Automation Gallery said:
Hmm floors?, throw him a bone with some social housing and he will be all smiles
Click to expand...

I take it you aren't a fan of helping people who have very little to nothing, or people with mental health issues, or you are trolling as usual... (As well you have shown again, unfortunatly how little you know about Councillor Vaughn or the reason why a diversity of people of various socioeconomic levels in a given area is actually better than having a city divided in to tribal regions)
 
MikeOlivo-Moore said:
I take it you aren't a fan of helping people who have very little to nothing, or people with mental health issues, or you are trolling as usual... (As well you have shown again, unfortunatly how little you know about Councillor Vaughn or the reason why a diversity of people of various socioeconomic levels in a given area is actually better than having a city divided in to tribal regions)
Click to expand...

Hey, im all for social housing, but add some Subsidized Housing in the plan and he will feel more at ease with the whole project...dont start this and that about me not knowing about people with mental health issues....anyways whats that got to do with this development.
 
Automation Gallery said:
Hey, im all for social housing, but add some Subsidized Housing in the plan and he will feel more at ease with the whole project...dont start this and that about me not knowing about people with mental health issues....anyways whats that got to do with this development.
Click to expand...

I guess I thought you were speaking to Vaughns involvment in the shelter building at Richmond and Peter, which also has an assessment centre for people who have or may have mental health issues. It is essentially a form of temporary social housing to aid those who might otherwise might slip between the cracks and end up in even more dire situation. Apologies if that was not what you were referring to and if you felt slighted. I thought you were suggesting Vaughn would be all for this development as long as there were social housing. Still kinda sounds like what you were suggesting, but I think thats not the big issue here and suggesting that throwing some pork spending for social housing is the only roadblock here is incorrect I think.

Personally, I think this development looks very nice so far, but can totally understand the concern with the heritage aspects, as some of those buildings are very handsome. (I also think its kinda silly to look at the buildings tenants having anything to do with the heritage aspects. Tenants change constantly, and have nothing do to with heritage. The architecture however, does.)
I would love to see the towers come to fruition, BUT, with the at least some of the existing stock left, and then put the "cloud" part built in to the existing buildings instead. I think a combo of the existing buildings with the new towers above would look very much like the "Five" development on Yonge, with the added touch of the cloud motif that Gehry wants. Less blank slate, more compromise with both sides. Bit more cost, but better legacy for Mirvish. No?
 
Last edited:
I do agree with you that incorporating more than just art gallery/OCAD and 400 sqft investment condos is necessary in this proposal to give it the added depth to achieve greatness and give it a reason to go to these heights. How about a daycare for children that could feed off the onsite arts programs - wow! Senior housing (a few low floors?), subsidized housing (a few more floors), some commercial office space (people got to work), retail, art gallery, OCAD, let's really mix it up!

Achieving a mixed use project like never before seen in Toronto would for me give it more of a legacy than a fancy white scarf draped around the podium, heritage buildings or not. This is what we need in downtown Toronto to make us a world class city. These are opportunities not to waste!
 
Thanks for posting that, AoD.

I'm far from an advocate for preserving PoW, but I found this part interesting (and true):
“It’s ironic that [the Princess of Wales Theatre] is far superior to Royal Alex both theatrically and acoustically,” Mr. O’Keefe says. “But it’s not at an age when people want to preserve it.
Click to expand...
 
400WellingtonGuy said:
I do agree with you that incorporating more than just art gallery/OCAD and 400 sqft investment condos is necessary in this proposal to give it the added depth to achieve greatness and give it a reason to go to these heights. How about a daycare for children that could feed off the onsite arts programs - wow! Senior housing (a few low floors?), subsidized housing (a few more floors), some commercial office space (people got to work), retail, art gallery, OCAD, let's really mix it up!

Achieving a mixed use project like never before seen in Toronto would for me give it more of a legacy than a fancy white scarf draped around the podium, heritage buildings or not. This is what we need in downtown Toronto to make us a world class city. These are opportunities not to waste!
Click to expand...

