Thank you so much! I hope to make more renderings until Gehry makes his mind up on the design.

I'm optimistic. Even watered down, these buildings are still more eye catching than any condominiums yet built in Toronto. I actually prefer this project to the butchered stumpy version proposed by council.

I actually like the waterfall feature. It will feature the interesting curved glass work that was the staple of the original design.
 
Future view from the Leslie street spit (Tommy Thompson Park).
Still irritated by the lack of renderings…
m+g from the spit.jpg
 

Attachments

  • m+g from the spit.jpg
    m+g from the spit.jpg
    80.3 KB · Views: 1,264
verticalvillage said:
I actually prefer this project to the butchered stumpy version proposed by council.
Click to expand...

You doubt the superior architectural prowess of the Ford administration to school Frank Gehry on architecture? Perhaps they should have insisted on incorporating a monorail?

Who needs art when you have Tim Hortons and monorails.



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.
Click to expand...

I think plenty of people will ultimately be disappointed because the finished product will not be what they had imagined or hoped for. I doubt I will be one of them. I prefer the subdued deconstructivist abstractness elegance of 8 Spruce, which for cost purposes I think the Mirvish Towers will draw their influence (looks like the bases may have a bit of IAC inspiration).

But what does concern me a little, is that 8 Spruce still cost $875 million USD to build in 2011, and has one "flat" side plus received $203.9 million in tax-free financing from the New York Liberty Bond Program. This is a Manhattan rental building. With more than double the units, and in the Toronto condo sales market, I'm wondering how the Mirvish project be affected by the reality of the costs vs returns.
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Maybe that's where the sale of the Honest Ed site comes in?

AoD
Click to expand...

Why? Do you think he's going to use it to partly self-finance to start construction on one tower before the usual presales percent kicks in to secure construction financing from the banks? I just don't see $100 million making all that much difference.
 
freshcutgrass said:
Why? Do you think he's going to use it to partly self-finance to start construction on one tower before the usual presales percent kicks in to secure construction financing from the banks? I just don't see $100 million making all that much difference.
Click to expand...

I don't necessarily think so (considering he is a businessman first and foremost), but hey, Gehry himself was quoted saying that his flourishes add a 10% premium to construction costs. The 100M is your 10%.

AoD
 
Last edited:
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Gehry himself was quoted saying that his flourishes add a 10% premium to construction costs. The 100M is your 10%.

AoD
Click to expand...

Could that be more of a conservative average? And then there are his fees, which I'm sure is more than a 10% premium above your average Toronto craptastic condo architect (why do you think Tridel hires Rudy Wallman). And if you are going to the trouble of hiring Frank Gehry, I'm sure the quality of everything associated with the project is amped up as well.

Frank Gehry projects have habit of being expensive. Really expensive. The Jay Pritzker Pavilion is just a small open air bandshell, and that ended up costing over $60 million USD and 558% over budget. Disney Hall went $174 million over budget.
 
freshcutgrass said:
And then there are his fees, which I'm sure is more than a 10% premium above your average Toronto craptastic condo architect (why do you think Tridel hires Rudy Wallman).l.

Frank Gehry projects have habit of being expensive. Really expensive..
Click to expand...

Who is to say that Frank Gehry being from Toronto and a good friend of the Mirvish family, isnt giving out a bargain price:D
 
I've watched this thread closely since the watering down was unveiled, sometimes with amusement, sometimes in horror as certain posters slag one another for their opinions. I've got the time to opine a little.

- The latest efforts here smack of some good city-building and some bad, and I hope that the two parties (Mirvish-Gehry and the city planning department) can now meet in the middle.

- Good city-building -- the initial proposal(s) elicited some worry in me, what with all those street-level antics. I got the idea that some sort of theme park was being cooked up. The latest round gives better context. And I like two skyscrapers better than three. Let's face it, the three were too close and the overall effect was too close to a great wall-of-something.

- Sour attitudes seem to be changing. The anti-height people really were given their say, weren't they? I see no problem with even more height than 92 storeys on this site, but 92 is what we are getting as opposed to 88 or 86 or whatever. That's good. It's the "92 storeys of what" that really matters, no? If the two parties can move the 92 and 82 storey skyscrapers closer to the original proposal, that would be a marvellous outcome.

- The bigger picture really must be kept in mind. There is (gasp) real synergy waiting to happen here and I don't want the planning department to blow that potential right out of the water. This Mirvish-Gehry proposal represents the iconic turn that Toronto could use. Remember, there's Roy Thomson Hall and underused, sterile Pecaut Square to the south… with all these things around, the planning department must consider the positive values of a really epic development on the north side of King W. (While I'm here, honestly, isn't it time to start thinking of a restaurant with a Rockefeller Center feeling, in Pecaut Square? Someone must lead us away from food courts here).

- I have no problem with that old warehouse coming down. No one can guilt me into caring about its fate. This is an instance where we have to look toward the future, not at the past, because we can tell that an amazing district is developing on King just west of University, and we have to go with it. As for the theatre staying or going, well I was neutral about that: I've always thought its architecture was merely "convenient" to coin a term. The prospect of an elegant modern art gallery along King W. is more appealing to me, in this instance.
 
Remember, there's Roy Thomson Hall and underused, sterile Pecaut Square to the south… with all these things around, the planning department must consider the positive values of a really epic development on the north side of King W.
Click to expand...

This is where that "theme park" (Cloud Podium) you slagged off earlier would have come in. It would have been the tipping point that would have turned this block into quite the event destination. But the Tim Hortons crowd have prevailed. And that facadism will more than make up for the visual/cultural heavyweight the Cloud Podium would have been....right?
 
smably said:
Oh, would you please give that up already?

I'm reserving judgement on this until I see the final design, but I'm sure it will be spectacular.
Click to expand...

You're looking at the final design...there isn't going to be a Cloud Podium...Whitewear and POW stay as is (although I imagine Whitewear will get a reno along with the new top floor mini-gallery).

The important questions are:
...will Tim Hortons rent go up?
...will Tim Hortons introduce a Frank Gehry donut to celebrate?

(I guess I'm not going to "give it up already" eh)
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top