argus

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 14, 2013
Messages
492
Reaction score
298
The PoW theatre is a self-financing concern. It's never been 100% clear how the art gallery was to be funded. The PoW theatre would have vanished and above it would have been hundreds of condo units sold to owners. Once turned over, Mirvish and his investors would have walked with a profit and no longer had any interest in the residential building.

If Mirvish really doesn't want PoW, he can sell it and the land that it's on. It's not a heritage site.
 

Michael62

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 26, 2008
Messages
613
Reaction score
4,603
There was a possible life for Sony after POW's demise, but keeping POW will mean the end of the Sony Center as a functional venue.
 

Tewder

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 30, 2007
Messages
5,401
Reaction score
157
It's a bit myopic to suggest that the POW is somehow superfluous (and I'm fairly sure Mirvish wouldn't characterize it as such), as if there's a finite cap to the level of commercial theatre this city could ever sustain. This simply isn't true. These things rise and fall depending on many variables. In fact the POW was built because there was a lack of theatres able to house the sort of large scale productions the Mirvishes like to offer.
 

freshcutgrass

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 4, 2008
Messages
2,365
Reaction score
168
It's never been 100% clear how the art gallery was to be funded.

It's always been 100% clear that Mirvish was funding it.
Mirvish was paying to have Gehry design a 60,000 sqft venue.
Mirvish was supplying the art to put in it
Mirvish was providing access to this gallery to the public free of charge

Now, this does not preclude there being private/corporate partners/funding, or as a non-profit, from getting tax benefits/funding in the future.



The PoW theatre would have vanished and above it would have been hundreds of condo units sold to owners. Once turned over, Mirvish and his investors would have walked with a profit and no longer had any interest in the residential building.

Oh right...let's trot out that ridiculous narrative again...Mirvish is just a greedy bastard developer.

The gallery would have been part of a 6-storey, 2 block podium facility that would have not only have been a massive improvement to the street experience...it would have probably been a real design tour de force as well. We are losing that along with the gallery.

Mirvish was not planning on "walking away", and it's obvious most or all of the profits (and perhaps then some) were being sunk back into the project. Here's a great Torontonian who has put us on the map, and is leaving us this great gift as his legacy (which is important to him).



If Mirvish really doesn't want PoW, he can sell it and the land that it's on. It's not a heritage site.

This is a nonsensical statement.

It isn't a case of him "not wanting it".
If he wanted to sell the land...that's what he would have done in the first place.
 

freshcutgrass

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 4, 2008
Messages
2,365
Reaction score
168
There was a possible life for Sony after POW's demise, but keeping POW will mean the end of the Sony Center as a functional venue.

The real problem with the O'Keefe, is that it is not a particularly fabulous space for any kind of production. Whereas POW was purpose built for Miss Saigon and is a great theatre performance space in general (all that Stella makes it quite a visual extravaganza inside as well).

Although I agree it's chances of seat sales go up by eliminating POW.
 

freshcutgrass

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 4, 2008
Messages
2,365
Reaction score
168
It's a bit myopic to suggest that the POW is somehow superfluous (and I'm fairly sure Mirvish wouldn't characterize it as such)

Actually, it is superfluous, and Mirvish has characterized it as such.

Mirvish has also stated that if in the future he is short of seats, he will simply build another theatre.

I don't know if you are aware, but David Mirvish is actually fan of theatre and makes his living at it. Perhaps he has some valid insights?
 

Tewder

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 30, 2007
Messages
5,401
Reaction score
157
Yes he does, which is why he decided to retain it. To my knowledge nobody held a gun at his head forcing him to? Did they list the theatre without my knowing?

... but why not refer to the 'great Torontonian' himself in the National Post:

“It’s not a watered down version of this,” said Mr. Mirvish, gesturing to a model of the original design. “I actually like this project even better. What it has that the other didn’t have is this theatre [the Princess of Wales] that I put several years of my life into building. I’m glad to have that.”

Where's that fork??
 

Grimace

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 8, 2011
Messages
415
Reaction score
31
Doesn't change the fact it is not his ideal choice to do so.

If Mirvish thinks he has too many theaters he shouldn't have cut Dancap out of buying Pantages. We could have more theatre competition in this town if Mirvish hadn't exercised his muscle on that one, and now he says he has too many theatres?
 

freshcutgrass

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 4, 2008
Messages
2,365
Reaction score
168
Yes he does, which is why he decided to retain it. To my knowledge nobody held a gun at his head forcing him to? Did they list the theatre without my knowing?

The complete redesign of the entire project was solely the result of the city's demands when it rejected what Mirvish originally wanted. If you are implying that what we have here is the natural progression of the original design tweaking to improve it, then I'd say you'd have to be crazy. So basically, yes they did effectively hold a gun to his head.