I'm totally with you on that but let's remember that this is Toronto. By that I mean 90% of what passes for "mixed use" is really just 40 floors of condos with a dry cleaner and a coffee shop on the ground floor. Remember when Cityplace was supposed to be a great mixed use community? Ah, youth. Mixed use has almost always let me down in Toronto, with the most notable exception being Maple Leaf Square, and look how successful that was. You'd think more developers would try and emulate that. For those who remember, Empress Walk was a pretty successful mixed use development as well. Unfortunately not too many others come to mind at the moment.

The mixed use aspects of what's been presented here look very appealing, but I reserve my opinion until it's actually done (see previous paragraph for my lack of faith in mixed use). It almost makes me ok with losing so many important heritage buildings that have been so instrumental in making King West what it is. Let's not forget that most of these buildings are already somewhat mixed use with a lot of retail on the ground floor and offices above. Most of them were also manufacturing/warehouses in their past lives so again, mixed use in nature already. The area already boasts municipal offices, hotel, retail, commercial office, entertainment & of course residential. All this really adds is institutional (OCAD), architecture notwithstanding, I'm simply talking uses here. All in all I really hope this turns into a win. I'd hate to see these buildings razed, only to become parking lots for years because the market can't handle 3 giant towers when Entertainment district is already so well served for condos, and this development might have missed the boom years.

Question to anyone in the know:
What will the Pearl Street side of all this look like? From what I can tell this development does not extend to the north side of Pearl. What are the chances of some heritage preservation? Is it totally out of touch with reality to pick up the heritage buildings on King, turn them around (I suppose cut them in half as well since most of them extend all the way to Pearl) and place the facades (or as much of the building that will fit) on the south side of Pearl Street? Might be a little ridiculous, but we've moved heritage structures before in this city, just wondering if that might work here as well. I think it'll soften the blow, for me at least.
 
Last edited:
milanista said:
The mixed use aspects of what's been presented here look very appealing, but I reserve my opinion until it's actually done (see previous paragraph for my lack of faith in mixed use).
Click to expand...

Really? I need to be referred back to a paragraph I just read? You had me at mixed use and lost me at previous.
 
DtTO said:
Thanks for posting that, AoD.

I'm far from an advocate for preserving PoW, but I found this part interesting (and true):

“It’s ironic that [the Princess of Wales Theatre] is far superior to Royal Alex both theatrically and acoustically,” Mr. O’Keefe says. “But it’s not at an age when people want to preserve it.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Yet interestingly enough, when it comes to the popular lament over what the Gehry scheme will be replacing...it isn't the warehouses that take centre stage: it's the PoW.

Which, of course, might have more to do with it as a venue (and maybe even, in a mild way, as a Diana commemorative) than with it as "heritage"--still, it's hard not to think that a bit of trickle-down of "recent past preservationism" is involved here. Coupled with the fact that, well, it is a credible work of architecture for its time (i.e. Mirvish's discernment is as apparent here as it is in the Gehry scheme--and hey, maaaan, Jasper Johns), and it's also fundamentally "mass-likeable" (i.e. certainly not a Brutalist pillbox like the St Lawrence Centre, but also not an overbuilt white elephant in the 'burbs a la contemporary venues in North York, Mississauga, etc).
 
adma said:
Yet interestingly enough, when it comes to the popular lament over what the Gehry scheme will be replacing...it isn't the warehouses that take centre stage: it's the PoW.
Click to expand...

You think so? From what I see on these forums, the biggest issue seems to be the loss of those warehouses. Actually, I can't recall a single member bringing up the loss of PoW since that big "argument" when AoD (if I recall correctly), and a few others provided sources and anecdotal evidence that its loss would not be detrimental to Toronto's theatre scene.

Then again, most of UT members are probably not part of the "creative" community, and my view might therefore be skewed. This is hinted in the following quote from AoD's link:
[...]left some in the creative community lamenting the planned loss of one of Canada’s landmark theatres.
Click to expand...

I'm honestly surprised to hear that this is the most popular cause of opposition, but I guess the loss of a theatre is more tangible than the loss of some "warehouses."
 
Indeed - PoW is the part of the strip that probably resonated most with the average person - be it due to their personal experience with the building or simply by its' namesake. We aren't talking about the architecture or heritage qualities here.

AoD
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top