someMidTowner said:
Developers, condo buyers, office leasers etc., rarely care about an arbitrary figure such as 1000 feet. The design is what matters. I am surprised that the fact 3 of the tallest buildings in the city are being proposed in one go isn't enough to satisfy the height fans. Plus the proposal calls for 2 art galleries, university space and retail. We are entirely too lucky to be wishing for even one extra foot let alone 50
Click to expand...

I agree - Let Dubai care about supertalls and let Toronto care about city building.
 
There are currently 1473 other threads in the P&C section alone. You could be a bit more specific fp!

42
 
If you care about city building, why would you allow these heritage buildings to be demolished?
 
Coruscanti Cognoscente said:
If you care about city building, why would you allow these heritage buildings to be demolished?
Click to expand...

Read my post in the other thread.

http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/showth...elopments-seeking-28s-aA)?p=705155#post705155

fedplanner said:
Fair enough -- actually Mirvish+Gehry is the one proposal that should it be shot down on the grounds of the losing of a vibrant city block with designated-historic buildings, I would understand and accept the decision.
Click to expand...
 
Hmmm, someone might accuse me of modifying my post since I posted in the other thread one minute after your post. So let me find some others for you.

http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/showth...jectCore-82-84-86s-Gehry)?p=678626#post678626

In my first post on this thread, I stated that "I'm not a fan of mega developers that will result in the destruction of a vibrant city block." This view is probably similar to the one you have now. However, after learning about the details - an art gallery, retail spaces, new campus for OCAD, and 2,600 new condos in three stunning new towers - I accepted that if this block is to be redeveloped, than this was a fair trade. I realize that "condos" has almost become synonymous with many four-letter words around here, but I view it as a positive: 2,600 new residences contributing to the vibrancy of a thriving downtown.

Ideally, I would like to see this development rise in one of the many other vacant lots in the city. In reality, Mirvish owns the land here and the economics of this development would not work on another site for him. This is still a very new proposal, and a formal application has yet to be submitted to the city. I look forward to reading the planning reports and issues that will come up with heritage designation of the buildings to be demolished. From what I've read thus far, it looks to be a net positive for the city of Toronto.
Click to expand...
 
I think Honest Ed's would have made a much more fitting location for an art gallery and OCAD space. Let's face it, that place essentially makes no business sense any more and remains as a legacy to Ed Mirvish. But the reality is that it will be re-purposed at some point. What more fitting way to help preserve and re-purpose than through art?

As it stands to me we are talking about losing a fine block on King Street for condos (I don't care whose name is on the architecture billing), and likely we will soon loose another Toronto landmark at Bloor and Bathurst to condos as well.

The Mirvish family created these Toronto places so I respect David Mirvish's decision and feel his desire to contribute to the city is genuine, but I would certainly do it differently.
 
The Entertainment District is the perfect location for an Art Gallery and OCAD space. I'm sad to lose these old buildings, but the architectural marvel that is planned for this site, is stopping me from shedding any tears. :D
 
gabe said:
The Entertainment District is the perfect location for an Art Gallery and OCAD space. I'm sad to lose these old buildings, but the architectural marvel that is planned for this site, is stopping me from shedding any tears. :D
Click to expand...

I agree, it is sad, but then again this area councilor has been fine with the razing of dozens of similar structures throughout the whole neighbourhood for mediocre projects...
It seems like, if Adam gives the rubber stamp to demolish these old warehouses, the rest of his followers will be fine with that:confused:
 
Automation Gallery said:
Yeah, many opposition neighbourhood groups want that attention to be the ones known to have put the brakes on certain developments.....the OMB is their to be fair to both parties, and that is a a thorn in the side...oh well
Click to expand...

In today's world, developers almost always have the upper-hand over communities. Please educate yo'self. The OMB does is not some great balancer that is "fair to both parties". It serves the corporate world and gives little regard to city planning policy or the neighbourhoods being affected by these developments it approves.
 
The OMB gets involved when differing parties cannot get past their political squabbling to make an intelligent, informed decision.

Local groups often don't like their decisions because they tend to favour a resolution that is more fact based than opinion and conjecture.

I wish the OMB had been drawn into the debate over subway vs light-rail on Eglinton - Instead we had to endure months of bickering between the mayor and Stintz leaving the city with a short term solution rather than a long term solution - and plenty of enduring, pointless anger.
 
Big Daddy said:
The OMB gets involved when differing parties cannot get past their political squabbling to make an intelligent, informed decision.

Local groups often don't like their decisions because they tend to favour a resolution that is more fact based than opinion and conjecture.

I wish the OMB had been drawn into the debate over subway vs light-rail on Eglinton - Instead we had to endure months of bickering between the mayor and Stintz leaving the city with a short term solution rather than a long term solution - and plenty of enduring, pointless anger.
Click to expand...

+1..well said
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top