Contextual sensitivity to what though? That entire district is in a state of flux, with multiple towers already approved and under construction that has little bearing to the original built form, and to quote Theatre Park as "contextual" is just stretching that term - they are about as contextual as what's been proposed at the restaurant row.

With the matter of the supposedly contextuality aside, The question then becomes, who is to say that Gehry won't be able to achieve more without the bounds imposed on him by a canvas that has already been painted on? There is now a cilent with a vision - and a willingness to provide Gehry with an opportunity that has so far elluded the city. Why impose additional bounds on that chance when we have already seen his ability to surpass what was?

AoD
 
Last edited:
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Contextual sensitivity to what though? That entire district is in a state of flux, with multiple towers already approved and under construction that has little bearing to the original built form, and to quote Theatre Park as "contextual" is just stretching that term - they are about as contextual as what's been proposed at the restaurant row.

With the matter of the supposedly contextuality aside, The question then becomes, who is to say that Gehry won't be able to achieve more without the bounds imposed on him by a canvas that has already been painted on? There is now a cilent with a vision - and a willingness to provide Gehry with an opportunity that has so far elluded the city. Why impose additional bounds on that chance when we have already seen his ability to surpass what was?

AoD
Click to expand...

... yes, and so it really does come down to just how much you value what is being lost (or don't). I think we can all agree that there would be little opposition at all to this as a new-build on a blank slate, and of course I would champion it enthusiastically along with everybody else.

In this case though I'm using the term 'contextual sensitivity' deliberately because it truly is about an over-arching successful urban fabric here, as it is any individual case for Heritage buildings (with a capital 'H') or indispensable Toronto icons/landmarks etc... though I would argue that a case could indeed be made for the POW in that there weren't many puropose-built theatres built in its time and day... and who really is to say what value future generations might come to see in its design and history... and the irony of it all: many wouldn't question the heritage value of the Royal Alex now, though a previous generation building the TD Centre would most certainly have 'sacrificed' it without so much as a thought.

In the end though this is about the unique and successfully urban landscape of Toronto's central commercial thoroughfares, and the challenge of preserving them while adding density... from this perspective I see the Mirvish/Gehry scheme as grandiose and exciting but I don't see it as enlightened.


... oh and regarding Theatre Park, I mean 'contextual' in the sense that it adds height, drama and something new yet sits back and defers at ground level to the established built form around it, including the Royal Alex. The tower adds a new layer to it all, but it doesn't stop one from appreciating the established layers that front King.
 
Last edited:
I just saw that the OCAD development and (I believe) the museum is going to be deemed a the Section 37 benefit. Should the developer and the councillor acting in private be able to simply decide that without reference to the community before a planning application is even submitted? After all the effect in terms of additional shadowing, noise, traffic etc. is on them and yet this is presented as a done deal, integral to the development itself unlike other developments where the S37s go to a separate site such as a park.
 
Tewder said:
... yes, and so it really does come down to just how much you value what is being lost (or don't). I think we can all agree that there would be little opposition at all to this as a new-build on a blank slate, and of course I would champion it enthusiastically along with everybody else.

In this case though I'm using the term 'contextual sensitivity' deliberately because it truly is about an over-arching successful urban fabric here, as it is any individual case for Heritage buildings (with a capital 'H') or indispensable Toronto icons/landmarks etc... though I would argue that a case could indeed be made for the POW in that there weren't many puropose-built theatres built in its time and day... and who really is to say what value future generations might come to see in its design and history... and the irony of it all: many wouldn't question the heritage value of the Royal Alex now, though a previous generation building the TD Centre would most certainly have 'sacrificed' it without so much as a thought.

In the end though this is about the unique and successfully urban landscape of Toronto's central commercial thoroughfares, and the challenge of preserving them while adding density... from this perspective I see the Mirvish/Gehry scheme as grandiose and exciting but I don't see it as enlightened.

... oh and regarding Theatre Park, I mean 'contextual' in the sense that it adds height, drama and something new yet sits back and defers at ground level to the established built form around it, including the Royal Alex. The tower adds a new layer to it all, but it doesn't stop one from appreciating the established layers that front King.
Click to expand...

