 floors, but those people wouldn’t care who the architect was anyway and I guess that’s the real point – Mirvish could have returned with any architect, saved the warehouse and the theatre and most would be satisfied.
Mediocrity.
What was *lost* was a proposal that was a work in progress, not a building or even a final design. What it has been replaced with is a proposal that is a work in progress, and not a final design.
The planning department has nothing to do with the design change. That's a move on the part of the architect. Don't like the design, blame him.
As for the side reference to subways and election candidates, routes should not be political but based on sound transportation planning (as in transportation planners - somewhat similar to city planners in that they are employed to make professional judgements based on established principles).
Regarding a "cadillac" version of the proposal, that decision lies with the developer. If his architect has determined to produce work of lesser quality due to a change in the scope of the project, maybe the developer should consider a new architect.
As for this proposal being mediocre, you are, of course, entitled to your opinion. That is your right. But maybe (hopefully) you are being hasty, and a later iteration will recapture your imagination.
Heck, since they are at just under 1,000 feet, why not pop it up a little more and surpass that number? A little rooftop flourish can even take it above FCP's communication tower, and then voila, a new number one in overall building height.
Make Trump blush. That'd be fun.