It's not like he wanted to demolish the theatre...there just was no way to include it in the design. He justified the loss of the theatre by saying he can work the same number of theatre productions in his remaining theatres. He can deal with the theatre issues with or without POW...that isn't the problem.



but why not refer to the 'great Torontonian' himself in the National Post:

“It’s not a watered down version of this,” said Mr. Mirvish, gesturing to a model of the original design. “I actually like this project even better. What it has that the other didn’t have is this theatre [the Princess of Wales] that I put several years of my life into building. I’m glad to have that.”

Of course it isn't a watered-down version of the original design...it's a completely different design. As for the rest, he's just being positive about it...why wouldn't he be? But we all know this is inferior to what he had originally planned....that is self evident.
 

bmiller

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 26, 2009
Messages
440
Reaction score
321
The complete redesign of the entire project was solely the result of the city's demands when it rejected what Mirvish originally wanted. If you are implying that what we have here is the natural progression of the original design tweaking to improve it, then I'd say you'd have to be crazy. So basically, yes they did effectively hold a gun to his head.

It's not like he wanted to demolish the theatre...there just was no way to include it in the design. He justified the loss of the theatre by saying he can work the same number of theatre productions in his remaining theatres. He can deal with the theatre issues with or without POW...that isn't the problem.





Of course it isn't a watered-down version of the original design...it's a completely different design. As for the rest, he's just being positive about it...why wouldn't he be? But we all know this is inferior to what he had originally planned....that is self evident.

+1
 

MetroMan

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
8,108
Reaction score
4,789
After the initial disappointment about the loss of something truly spectacular, I've been able to step back and appreciate what's really happening here:

- The old project is gone and this should not be considered a downsizing and instead is a starting over.
- Gehry has two large plots of land on either side of Mirvish Way to start with a blank slate. The warehouse and PoW are simply no longer a part of the project for the most part.
- As this is starting over, the models we saw were just the original idea and as was the case with the previous design, it got fleshed out over time.

I'm disappointed that the new towers and specially the new podium are nothing worthy of architectural tourism at this stage but I'm going to put some faith in Gehry going back with his new plots of land and ideas and building something that he can be proud of building in his home town. He's been longing for this all his life, I don't think he's ready to give up just yet.

I'm particularly optimistic about the art gallery on top of the warehouse. Right now, it's nothing more than an after thought but once Gehry draws his attention to it, I think it can be something truly special. I was hoping that he'd do something to the unremarkable façade of the PoW but it looks like the City is giving it heritage status and it won't be touched. That's unfortunate because Keesmaat is misusing heritage status as a tool to preserve the use of the building, not for its architectural or historical value.'

Shovels won't hit the ground until 2015 at best so I think we still have over a year to see this project's evolution.
 
Last edited:

ponyboy

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 4, 2007
Messages
949
Reaction score
935
I would love to see more photos of how the form of the towers evolved. There is just one photo by Craig White that shows a number of iterations in a long view, but it is hard to see clearly how it evolved --

are there any more photos that go with this --
A model history: an evolution of design from the three towers to two, image by Craig White
 

Tewder

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 30, 2007
Messages
5,401
Reaction score
157
The complete redesign of the entire project was solely the result of the city's demands when it rejected what Mirvish originally wanted. If you are implying that what we have here is the natural progression of the original design tweaking to improve it, then I'd say you'd have to be crazy. So basically, yes they did effectively hold a gun to his head.

He did not have to retain the POW in any revised scheme. If he were as dismissive of it as you like to claim, he would have knocked it down, freeing up more space for other elements of this project. You cannot wiggle yourself out of the fact that he retained an element that he wasn't obligated to!

Of course it isn't a watered-down version of the original design...it's a completely different design. As for the rest, he's just being positive about it...why wouldn't he be? But we all know this is inferior to what he had originally planned....that is self evident.

Ah ok, I didn't realize you could read his mind. No further point discussing then really, just continue to elaborate for us what he is thinking. Mirvish states that he likes it better but you disagree. Seems to me he knows a thing or two about it.
 

Tewder

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 30, 2007
Messages
5,401
Reaction score
157
I'm disappointed that the new towers and specially the new podium are nothing worthy of architectural tourism at this stage but I'm going to put some faith in Gehry going back with his new plots of land and ideas and building something that he can be proud of building in his home town. He's been longing for this all his life, I don't think he's ready to give up just yet.

There is no indication that this will not be worthy of architectural tourism... in fact, the public space on Duncan, the roof-top gallery, the POW and the new podiums and super tall towers all indicate that this block will be an enormous draw for tourists (of all types) and locals alike.
 

Top