[AlvinofDiaspar]

I think you should give up on this "work in progress" idea. From here on the changes will be minimal - the once grand proposal has been hobbled and will resemble simple condo towers atop old warehouses. Some victory.

Huh? Since when did we had "simple condo towers" like what's in this new iteration? The closest analogue is Beekman Tower in NYC (and I can only hope we had "simple condo towers" like that). And atop what old warehouses? Only the facade of Anderson is preserved - and it was a rather small component of the podium, which as put forward looks more like IAC than anything.

Like honestly, hyperbole would be a bit more convincing if it isn't simply wrong.

AoD

 

[TrickyRicky]

"compensation, a few unimportant beams and bricks from yesteryear will be saved – remnants that future generations can gaze at as they try to figure out why Toronto never got an astonishing skyscraper by Frank Gehry."

This statement made me laugh out loud . Seriously, and I hope this doesn't offend anyone here, hardly anyone gives a crap now let alone future generations. So bless everyone who is devoting their psychological energy to caring about the aesthetics of the building here. If we don't do it no one will.

 

[argus]

I think you should give up on this "work in progress" idea. From here on the changes will be minimal - the once grand proposal has been hobbled and will resemble simple condo towers atop old warehouses. Some victory.

Best stated by John Bentley Mays:


"In the plan served up in 2012, the three towers hit the ground in a storm cloud of colour, light and colliding planes. Effectively crafting this juncture of the shaft and the street is always a problem for tall-building architects. And the solution Mr. Gehry proposed in the initial version – packing the bottom with as much dramatic punch as possible, making the ground level wonderfully exuberant and urbane – was surely brilliant.

Now, 18 months later, the base has turned into so much banality. The artistic inventiveness that Mr. Gehry is expending on the tower shafts completely disappears as the buildings near the ground. They come to rest, not, as before, in a moment charged with urban excitement, but on what appear to be the dull, blockish hulks of the old warehouses rescued from the wreckers.

If the current design passes muster with Toronto’s political officialdom – we could know the answer as early as next month – and if it is built out without further tinkering, the verve and civic animation of Mr. Gehry’s previous work will be largely lost. As compensation, a few unimportant beams and bricks from yesteryear will be saved – remnants that future generations can gaze at as they try to figure out why Toronto never got an astonishing skyscraper by Frank Gehry."

What's being discussed throughout is still only a proposal. That neither you nor John Bentley Mays likes how this proposal has evolved is immaterial. The three tower version was a work in progress, as is this two tower version. The final plan is yet to be seen.

 

[buildup]

What's being discussed throughout is still only a proposal. That neither you nor John Bentley Mays likes how this proposal has evolved is immaterial. The three tower version was a work in progress, as is this two tower version. The final plan is yet to be seen.

I think its fair to say the podium idea is gone as JBM states - the King West street wall Gehry had wanted to build.

 

[freshcutgrass]

What we've had all along is a work in progress. It still is a work in progress. If anything has been lost, it is a previous work in progress..

Two different "works in progress" with two different trajectories.

Given the location of the proposed gallery space, it's not entirely clear at this point why it could not be expanded somewhat. That would be a choice of the owner and proponent of this proposal, not necessarily because of an absence of potential space.

It's the absence of funds to pay for it...not the absence of space.

 

[argus]

Two different "works in progress" with two different trajectories.

That's your view. I see it as the same project simply evolving.

It's the absence of funds to pay for it...not the absence of space.

As funding was never fully fleshed out for what was to be for a 60,000 square foot facility, it's hard to see why an addition to a 9,000+ square foot facility is automatically so unfeasible. My point was that a building is there. It's being being added to and not being built from scratch.

 

[freshcutgrass]

That's your view.

True

And David Mirvish's
And Frank Gehry's

As funding was never fully fleshed out for what was to be for a 60,000 square foot facility, it's hard to see why an addition to a 9,000+ square foot facility is automatically so unfeasible. My point was that a building is there. It's being being added to and not being built from scratch.

You are very caviller with $billions of other people's money. They can just do this and just do that, as if it were simply a matter of wishing it so.