Normally I enjoy these discussions because I learn a great deal (including from US before he was banned). For example urban transit needs discussion. But sometimes (rarely) an opportunity arrives that deserves action - immediate action! This project is so spectacular I envision everyone wanting to debate it to death. Everyone will want to use it as a bellweather case. Everyone will want to modify it, in other words insert themselves into it. But, sometimes its a mistake to look a gift horse in the mouth. I would go as far as saying that before this announcment no here could have imagined anything as bold and daring - it is exactly what we have been pining for for decades. Now that its here we want to discuss "shadowing" etc. As i read your articulate, thoughtful, and knowledgable posting, Im frankly terrified. You have introduced every conceivable and inconcievable issue. For example, how could any architect respond to these objections (if they are objections): "...I see the Mirvish/Gehry scheme as grandiose and exciting but I don't see it as enlightened.". An earlier post blamed Mirvish for not having a free library, another blamed him for not building transit. If we dont have transit, blame the voters who elected Ford or who refuse to pay taxes.

IMO three glorious residential towers by the world's premier (Toronto born) achitect, a world class donated art collection, an Art college thrown in - what in heaven's name is more "enlightended"? Lets not screw this up by turning it into the Great Debate.
 
Last edited:
I don't disagree with the heart of what you're saying Buildup. I took such a long time to weigh in on this because I too want so very much to love, love, love this grand project... and I do love the vision of this, and much of what it promises, my objections having nothing to do whatsoever with issues of height or transit or any other 'nuts and bolts'-type issues. They'll all get worked out in the end, as far as I'm concerned.

What this proposal does open up, however, is a discussion about who we are at this stage, where we are and what we value in this city, as it is now, and where we want it to go. Do we really care about liveability, heritage or the urban fabric, for example - an urban context that has developed over time into something we claim to very much appreciate about Toronto (even if we don't always appreciate its condition and state of repair) - or is it all up for grabs because we are so starved for quality, ambition, monumentality, and international status?

The optimism and possibility that this project represents, and the momentum behind it, say great things about where Toronto is right now, to be sure, but the willingness to abandon everything that we have come to learn and love about an urban Toronto for it says something else entirely... I'm just not sure what.
 
I am all for good development for Toronto and I applaud the audacity of the scale of this project, I will even concede to having the Dr.Seuss of architects designing them, but I am put off by the "Three in a Row" wall-like effect the project imbues. Some height variations would be nice. However, height variations PLUS a staggering of the placement of the towers would sell it for me much more.

I realize Mirvish doesn't own the next block above Pearl Street but he should have gathered those parcels of land before announcing this project.

To optimize the views each of the towers will have (taking all cardinal directions into account) the best layout for three close proximity towers would be at an angle from Southwest (Corner of John and King) angling to the Northeast (North Side of Pearl and Duncan).
 
Tewder:

In this case though I'm using the term 'contextual sensitivity' deliberately because it truly is about an over-arching successful urban fabric here, as it is any individual case for Heritage buildings (with a capital 'H') or indispensable Toronto icons/landmarks etc... though I would argue that a case could indeed be made for the POW in that there weren't many puropose-built theatres built in its time and day... and who really is to say what value future generations might come to see in its design and history... and the irony of it all: many wouldn't question the heritage value of the Royal Alex now, though a previous generation building the TD Centre would most certainly have 'sacrificed' it without so much as a thought.
Click to expand...

From an architectural perspective, the worth of POW is probably limited - it isn't bad architecture, but it certainly wasn't sublime - Carrère and Hastings Bank of Toronto (which was demolished for TD Centre) it isn't.

In the end though this is about the unique and successfully urban landscape of Toronto's central commercial thoroughfares, and the challenge of preserving them while adding density... from this perspective I see the Mirvish/Gehry scheme as grandiose and exciting but I don't see it as enlightened.
Click to expand...

Consider how lacking Toronto is in the grandiose (and I believe you'd agree with that statement), I think we can afford to sacrifice a bit of "enlightenment" to achieve it. And besides, it wasn't like the proposal is designed to kill the street - so far we have seen no signs of that, and you'd be sure one should hold the street interface to close scrutiny. In all likelihood, the increased intensity of uses will only serve to heighten the success of that stretch of King.

