argus

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 14, 2013
Messages
492
Reaction score
298
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.

So which one is it? Would Mirvish being paying, for example, the salaries of the staff and the maintenance fees for this free gallery? Would it be corporations? Would it be condo fees from the towers?

Your own answer underscores what I originally stated: it wan't/isn't 100% clear. You certainly are not clear yourself, which means you don't know.

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

You're the one engaging in specious arguments here. He stands to generate a sizeable profit. I'm sure he's not in this for a loss. Your response here is simply petulant. The point is that the developer does not retain the condominium corporation once it is registered. The developer does engage in the creation of the declaration and other legal matters of the building. These are still unseen - as is the full extent to which Mirvish will remain involved.

This is a nonsensical statement.

Why is it nonsensical? What do you not understand? Mirvish could sell the PoW. He owns it. He could sell all the land if he wishes. What do you not understand? If the PoW is such a drag on his books, he has a number of options open to him. Leaving it there now might be saying something.

Really, your responses on this thread make you appear petty. Maybe you should take a cue from David Mirvish himself and adapt your approach.
 

greenleaf

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 17, 2007
Messages
2,669
Reaction score
1,856
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.'

The PoW is being saved for its cultural heritage status, not its architecture. AFAIK this is permitted under the new heritage by-laws.

I don't want to wade into the argument that's dragged for a few pages, but c'mon: we're getting a supertall and another near supertall skyscraper by architect Frank Gehry. That's pretty awesome.

For those that did not attend the meeting, the pictures do not do justice to the models. They showed one shot of the view of a pedestrian looking up towards the waterfall on the northside of the building and it looked amazing. The podium will still have large ripples of glass that will look dramatic on a large scale and I think they are probably more realistic of the outcome than what we saw for the podium in the 3 tower design.
 

interchange42

Administrator
Staff member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
26,376
Reaction score
32,182
City:
Toronto
It's never been 100% clear how the art gallery was to be funded.
<snip>
If Mirvish really doesn't want PoW, he can sell it and the land that it's on. It's not a heritage site.

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.

Sorry, but it has never been 100% clear that Mirvish (no bolding required) was going to fund the operation of the gallery so that it would be free to visitors. In fact, Projectcore was working on a monthly sum to be assessed to both the condominium suites and to the commercial tenants of the podium to pay for the gallery's operation. With it drastically reduced in size now, and no longer tied to a retail and restaurant podium, I imagine that they will be looking at other models as it will be hard to argue that businesses occupying the office space in the floors below the gallery would benefit from the co-location.

As MetroMan and Greenleaf have mentioned, and as I wrote in my front page story, the PoW is getting a heritage designation as part of the deal with the City.

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

Sorry, I did not shoot the individual evolving wood models. There were other people there with cameras however, so maybe someone else has published theirs online.

For those that did not attend the meeting, the pictures do not do justice to the models.

Thanks!

42
 

MetroMan

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
8,108
Reaction score
4,789
The PoW is being saved for its cultural heritage status, not its architecture. AFAIK this is permitted under the new heritage by-laws.

I don't want to wade into the argument that's dragged for a few pages, but c'mon: we're getting a supertall and another near supertall skyscraper by architect Frank Gehry. That's pretty awesome.

For those that did not attend the meeting, the pictures do not do justice to the models. They showed one shot of the view of a pedestrian looking up towards the waterfall on the northside of the building and it looked amazing. The podium will still have large ripples of glass that will look dramatic on a large scale and I think they are probably more realistic of the outcome than what we saw for the podium in the 3 tower design.

I guess more detailed renderings will gets us all excited again. My concern is that this will turn out to be like 8 Spruce street. By Gehry's standards, I find it too tame. Toronto needs something completely outrageous to kick us out of the loop of glass boxes. L Tower is a welcome lightening rod for unusually shaped towers but Gehry really has the potential of putting an end to the boring glass box era in Toronto.
 

interchange42

Administrator
Staff member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
26,376
Reaction score
32,182
City:
Toronto
We will not see the end to anything (architectural style-wise) because Gehry builds here. Whatever he builds is going to cost more than more typical buildings. Since there is no way to make every building a landmark and have them affordable to the general condo-buying public at the same time, most buildings will continue to be built in the styles we see today.

What will affect designs more in the future is the City's growing insistence that buildings become more energy efficient. We will get more One Park Places and fewer Casas because of that, eg. less vision-glass. Expect more precast, more spandrel panel, and more of the relatively new to Toronto Öko Skin.

42
 
Last edited:

taal

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
6,715
Reaction score
200
Sorry there is no more plan for retail at the base (e.g. a restaurant) ?
 

interchange42

Administrator
Staff member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
26,376
Reaction score
32,182
City:
Toronto
Sorry there is no more plan for retail at the base (e.g. a restaurant) ?

