[maestro]

Too often heritage advocates take on the point of view that everything should be preserved. This ultimately works against what we are trying to achieve. Most of what has been destroy shouldn't be accounted as a loss. More blind luck on that part than anything else though.

I don't think it's about resources. Something else is behind the cluster**** of planning principles that have no clear direction including heritage designations. Why can 40 storey tower be erected in medium rise built neighbourhood? Why don't we have an inventory of heritage buildings with a grading system that restricts the extent of alterations?

 

[maestro]

There would be if they concentrated on the stuff that actually justifies the effort. And if someone thinks the Eclipse White Wear warehouse and Stollery store are what's worth expending limited resources on then they should be fired and replaced with people who might have some actual talent in the area. Talent...some people actually have it....they can be sought out and hired. Just a tad light on it at City Hall, that's all.

In fact, we have our wonderful City Hall because they did exactly that.

I don't see anything wrong with going through the process with the Stollery building eventhough I wholeheartly disagree on its preservation. Ultimately, if we had an inventory, it would be on it. The way the developer handled the situation shows a complete disinterest in anything but his own personal goals. I'm afraid of what he might do on the property. Hopefully, he's just assembling the land for a quick flip.

 

[Big Daddy]

I don't see anything wrong with going through the process with the Stollery building eventhough I wholeheartly disagree on its preservation. Ultimately, if we had an inventory, it would be on it. The way the developer handled the situation shows a complete disinterest in anything but his own personal goals. I'm afraid of what he might do on the property. Hopefully, he's just assembling the land for a quick flip.

I agree, however as we have made the whole "heritage" classification process so unclear and murky, developers are afraid of it and will do what they can to mitigate their risks. This is the thing that worries me most about our unclear and threatening approach to classification. There are many buildings that deserve heritage designation and are already known to developers but there are also a lot of land mines out there that a developer won't know he has stepped on until he puts in a proposal (Stollerys). Why is the city or heritage committee waiting for proposals to roll in before they designate a property? As it now stands, a developer must either tear down quickly or leave huge vacuous holes in his budget and design - much easier to remove to uncertainty before it festers into a massively expensive obstacle.

Unfortunately, I think Mirvish was of the opinion he was bringing something of such a high caliber to the city that it would outweigh the historical benefit the old warehouses provided - but apparently he was wrong. I'm sure the cost or redesigning his project and eliminating one tower was massive - and perhaps for other developers it could be project ending. Hopefully not in this case, but surely an issue with other properties.

 

[maestro]

Most seasoned developers are willing to work with staff and communities. It's in the best of their interest. The murkiness of our planning policy benefits them too. What happened at Stollerys was not out of fear but, a developer unwilling to work within the system if it even sightly hinders his selfish goal. He may have had the permit for demolition but, he certainly didn't have the right to put pedestrians in harms way. It's why the building still stands. He needs permits to either close and/or erect a covered walkway.

Mirvish benefited as well from an undefined land use policy. His project grossly exceeds what is currently allowed. It would have died very quickly with direct zoning in place. He has a grand vision. I don't share your confidence that he can pull it off. In hindsight, we may all learn to champion that the warehouses were saved and regret the towers that actually get built.

 

[buildup]

He has a grand vision. I don't share your confidence that he can pull it off. In hindsight, we may all learn to champion that the warehouses were saved and regret the towers that actually get built.

To be clear are you saying he WON'T pull it off and for that reason you would've REJECTED it? Or, are you just saying what we all know which is life is uncertain.

 

[Big Daddy]

Most seasoned developers are willing to work with staff and communities. It's in the best of their interest. The murkiness of our planning policy benefits them too. What happened at Stollerys was not out of fear but, a developer unwilling to work within the system if it even sightly hinders his selfish goal. He may have had the permit for demolition but, he certainly didn't have the right to put pedestrians in harms way. It's why the building still stands. He needs permits to either close and/or erect a covered walkway.

Mirvish benefited as well from an undefined land use policy. His project grossly exceeds what is currently allowed. It would have died very quickly with direct zoning in place. He has a grand vision. I don't share your confidence that he can pull it off. In hindsight, we may all learn to champion that the warehouses were saved and regret the towers that actually get built.

