But that's exactly how by being "atypical", they "provide cover". Virile urbanists *adore* those kinds of credentialed "gift horses".

And remember: whether you like it or not, Mirvish "bent".

And you think him bending is a good sign? That's exactly why the only "virile urbanist" in this scenario is...Keesmaat. Just when you thought things at City Hall couldn't possible get any stupider, here comes yet another grandstanding bureaucrat to prove just how screwed up things are.
 
Is this the F+A Thread? I mean this really should be renamed the freshcutgrass + adma project because there is never any useful information on M+G here anymore. Not sure why I clicked on here today. But you two don't care anyway...as you were children.
 
Boy, you're sounding like a guy at the wrong end of an ugly divorce case.

The only time you are at the right end of an ugly divorce case, is when you are the lawyer.

And the lawyer in this scenario is again...Keesmaat. While M&G and we as a city lose, Keesmaat gets to claim the win. There's no other choice really....the planning dept. must force developers to show weakness so they appear to be doing their jobs.

And like the lawyers, they don't know or care what good design is...they just want their fee...."Cut some units and give me a facadism and we're good to go". And that's why the most high profile projects need to make the biggest concessions (when they should be making the least)...it's about egos. And what an ego you must have when you are some nobody from Peterborough telling Frank Gehry his designs are "trite". ha ha ha I hope she never lives that one down.
 
There were rumblings a couple of years ago Keesmat was being too self-promotional in the eyes of some elected politicians. There is nothing wrong with ambition that providing it doesn't guide your decision. The podium was challenging, risky, and bold. Why take a risk when you can just compromise down the middle.
 
I couldn't help myself. I'm just annoyed that Gehry never makes renderings.
Gehry viewed from another Gehry!
(for those wondering where Theatre Park is, I had to use on older photo because I could not find a new one with the right view…)

No compromise can replace the boldness of the original proposal, but still, I think these two towers will be pretty spectacular, especially when walking down McCaul Street.

I'm betting that these two towers will change design to something with even more flourish, as the original proposal did.
gehry from gehry.jpg
 

Attachments

  • gehry from gehry.jpg
    gehry from gehry.jpg
    91.1 KB · Views: 1,067
Last edited:
Tower-wise, I had no doubt we were always going to be pleased with whatever we got, although while the original proposal may have seen Gehry go places not seen before, and the current proposal will probably consist of elements from the Gehry drawer of existing ideas.

P. S. I used to live on the 15th floor of that 50 Stephanie Prii building facing south...would have had a great view of it if I still lived there.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This thread has become nearly devoid of useful information. I loved the former plans and I was devastated for their loss but get over it — this is now a new project altogether and it will go through the same iterations that the previous one did.

Two notions bring me comfort:

1) The previous design was not realistic. One need to look no further than the misalignment of the windows. Unless Gehry planned to build slanted floors and ceilings, this was simply a rough idea of a concept which would have been watered down substantially once real engineering and construction drawings began taking place. What we are mourning the loss of are toys — a maquette, not a real building.

2) The latest design wasn't designed by Frank Gehry. It was designed by Gehry Partners, LLP. Frank barely touched these and it shows. Every indication has been given that what we've seen of the new design is a massing concept for what is required to get city approval. The lack of Gehry flourishes has been misconstrued as him throwing his hands in the air and giving up on Toronto but it's in fact lacking those Gehry flourishes because he barely had any input at this stage.

According to the project's Twitter account:

Mirvish+Gehry @MirvishGehryTO
We're still working on permissions & planning. When details are finalized we will release more information & images. Stay tuned!

I'll add one more: we've put Frank Gehry on a pedestal. When he's constrained by budget he doesn't always deliver. See the stairs facing Grange Park:

3411365521_d1336ea072.jpg


Yuck.

See the Lou Ruvo Center for Brain Health:

60804139.jpg


Gehry's style only really works when it follows through on the illusion of being a solid building with organic forms. When he has to sell that illusion from only the most viewed angles, in person his work is terrible because you can see all the backing and scaffolding holding it up like a mask. The Pritzker Paviillion was the first time that this bubble was popped for me:

Pritzker_pavilion_east_back_far.jpg


On his buildings where the illusion is preserved like the Disney Concert Hall or the Guggenheim, it's absolutely fantastic. Now how do we think the original plan would have turned out with those misaligned windows at skyscraper height and forms bulging out far over the sidewalk on a condo budget?

Stepping into reality brings me comfort that we'll ultimately get something that is beautiful and practical all at once. I for one am extremely excited about what the next set of images will look like after Frank has taken his time with this new project.
 
MetroMan: good point that we're seeing only massing studies. Gehry should ultimately refine the architecture a lot further, but Mirvish is calling the shots and needs city approval before spending more on the architecture. However, I still think Gehry's work is great even in seeing the structural framing. In fact, the framing looks good too, and if that were the only facade, people would like it too like high-tech architecture.
 
Last edited:
I couldn't help myself. I'm just annoyed that Gehry never makes renderings.
Gehry viewed from another Gehry!
(for those wondering where Theatre Park is, I had to use on older photo because I could not find a new one with the right view…)

No compromise can replace the boldness of the original proposal, but still, I think these two towers will be pretty spectacular, especially when walking down McCaul Street.

I'm betting that these two towers will change design to something with even more flourish, as the original proposal did.
View attachment 28700


verticalvillage: This is amazing! Thank you so much!
(I've also felt uneasy about the lack of renderings.)

In terms of a design change, I'm hoping for some modifications. Parts of the façade of the taller tower appear torn, which is an artistic intention, I realise; nevertheless, I am confused by what these accents are attempting to accomplish.

Do many here consider these "waterfall" impressions along the building's exterior attractive?
Don't get me wrong: I'm blown away by this project's scale. The density has me thrilled! From an aesthetical perspective, though, I'm wondering if this design is a bit too abstract to be enjoyable, and too bland to be glamorous. They have their size, certainly.
I'm hungry for renderings rich with the finer details.
 

Back
Top