You obviously have your own perception of this project. It doesn't seem to follow reality much...but I suppose you're entitled to it.

 

[nopacnone]

How many times have you checked this thread hoping for new juicy info, but landed on depressing discussions/arguments?
At least a thousand, to keep a realistic number.

 

[argus]

True

And David Mirvish's
And Frank Gehry's

I view the redevelopment of the site as a work in progress. There are iterations - just as there were on the three tower phase. The applicants showed a number of proposed design ideas and augmented them as they moved forward.

Great that your speaking for Mirvish and Gehry now.

You are very caviller with $billions of other people's money. They can just do this and just do that, as if it were simply a matter of wishing it so.

You obviously have your own perception of this project. It doesn't seem to follow reality much...but I suppose you're entitled to it.

Not sure what you are referring to here, but I haven't met a developer who's gone into business to lose money. If that were the case, we wouldn't be having the building boom that we are experiencing now in this city. With 2,000 units and commercial space, money will be made. Mirvish is no slouch; I suspect that he has a good understanding of what his financial scenarios are likely to be. If this was going lose money, he wouldn't be doing this. That said, the risk is his choice. No one is forcing him to redevelop the site - or even keep it. He could sell it and make a tidy profit, just as he has done with some of his other properties.

It's surprising all has to be spelled out for you.

Regarding his art collection and the space he wishes to allot for it, he owns a number of buildings on the site. If he wished, he could put part of it on display right now. Access might not be free, but as he warehouses many of the works, one presumes that there is a cost associated with that which he's not recovering. In short, some of his art is in storage and not being seen by the public. He could change that now. Moreover, since he owns the building to which the proposed gallery space is to be added, he could extend the gallery space below that addition into the existing building - if he wished to. It's his choice to do with his art. Not mine. Not yours.

So, regarding your self-assumed grasp of "reality," tell me why this isn't still just a proposal in a design phase? Where do you did you acquire certainty on what is to occur in the future? Are you privy to all the financial aspects of the project, with knowledge on how "billions" are to be spent? You've made errors and assumptions earlier in this thread, but you've tried your best to avoid that "reality." How is this project anything but a proposal at this point? How has it been anything other than a proposal before this?

 

[Tewder]

How many times have you checked this thread hoping for new juicy info, but landed on depressing discussions/arguments?
At least a thousand, to keep a realistic number.

To summarize the past 100 posts: some like the new design, some don't. Next?

 

[buildup]

It IS accurate to say "two different trajectories". There were two main elements here - the tower component and the base/podium. The Tower element remains although in a very modified form. However the podium is essentially gone and with it any opportunity to see whether in the 21st century a motivated proven architect could create an engaging street level presence with a clean slate.

Keesmatt was too conservative to take that risk on her watch. So we have safe, functional, warehouses. Nothing wrong with letting other countries do the bold experimentation for us - its the safe approach.

 

[vegeta_skyline]

How many times have you checked this thread hoping for new juicy info, but landed on depressing discussions/arguments?
At least a thousand, to keep a realistic number.

And it will continue ad nauseam until the day there is a building(s) in the sky, some people just thrive on the argument alone.

 

[buildup]

And it will continue ad nauseam until the day there is a building(s) in the sky, some people just thrive on the argument alone.

I'm surprised you see the debate as a waste of time. The process needs to be documented and understood. 20 years from now people may ask why the towers were placed above these ordinary buildings, and why Toronto didn't want to see a more complete vision. Its a strange outcome, and it deserves a response. These opportunities are rare, so the plan is a bit of head scratcher though far better than most other project proposals.

 

[LUVIT!]

I am on this forum because I Love tall buildings and development and city building in general. Having said that I am one of those who would love to have three wonderful Gehry skyscrapers as much as anybody. However not at any cost. When this was first announced I was a little shocked at how much would be lost as well as built. When I travel to other cities it is the mix of old and new with the retention of historical buildings which make a city interesting. In conclusion I believe this is a great balance!

 

[Soho]

The Gehry street interface had to be scrapped to save a 20th century warehouse? Good thing TIFF got built on the opposite corner before planners tried to save Farb's Fast Carwash.