Here's the ground floor plan, which shows 4 retail locations in light blue: (there is more retail expected on the second floor of both podiums)

P1390146.jpg


42
 

Attachments

  • P1390146.jpg
    P1390146.jpg
    87.4 KB · Views: 511
Last edited:

freshcutgrass

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 4, 2008
Messages
2,365
Reaction score
168
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!

What other elements??? The project has been massively scaled back....there's nothing to put there. That's why the western half of that block is just being left as is. And he wasn't being "dismissive" about it....the only reason it was being removed in the first place, was that there was no way to retain it within the original project.


Mirvish states that he likes it better but you disagree. Seems to me he knows a thing or two about it.

Mirvish wanted to create something for Toronto on par with Sagrada Família in Barcelona. He wanted to create a great Gehry-designed permanent colour field gallery for his world class collection (his pride and joy). That was the true legacy he was hoping to accomplish with all of this. And that isn't happening now. And you're telling me he isn't disappointed about it??? Right.


So which one is it? Would Mirvish being paying, for example, the salaries of the staff and the maintenance fees for this free gallery? Would it be corporations? Would it be condo fees from the towers?

Your own answer underscores what I originally stated: it wan't/isn't 100% clear.

Ah...not so fast. Those minor details you seem to be getting so self-righteous about have nothing to do with it. Your original comment eluded to the fact that the gallery was some kind of vague ploy, and not really a serious part of the project.
 

freshcutgrass

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 4, 2008
Messages
2,365
Reaction score
168
Why is it nonsensical? What do you not understand? Mirvish could sell the PoW. He owns it. He could sell all the land if he wishes. What do you not understand? If the PoW is such a drag on his books, he has a number of options open to him. Leaving it there now might be saying something.

It nonsense, because if Mirvish's intention was to simply make money by selling this site, then he would have just done it from the beginning, like he did the Honest Ed store site, rather than spend large amounts of money hiring Frank Gehry to design bogus buildings. I think it's safe to say his intentions were never to unload the property.
 

freshcutgrass

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 4, 2008
Messages
2,365
Reaction score
168
Sorry, but it has never been 100% clear that Mirvish (no bolding required) was going to fund the operation of the gallery so that it would be free to visitors.

That part is true...it's obviously too early to know those kinds of operational details. But again, my point was to argue the idea that the gallery wasn't some bogus scheme by Mirvish as implied by some.


In fact, Projectcore was working on a monthly sum to be assessed to both the condominium suites and to the commercial tenants of the podium to pay for the gallery's operation.

That's a rather strange idea. Wouldn't that require the gallery to be part of the condo corporation (or multiple corporations in this case)? How could it do that and remain a non profit separate entity at the same time? Is there precedence for this? It actually sounds like a good idea, as it would have been a very small fee split between 2700 condos plus commercial tenants.
 

Red October

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 20, 2010
Messages
2,356
Reaction score
332
This thread is getting ridiculous. You'd think Mirvish/Gehry replaced the Empire State Building with a giant middle finger.
 

freshcutgrass

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 4, 2008
Messages
2,365
Reaction score
168
Really, your responses on this thread make you appear petty.

Yea ok....Mirvish was hiring Frank Gehry to design a 60,000 sqft world class art gallery. He was going to supply this art gallery with his own personal world class Color Field art collection (I'm pretty sure this would be the world's only purpose-built permanent Color Field art gallery).

But you are willing to slag off Mirvish because you aren't sure who's going to pay for the light bulbs???!!!

And yet you have the gall to call me petty??
 

freshcutgrass

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 4, 2008
Messages
2,365
Reaction score
168
This thread is getting ridiculous. You'd think Mirvish/Gehry replaced the Empire State Building with a giant middle finger.

No...it's just that this project is clearly pointing out the shortcomings of the city. It's quite exasperating to watch. The city is rotting from the top down...if you hadn't noticed.
 

freshcutgrass

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 4, 2008
Messages
2,365
Reaction score
168
My concern is that this will turn out to be like 8 Spruce street. By Gehry's standards, I find it too tame. Toronto needs something completely outrageous to kick us out of the loop of glass boxes.

The original project had that potential. This scaled back project won't have the budget for full tilt out-of-the-box Gehry. It's going to have to be a more tried-and-true Gehry.

My guess is it will borrow elements from both 8 Spruce as well as IAC Center.
 

interchange42

Administrator
Staff member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
26,376
Reaction score
32,182
City:
Toronto
In fact, Projectcore was working on a monthly sum to be assessed to both the condominium suites and to the commercial tenants of the podium to pay for the gallery's operation.

That's a rather strange idea. Wouldn't that require the gallery to be part of the condo corporation (or multiple corporations in this case)? How could it do that and remain a non profit separate entity at the same time? Is there precedence for this? It actually sounds like a good idea, as it would have been a very small fee split between 2700 condos plus commercial tenants.

I'm not sure it would have to be part of the condo corp, but the incorporation of the condo and the sales agreements for the units would have to include a stipulation that a monthly sum would be taken in perpetuity. We have to make sure lawyers can put bread on the table too.

42
 

Top