Is this what its supposed to look like ? Ugly (sorry)

You can dress this up anyway you want to - by installing an art gallery/space for OCAD/getting a star architect but it still comes down to selling condos and over intensificiation. We don't need 3 80 storey towers filled with 500 square feet boxes (which seems to typical of most condo developmenst today and I have no idea why this development would difffer). If Mirvish wants somewhere to show his art - then he can donate his art to the AGO; if he wants to give OCAD more space; he could similarily make a donation to OCAD directly and let them use the money to expand.
 
Nice work, wyliepoon... but I do think those images illustrate what a detriment this project would be for the street level. A bland and boring megablock. In particular, the loss of the 1915 Anderson building is worth mourning.

AndersonBuilding.jpg
 

Attachments

  • AndersonBuilding.jpg
    AndersonBuilding.jpg
    94 KB · Views: 577
I don't think there's really any way to know what this project will be like at street level. There was even some suggestion earlier in the thread that there was at least the possibility of some preservation of certain of these buildings, though presumably only as a facade. Has that been debunked?

As for the existing buildings, I can understand regretting their loss as heritage buildings but I disagree that this is a loss to the functioning of the street. This stretch is lousy at street level, with narrow sidewalks, restaurants/stores either below grade or above grade, uninteresting tenants, and no interaction with the street (Princess of Wales excepted).
 
I don't think there's really any way to know what this project will be like at street level. There was even some suggestion earlier in the thread that there was at least the possibility of some preservation of certain of these buildings, though presumably only as a facade. Has that been debunked?

As for the existing buildings, I can understand regretting their loss as heritage buildings but I disagree that this is a loss to the functioning of the street. This stretch is lousy at street level, with narrow sidewalks, restaurants/stores either below grade or above grade, uninteresting tenants, and no interaction with the street (Princess of Wales excepted).

I agree the sidewalks on that stretch of King are too narrow. What can be done? I assume it's impossible in Toronto to remove a westbound traffic lane (now largely dedicated to on-street parking most of the time) to give pedestrians more room. Does that mean the proposed towers should be set back? At a minimum I would hope the planning studies give as much importance to the pedestrian experience as they do to rapid automobile flow.
 
Thanks wylie, great renderings - really communicated what the towers will be like from more realistic vantage points.

Grimace:

Agreed, given the current state of the design, it's hard to know what the project will be like at street level. It's one of the aspects of the project that will require close scrutiny as it moves along, but as such it's way too early to judge, much less condemn anything. What I know I *don't* want to see is a podium that looks like Gehry's 8 Spruce St. in NYC.

AoD
 
I don't know. I think the existing site is one of the better, not worse stretches in the area. The worst area in my opinion is Wellington, where the most new development and highest density exists.
 
Nice work, wyliepoon... but I do think those images illustrate what a detriment this project would be for the street level. A bland and boring megablock.

Looks much better to me and that's really just a scale massing. A lot depends on one's personal ideas about ideal.
 
The render makes them look like a Sci-Fi dystopian-version of a high-density, maximum security prison a la Brazil, 5ifth Element or Blade Runner. (Ironic, considering the the Gehry in Springfield ended up becoming a maximum security prison.) Or, at the very least, three near-Supertall Toronto Public Housing buildings. Clearly the quality of exterior finishes and cladding will make or break this project.
 
I agree the sidewalks on that stretch of King are too narrow. What can be done? I assume it's impossible in Toronto to remove a westbound traffic lane (now largely dedicated to on-street parking most of the time) to give pedestrians more room. Does that mean the proposed towers should be set back? At a minimum I would hope the planning studies give as much importance to the pedestrian experience as they do to rapid automobile flow.

Perhaps removing car lanes seems impossible under the current mayor, but the fact is that you can't keep adding so much density without things moving towards a breaking point, regardless of whether people are taking transit, driving, cycling, or walking. It becomes a matter of prioritizing the ways that you can move the most people in the space you have, instead of merely accepting the dysfunctional status quo. Cars represent the least efficient use of the space available on King Street, and they take up most of the space. What will be needed is data demonstrating how people get around on King based on form of transportation. The numbers may justify removing car lanes or removing cars from King altogether for a transit ROW, bike lanes, and wide sidewalks.
 
Is this what its supposed to look like ? Ugly (sorry)

You can dress this up anyway you want to - by installing an art gallery/space for OCAD/getting a star architect but it still comes down to selling condos and over intensificiation. We don't need 3 80 storey towers filled with 500 square feet boxes (which seems to typical of most condo developmenst today and I have no idea why this development would difffer). If Mirvish wants somewhere to show his art - then he can donate his art to the AGO; if he wants to give OCAD more space; he could similarily make a donation to OCAD directly and let them use the money to expand.

I think they look pretty good compared to most of the new buildings we have.

1) This is Wylie's render, perhaps not what Gehry has in mind.
2) The buildings are only a preliminary design. Will be adjusted & compromised on.
3) If they're a little boxy, it's only because Gehry knows the city can't handle anything with more flair, like much of his other work.
4) These buildings are owned by Mirvish, not any of us.
5) he can decide where he wants to donate his art. Where are you donating yours?

One of the other posts stated "bland and boring megablock. In particular, the loss of the 1915 Anderson building is worth mourning."

I agree, the only one worth saving is the Anderson building. The rest not so much. especially since they house a Tim Horton's, Dunn's famous deli, Philthy McNasty & a Golf Town store. It sort of takes away that warm feeling.

I don't know why you would mourn the loss of a building. I can understand some other feelings or thoughts, but mourning doesn't come to mind. I'm just sayin.
 
The render makes them look like a Sci-Fi dystopian-version of a high-density, maximum security prison a la Brazil, 5ifth Element or Blade Runner. (Ironic, considering the the Gehry in Springfield ended up becoming a maximum security prison.) Or, at the very least, three near-Supertall Toronto Public Housing buildings. Clearly the quality of exterior finishes and cladding will make or break this project.

Ok, it's back on!!
 

Gee, where is Rosie coming from with this:confused:

Art is subjective. I look at Gehry’s drawings and think: Ugh. Disproportionately humongous, ungracefully asymmetric, vertically overbearing — a trio of 80-storey-plus bully pulpits for two men’s transformation of the Entertainment District, a vanity project of gobsmacking arrogance. Because he can — already owning many of the buildings targeted for demolishment — Mirvish will. I expect little pushback from city hall, as long as local councillor Adam Vaughan is guaranteed his pet pursuits of some family-sized units included and the rest of the municipal mob extracts their own big-picture and little-detail concessions, plus a cash-for-height swap.
 
I think the time is fast approaching where better traffic flow will have to be arranged for this part of the city. If there are going to be three 85 story condo towers in that part of the city, never mind what has already been built and what is yet to come, then the city will have to act on improving transit service in the area. The cheapest and easiest method of delivering higher order transit would be turning King St. into a transit mall with provision for taxi stands, delivery vehicles and bicyclists. Doing nothing will only harm the city's economy more, or at least in that area. If I'm not mistaken the Downtown Relief line will eventually go west beyond Union Station to a planned shoulder commuter rail train station at Spadina, so that future line might help with transit service for the area and this particular development, but a light rail transit mall is still something that would do well for such a congested street like King St. West.
 

Back
Top