... oh and regarding Theatre Park, I mean 'contextual' in the sense that it adds height, drama and something new yet sits back and defers at ground level to the established built form around it, including the Royal Alex. The tower adds a new layer to it all, but it doesn't stop one from appreciating the established layers that front King.
Click to expand...

What? Theatre Park doesn't defer to anything - the very fact that it is set back from the structures around it and purposefully break the streetwall is the epitome of defiance, not deference (and I haven't even gotten to the matter of height yet).

AoD
 
Last edited:
Sorry to be a downer on this right now. For every gain there is a loss, and I'm just working through my acceptance of the loss. I'm sure when the renders start to come out, and when the plans start to take place, I'll be doing cartwheels of joy alongside everyone else!!
 
Tewder:

I think it is a good debate - it is certainly an important one and I am glad that we are now being put in position where we have to deal with it, like the major civics debates of previous times (NPS, Spadina Expressway, Union Station, etc.)

Traynor:

Well, colour me skeptical but I found that argument on the part of David Mirvish a bit post-hoc (in spite of the fact that I am for the proposal).

AoD
 
I am looking for a contemporaneous article, but if my memory serves, I do remember that was the talk when the theatre was announced. It was being purpose-built for Miss Saigon but it was not permanent.

According to the Toronto Star theatre critic: Richard Ouzounian

...Between 1989 and 1993, a total of six new theatres opened in Toronto with a combined capacity of 9,211 seats

The Princess of Wales was almost the final one of these, opening its doors on May 26, 1993 with a production of Miss Saigon.

In fact, that’s why the theatre was built. Really. There was nowhere in the city big enough to house the mammoth musical, except what was then called the O’Keefe Centre (now the Sony) which couldn’t be used for a long run because of its status as the home for the Canadian Opera Company and National Ballet of Canada.

And so Mirvish created a spectacular home for the show that everyone thought would run as long as The Phantom of the Opera, then packing them in at the Pantages (which is now the Ed Mirvish Theatre).

Only Miss Saigon wasn’t a super smash and ran here for just two years. Although it would take a while for everyone to realize it, the mega-musical was a dying breed and Toronto had come to the party with its building frenzy just a bit late...
Click to expand...

http://www.thestar.com/entertainmen...not-mourn-loss-of-princess-of-wales-ouzounian
 
Last edited:
Thanks - please update us on any info you find on it. I've always found the front facade of POW looking like the parking garage at Yonge & Charles Street E. (not a slight, since I found the latter appealing)

AoD
 
We've added another Mirvish+Gehry article to the front page now, this time a short scrum between the social media and Gehry himself.

42
 
Traynor said:
I am looking for a contemporaneous article, but if my memory serves, I do remember that was the talk when the theatre was announced. It was being purpose-built for Miss Saigon but it was not permanent.

According to the Toronto Star theatre critic: Richard Ouzounian

Toronto Star theatre critic: Richard Ouzounian said:
...Between 1989 and 1993, a total of six new theatres opened in Toronto with a combined capacity of 9,211 seats

The Princess of Wales was almost the final one of these, opening its doors on May 26, 1993 with a production of Miss Saigon.

In fact, that’s why the theatre was built. Really. There was nowhere in the city big enough to house the mammoth musical, except what was then called the O’Keefe Centre (now the Sony) which couldn’t be used for a long run because of its status as the home for the Canadian Opera Company and National Ballet of Canada.

And so Mirvish created a spectacular home for the show that everyone thought would run as long as The Phantom of the Opera, then packing them in at the Pantages (which is now the Ed Mirvish Theatre).

Only Miss Saigon wasn’t a super smash and ran here for just two years. Although it would take a while for everyone to realize it, the mega-musical was a dying breed and Toronto had come to the party with its building frenzy just a bit late...
Click to expand...


http://www.thestar.com/entertainmen...not-mourn-loss-of-princess-of-wales-ouzounian
Click to expand...

My recollection is that yes the theatre was purpose built for Miss Saigon but it was never "temporary". The talk at the time went along these lines "look how smart we are....we build this theatre to host this play...it runs for a long time and we make all the cost of the theatre back and after the, long, run is over we have a theatre for free"

As the Star points out, it only ran a couple of years and, while they did ok with it, I don't think it ever actually paid all of the theatre costs back.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top