I'm finding it hard to believe people are getting hung up on meters vs. feet regarding a building which, after the CN tower, will be the country's tallest building. I mean, really - who cares? By Canada's standards it will be impressively tall.

Doubtless taller buildings will come along, in time. Meanwhile I'd much rather see M-G get cleared and the construction commencing. Nobody but a comparatively slender contingent will care about supertall status - more people will be impressed by the design, its execution and the way it changes the skyline.
 
Speaking of the World Trade Center, does anyone remember the original design by Daniel Libeskind? I can't comment on the overall site plan, but I always liked the design of the towers better than what got built. To me they spoke more to 9/11 and worked better as a cohesive whole. Just goes to show that a project rarely gets built exactly as the architect originally envisioned. Something to keep in mind for those who think that the changes to the Mirvish proposal make some sort of negative statement about Toronto. It happens everywhere, even on the most important sites in the most important cities in the world.

wtcfree5.jpg

http://www.thecityreview.com/wtcfree.html

That said, I still think the new Mirvish/Gehry proposal is an improvement.
 

Attachments

  • wtcfree5.jpg
    wtcfree5.jpg
    39.9 KB · Views: 879
MisterF:

Not only did the project didn't went ahead as planned, Libeskind got "replaced" (technically he is the master planner and nothing more) by David Childs of SOM, and this current design is his second major public iteration. On top of that, the base cladding (which is meant to be a barrier for bombs) had to be redesigned due to cladding failure, and the spire (which was supposed to be a geodetic structure) got cheapened out into some regular looking strut. Even in New York.

Carry on.

AoD
 
I was by Bathurst and King and as always enjoyed the continuous line of low-rise historic buildings, its a fine area. But I shake my head at the crummy line of buildings on the M+G site. Individually and collectively they are dull. They are some of the least appealing historic structures in the city. Hard to see what the fight was about. It was third rate when built, and has not improved with age. I also fail to see the special appeal of the sidewalk experience, its not an area where people choose to linger.

It would have been the PERFECT place for a bold urban experiment.

However certain (small people) define themselves in terms of the size of what they oppose. They want BIG wins.
 
Southcore said:
So in order to get approved this has to go to council and get how many votes, two thirds? Or 23?

Earlier today Josh Matlow said he will not support the new iteration of this project.
Click to expand...

I grow increasingly perplexed by Matlow's stance on development in his ward and throughout the city. I sent him a tweet asking for his reasons so we will see...
 
buildup said:
Then please enlighten me. Are you saying that anytime there are pre-existing structures the solution is a brick wrapper and a courtyard? I walk through that coutyard almost every day. But it has nothing to do with the M+G project. Nothing.
Click to expand...

Here's some enlightenment.
http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2014/te/bgrd/backgroundfile-66239.pdf
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life...-up-for-yorkvilles-old-guard/article12508327/
http://www.blogto.com/city/2014/02/heritage_buildings_could_derail_yorkville_condo_project/

And the only thing any of this has to do w/the M+G project (other than the Diamond & Myers > KPMB lineage having been at Eclipse Whitewear for going on 4 1/2 decades) is, well, the whole "heritage aspect"--and as evidenced by you presently, the fact that if you scratch the surface of a lot of these thread's cheerleaders for a tabula rasa for World Class Gehry (as opposed to "boring warehouses", etc), you'll find a lot (not *all*--freshcutgrass, for one, may be more attuned) of people who, like you, have a rather underinformed grasp of what Toronto already has--"I may not know Toronto's architectural history, but I know what I like", that sort of thing. Either that, or people who want to impose a bit of a Common Sense Revolution "rationalization" of what they feel to be hysterical-preservationism-run-amok.

Sorta like, the more one cheerleads "bring it on, bring it on!", the more one betrays how fatally limited and/or hostile their perspective is on what already exists.
 
It is important to remember that for many Torontonians, including many of us here, English is a lingua franca and not our mother tongue.
 
buildup said:
I was by Bathurst and King and as always enjoyed the continuous line of low-rise historic buildings, its a fine area. But I shake my head at the crummy line of buildings on the M+G site. Individually and collectively they are dull. They are some of the least appealing historic structures in the city. Hard to see what the fight was about. It was third rate when built, and has not improved with age. I also fail to see the special appeal of the sidewalk experience, its not an area where people choose to linger.

It would have been the PERFECT place for a bold urban experiment.
Click to expand...

Which is why the city should have paid them to replace those dink buildings (especially given what Gehry had given us a glimpse of). But in bizarre fashion, the city dug their heels in and pretended the city's fate depended on saving these insignificant in every way buildings.

This is the same city that had recently gladly demolished the fabulous Allward & Gouinlock Hall of Fame building to make way for BMO, despite endless empty acreage all around it to build on. And this is a city-owned building on city-owned property. But a tiny bit of the facade was clumsilly pasted on to the new BMO...so that makes it all ok...as Mirvish refers to it in the perfect Sir John Gielgud style insult.."The Toronto Solution".

Bizarre behaviour at City Hall is not relegated to just the Fords & Mammo...it's deeply set in...like gangrene.
 
Bayer:

Well technically speaking it is mine, but I have never been one overly concerned about grammar - life is frankly too short to worry about that in a forum setting. Now etiquette on the other hand...

AoD
 
Adma, you keep missing the point. I acknowledge Hazelton Courtyard is worth keeping.

But it has nothing to do with M+G (this thread). The fact a company has occupied one of the buildings on the M+G site 4 1/2 decades is of mild interest, and milder importance. Losing that piece of heritage is a mild loss. Life is tradeoffs.

Killing the opportunity to see what a world-class Toronto (you hate greatness, it's crude) architect could do on this site at ground level is civic cowardness. A bold experiment not undertaken. Its also meanspirited. I am sure deep down you & your ilk are secretly regretting your pyrrhic victory. You've made Toronto look ridiculous.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top