That's a pretty grim perspective. I do hope these towers get built and we end up with an outstanding addition to our city, but your outlook would have us believe that we shouldn't strive for something grand and visionary because nothing is for sure.

And to be clear, I didn't say I was confident he could pull it off at this point. On the contrary, I pointed out my concern that the loss of income from the third tower has obviously greatly impacted his vision, which resulted in his foregoing the grand gallery he had hoped for - but hopefully not to the extent that the project is no longer viable. Only time will tell but I don't think he would have come back with the revised proposal if he didn't think he could pull it off.

 

[freshcutgrass]

Ultimately, if we had an inventory, it would be on it.

No it wouldn't. And if it was, would be further proof we have no clue what we are doing.

From what I can tell, Tam was interested in ensuring we didn't have an empty lot sitting there for a prolonged period of time, and was using the heritage process to facilitate that.

One...it's a misuse of this process, and two...it turned into a self-fulfilling prophecy. Without the threat, the building may have sat there for a while, would make a great pop-up in the interim...perhaps even used as the sales office.

It's Wong Tam that acted hastily if you ask me, and is mostly to blame for the incident.

Mirvish benefited as well from an undefined land use policy. His project grossly exceeds what is currently allowed. It would have died very quickly with direct zoning in place.

It no more exceeds planning guidelines than lots of projects....including right next door. They are GUIDELINES...they are only there to determine when something no longer is as-of-right. It doesn't say or mean it's "wrong" to build something beyond those guidelines.

In hindsight, we may all learn to champion that the warehouses were saved and regret the towers that actually get built.

Ha Ha somehow I doubt that.

I never had any doubt that any towers conceived for any version were going to be pretty cool. It's the other components of the original design that are a regrettable loss.

There's only one building on the Mirvish property that justifies protecting, and we know what building that is, and so did Mirvish, which is why it was left untouched.

The Mirvishes have a long track record of endeavours that do nothing but benefit this city. Who are you gonna put your money on...Mirvish or Keesmaat?

 

[Gotzvon]

Do we know how much actual space (like square footage) that warehouse will provide for gallery space? I want to be optimistic and say that it will hopefully end up as a cool functional gallery space as long as it's not ridiculously small.

 

[Automation Gallery]

Do we know how much actual space (like square footage) that warehouse will provide for gallery space?

9000 sq. ft.......http://mirvishandgehrytoronto.com/project/#

 

[freshcutgrass]

Do we know how much actual space (like square footage) that warehouse will provide for gallery space? I want to be optimistic and say that it will hopefully end up as a cool functional gallery space as long as it's not ridiculously small.

The 9000 sqft space on top of the warehouse is opposed to the 60,000 sqft of purpose-built, multi-room gallery facility in the former Cloud Garden podium of the former design.

The old warehouse itself is not really a candidate for gallery space because of the nature of the Mirvish collection.

Unfortunately, this development is no longer going to house the Mirvish collection....just a room to showcase a few works at a time. Better than nothing, but just a token.

I still hope Mirvish will want to find a permanent home for his collection and work on it as a different project. I always thought the City should negotiate with David with sites it owns but can't seem to find a suitable use or funds to create.

The two that seem terrific candidates that are downtown and have the kind of grand spaces the large scale works in the Mirvish collection require are...

Canada Malting....unique and monumental space (and we need to ensure the feds don't turn our prime waterfront into a Porter parking lot)

And the waaaaaay underrated Better Living Centre by Marani, Morris & Allan (1962). It already has some cool art on site.

Going even bigger, Mirvish seems to be the kind of guy who could spearhead a project to turn the Hearn into Toronto's version of the Tate.

But hey...that's all city-building talk of the 60's & 70's when "the future is now" was the buzz word. And heritage preservation meant saving Old City Hall, St Lawrence Hall and Union Station...not every insignificant bland warehouse. We don't have our magnificent "new" City Hall because of know-nothing bureaucrats like Keesmaat...we have it because we brought in the top talent of the day,like Eero Saarinen and Eric Arthur.

 

[Tewder]

The two that seem terrific candidates that are downtown and have the kind of grand spaces the large scale works in the Mirvish collection require are...

