AlvinofDiaspar said:
Given the intensity of the mixed uses in the proposal, it is far less of a monoculture than say, Lambville.

AoD
Click to expand...

Arguably even less of a monoculture than the current situation. Notwithstanding the Jacobsian 'new ideas need old buildings' idea, this strip is hardly 'mixed use.' There is office space and some dingy, inaccessible retail.
 
You guys are seeing "monoculture" as only a term to do with zoning. I'm also thinking about the people living in the buildings.
 
SPIRE:

Actually I did think about it - the site as it currently stands right now is decidedly non-residential. And the reason I brought up Lambville is that even individual small developments can and will produce monoculture. Taken to the extreme, you'd get something akin to the Parisian situation. The foil to this monoculture isn't more or less condos (or solutions that is built form dependent) - but ensuring socioeconomic diversity across an entire area. The unit of analysis wouldn't be a city block in that case.

AoD
 
This is not my land and it's not my neighbourhood. I'm not against tall towers or Frank Gehry's architecture. But to be honest I really feel sorry for the loss of these buildings. It's not what their current use is, or their current state of repair. It's that these buildings are flexible enough to be re-purposed and re-imagined for hundreds of years to come. The entire essence of the new complex proposed is to create an inflexible space with an inflexible design, with an ownership structure that is the most resistant to change and the least tolerant of it's urban context.

I accept this reality but I'm not going to sing it's praises either. All I can do is help make my neighbourhood better and any building I build in the future I promise to use more timeless materials, human scale proportions and a flexible design so that others can benefit, alter and re-imagine the space as they see fit for their time.
 
Speaking of "Lambville", one thing I don't seem to grasp is this: Adam Vaughan was opposed to Lamb's condo at 224 King West (the site east of Royal Alex). He said 47-storeys is too tall and that we need to retain the block's "commercial validity" and heritage designation "to protect the rest of the area".
http://news.nationalpost.com/2010/11/10/lamb-wins-battle-for-king-st-tower/
http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2010/pb/bgrd/backgroundfile-32114.pdf

So why the change of tune? 47 storeys on a parking lot is bad, but 3x90 storeys and the eradication of six heritage buildings is good?
 
44 North said:
Speaking of "Lambville", one thing I don't seem to grasp is this: Adam Vaughan was opposed to Lamb's condo at 224 King West (the site east of Royal Alex). He said 47-storeys is too tall and that we need to retain the block's "commercial validity" and heritage designation "to protect the rest of the area".
http://news.nationalpost.com/2010/11/10/lamb-wins-battle-for-king-st-tower/
http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2010/pb/bgrd/backgroundfile-32114.pdf

So why the change of tune? 47 storeys on a parking lot is bad, but 3x90 storeys and the eradication of six heritage buildings is good?
Click to expand...

I don't believe Adam Vaughan has said outright that he supports this development. What he has done is hold several public meetings to inform the public about this development and solicit feedback. It's what a good councilor should do. As for Lamb, he credits Adam Vaughan in an UT article with helping making the 47-storey condo a reality. (Someone should dig it up)

What I find truly disheartening is that very few Urban Torontoers showed up at the public meeting and spoke. What's the point of expressing your support or concerns on this forum when an opportunity exist to express your thoughts directly to the decision makers and elected representatives.

It's not too late. Write your local councilor and send feedback to the planner. This goes for individuals on both sides of the argument.
 
TrickyRicky said:
It's that these buildings are flexible enough to be re-purposed and re-imagined for hundreds of years to come. The entire essence of the new complex proposed is to create an inflexible space with an inflexible design, with an ownership structure that is the most resistant to change and the least tolerant of it's urban context.
Click to expand...

That's what most stararchitecture is- inflexibility wrapped up as art. I still think it's a missed opportunity for Gehry to show how he can creatively integrate new architecture and old, as he's typically given carte blanche over most of his building sites.
 
ChesterCopperpot said:
http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2012/06/interview-brad-lamb-part-2
Click to expand...

Great reading, I do enjoy Lamb's work. Thanks for that. Whenever I see a post on news sites about "Adumb Vaughan" and how Rob Ford is some sort of private sector wunderkind, I'll spread that link. But although Lamb eventually got Vaughan's backing, I have yet to hear or read even the slightest hint of his reservations about Mirvish-Gehry and its obliteration of not a parking lot, not one heritage building, but SIX heritage buildings. Buildings that he helped designate.
 
As much as I'd like to see towers with a bit of architectural flair added to this city, these things aren't going to get built. Market conditions won't let it happen by 2023. I'd put money on it.

In 10 years time maybe we will have hit rock bottom from the current bubble, flat lined for a bit and looking to begin the next RE bubble. Now just start singing the "Circle of life" from the Lion King (just not in the Princess of Wales theatre.. I heard Mirvish wants to bulldoze the place)
 
I don't want to reopen this 'blockbusting' quarrel, but I think the word being looked for is closer to 'megastructure'.

Blockbusting, correctly noted, was a process seen during the urban renewal schemes of the '50's and '60's where banks had marked areas as undesireable due to their own internal calculations - race being a factor in those - and vast areas were levelled accordingly due to the inability to get credit for new structures, leaving it wide open for government agencies to provide the capital and means. This is not the same thing as regular city planning and bartering, new development on a block or wholesale 'urban renewal'.

What the Gehry structure does verge on, however, is being a megastructure - the kind loved by futuristically-minded '70's architects, particularly. Though I don't think it's a megastructure so much as simply a very large one. The closest Toronto has ever come to having a megastructure would be the incomplete Metro Centre plan. After that, we see 'children of megastructures' around the city in The Eaton Centre and, arguably, York University.

I think Sp!re's protesting about a very, very large building on what was is now a much more fine-grained historical area. That's not appropriate for the received historical use of the term 'blockbusting', but is closer to 'megastructure', even if it isn't, quite. So we might have to make due with 'Very, very large building'.
 
Last edited:
I know that the way the term "blockbusting" is used here and its historical American definition are incongruent, but I don't think that there's a better term for buying up a block of buildings and demolishing everything for a single new development. There's nothing wrong with using a word in a new way if useful and there's some social consensus on it. "Urban renewal" sounds deceptively positive, as developers, planners and supportive governments doubtlessly wanted it to sound in the 1960s. It's seldom "megastructures" that have been built with blockbusting because megastructures are rare; typically it's ordinary skyscrapers. If you want some Toronto examples, there's the T-D Centre, St. James Town, the Eaton Centre (except for Holy Trinity Church), the original Regent Park, City Hall, and the High Park apartment neighbourhood. Some of these developments even wiped out city streets.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top