Canada Malting....unique and monumental space (and we need to ensure the feds don't turn our prime waterfront into a Porter parking lot)

And the waaaaaay underrated Better Living Centre by Marani, Morris & Allan (1962). It already has some cool art on site.

Going even bigger, Mirvish seems to be the kind of guy who could spearhead a project to turn the Hearn into Toronto's version of the Tate.

Love all those ideas.

But hey...that's all city-building talk of the 60's & 70's when "the future is now" was the buzz word. And heritage preservation meant saving Old City Hall, St Lawrence Hall and Union Station...not every insignificant bland warehouse.

It was also a time that thought this was good urbanism:

http://www.blogto.com/city/2011/01/the_st_lawrence_market_past_and_present/

 

[freshcutgrass]

It was also a time that thought this was good urbanism:

Tewder...why is it when you are wrong, you tend to be really wrong?

Actually, it was a time when we turned that former industrial wasteland into one of the world's great urban renewal projects...you know...that time when urban planners from all over the world came to Toronto to study it. But then again, we had David Crombie and Jane Jacobs around to influence things, rather than RoFo/DoFo and Giorgio Mammoliti.

 

[maestro]

No it wouldn't. And if it was, would be further proof we have no clue what we are doing.

From what I can tell, Tam was interested in ensuring we didn't have an empty lot sitting there for a prolonged period of time, and was using the heritage process to facilitate that.

One...it's a misuse of this process, and two...it turned into a self-fulfilling prophecy. Without the threat, the building may have sat there for a while, would make a great pop-up in the interim...perhaps even used as the sales office.

It's Wong Tam that acted hastily if you ask me, and is mostly to blame for the incident.






It no more exceeds planning guidelines than lots of projects....including right next door. They are GUIDELINES...they are only there to determine when something no longer is as-of-right. It doesn't say or mean it's "wrong" to build something beyond those guidelines.




Ha Ha somehow I doubt that.

I never had any doubt that any towers conceived for any version were going to be pretty cool. It's the other components of the original design that are a regrettable loss.

There's only one building on the Mirvish property that justifies protecting, and we know what building that is, and so did Mirvish, which is why it was left untouched.

The Mirvishes have a long track record of endeavours that do nothing but benefit this city. Who are you gonna put your money on...Mirvish or Keesmaat?

Tell me you aren't serious? The project presented and what eventually got approved is twice the height of the recently approved developments around it. The density side of things was somewhat addressed with the elimination of one of the towers. The only reason the proposal was even considered was because of the brand behind it but, there's is now absolutely nothing standing in the way to swap out the designs for something more suited to the market.

The Mirvishes long track record of endeavours that do nothing but benefit this city has little relevance with David Mirvish, developer. So far to his credit is a money losing hotel condo development and a flipped property which will grace us soon with two towering P+S monstrosities.

The original concept with the billowing podium would blow any budget. These are condos subsidizes the costs of some private art space. It one thing to get excited about projects but, not to the point that economic realities are all but forgotten.

 

[maestro]

That's a pretty grim perspective. I do hope these towers get built and we end up with an outstanding addition to our city, but your outlook would have us believe that we shouldn't strive for something grand and visionary because nothing is for sure.

And to be clear, I didn't say I was confident he could pull it off at this point. On the contrary, I pointed out my concern that the loss of income from the third tower has obviously greatly impacted his vision, which resulted in his foregoing the grand gallery he had hoped for - but hopefully not to the extent that the project is no longer viable. Only time will tell but I don't think he would have come back with the revised proposal if he didn't think he could pull it off.

Sorry, Your posts tend to read that the towers are already built now that they are approved.

I'm still hopeful that these towers will find a way to get built but, my confidence won't be there until a legitimate development partner is found. I have nothing against the extraordinary providing its still within the limitations of the market otherwise, what's the point? Neither do I need impressive height to convince myself something is extraordinary. This is an added layer of protection in case the overall concept is revised into something average as well as I find more grandness in a well executed neighbourhood plan than a stand alone project.

 

[freshcutgrass]

The original concept with the billowing podium would blow any budget. It one thing to get excited about projects but, not to the point that economic realities are all but forgotten.

Yes Toronto...stop thinking big...you can't do it. Just wallow in your mediocrity while the world passes you by.

I'll address the rest of your flawed post later