My reasons for being ambivalent towards this project are many. I appreciate this kind of architectural expression as a physical object. Signiture buildings may feel like assets to the city as a whole but to me that is not good enough. For me signiture buildings also have to add to their neighbourhood. I personally don't really see what the proposal so far brings to the table in terms of improving the neighbourhood. The amenity space and added residential density are great but they could easily be created by modifying the existing usages and forms of the buildings while still (if desired) expressing the vision and structural poetics of Gehry's signature style.

I would rather Mirvish scale the project way back, fix up and restore the existing structures, enhance their usages and if need be incorporate some highrise component. That is real city building. If no compromise can be made, why not proceed with one signature tower and simply restore the rest of the site?
 
wmedia said:
If only Gehry could see what a thread about his (possibly) final work has become...
Click to expand...

With the exception of a few inane and off topic posts, I think Gehry would be quite pleased with this thread. I think it has sparked off a great conversation about heritage vs. progress, what those terms really mean, and how they're relevant to this city.
 
Re Traynor's "13-yr-old-boys" comment: it probably pertains less to their ooh-aahing over Gehry than to their ooh-aahing over FCP as an example of how "we used to do things great, now we don't"...
 
Adma you weren't by chance referring to me were you? I am of lesser intelligence and sometimes miss such subtleties. :)
I used FCP as an example not because it is great architecture, but rather due to the scope of the project which for its time was remarkable. Few cities in the world were building on that scale. I admire the determination and commitment to get it built. Do you also disagree that the TD Center and the CN Tower were great achievements? What do you believe Toronto has built in the last 20 years that measures up to what was built in the 20 years before that?
My point was not exclusively about height, rather a commitment to see ambitious projects (like Gehry) through to the end without compromise (materials, height, podium, design etc.)
 
Last edited:
fedplanner said:
If these towers are truncated by 30 stories, is it still worth the loss of the heritage buildings?
Click to expand...

If the towers are truncated by 30 stories my guess is Mirvish & Gehry will have no interest in proceeding with anything on this site in which case the fate of the heritage buildings would become a mute point. I hope Mirvish & Gehry will stand firm that the height and form of these towers is something that is non-negotiable.

I hope Mirvish & Gehry will resist any attempt at a design by committee with the committee made up of the group of local flunkie architects that sit on the Design Review Panel , city bureaucrats and Adam Vaughan.
 
Last edited:
skyrise said:
Adma you weren't by chance referring to me were you? I am of lesser intelligence and sometimes miss such subtleties. :)
I used FCP as an example not because it is great architecture, but rather due to the scope of the project which for its time was remarkable. Few cities in the world were building on that scale. I admire the determination and commitment to get it built. Do you also disagree that the TD Center and the CN Tower were great achievements? What do you believe Toronto has built in the last 20 years that measures up to what was built in the 20 years before that?
My point was not exclusively about height, rather a commitment to see ambitious projects (like Gehry) through to the end without compromise (materials, height, podium, design etc.)
Click to expand...

You raise good points, skyrise. FCP was the 6th tallest building in the world when it opened, and the tallest outside of Chicago and New York. It sat across the street from the TD Centre and Commerce Court West, both less than 10 years old. Today we marvel at the change that took place at the corner of York and Bremner. Imagine that same change but with 700-1000 ft tall skyscrapers designed by superstar architects in a metropolitan region that was the same size as Vancouver is today. Those were the days.
 
Peepers said:
If the towers are truncated by 30 stories my guess is Mirvish & Gehry will have no interest in proceeding with anything on this site in which case the fate of the heritage buildings would become a mute point. I hope Mirvish & Gehry will stand firm that the height and form of these towers is something that is non-negotiable.

I hope Mirvish & Gehry will resist any attempt at a design by committee with the committee made up of the group of local flunkie architects that sit on the Design Review Panel , city bureaucrats and Adam Vaughan.
Click to expand...

I agree. If these towers are told to be chopped by 30 stories, i would hope Mirvish & Gehry tell them to blow smoke, we'll take them to a city that wants them. I'm sure it wouldn't be a problem. Toronto would then be looked upon in awe for all the wrong reasons.
 
skyrise said:
Adma you weren't by chance referring to me were you? I am of lesser intelligence and sometimes miss such subtleties. :)
I used FCP as an example not because it is great architecture, but rather due to the scope of the project which for its time was remarkable. Few cities in the world were building on that scale. I admire the determination and commitment to get it built. Do you also disagree that the TD Center and the CN Tower were great achievements? What do you believe Toronto has built in the last 20 years that measures up to what was built in the 20 years before that?
My point was not exclusively about height, rather a commitment to see ambitious projects (like Gehry) through to the end without compromise (materials, height, podium, design etc.)
Click to expand...

Ah, but consider what the CN Tower was to be part of--Metro Centre. And even if that came to be and might well be regarded today as a "great project" had it been built to John Andrews' specifications...in the end, we're likely better off that it didn't come to be. We still have old Union Station, after all.

To repeat: the rich totality of urbanism is about more than just these so-called "great achievements"; and to lionize them as the be-all and end-all is, well, once again, a "Victoria's Secret" approach to urban beholding...

And note: this isn't a knock on Mirvish/Gehry.
 
I agree with you that great achievements are not the be-all and end-all. However they are an important element of what defines the great cities of the world. If this were not true, then New York City, Paris, and London would not building on the scale they are today. My argument is in support of this project because it has the potential to measure up to what Toronto has done in the past. This is a rare opportunity to build something as fantastic as the TD Center. We have a dime a dozen tall buildings going up in the city at the moment. This project outshines all of them.
 
So many great points made here by all of you. So, how do we channel this to the people that (unfortunately) have the decision-making power, such as the design review panel, city 'staff', etc.? Is there a way we can form a community of some sort and voice our disdain on strange and illogical height limits pretty much throughout the downtown area? I still am not getting why there is a 157m cap in the entertainment district. With that being about 50 stories, what exactly does that achieve? It's not so short that it helps retain a low/mid rise character of any sort and the cap at 50-odd stories is resulting in all new buildings being of the same height....kind of like Vancouver...
 
City_Lover:

Call up or send physical letters to the councillors (I've heard conflicting reports on the efficacy of emails), depute at the Community Council meeting and show up at the consultation meetings. Write to the papers, etc. If you know powers-that-be, engage them for their involvement.

AoD
 
ttk77 said:
With the exception of a few inane and off topic posts, I think Gehry would be quite pleased with this thread. I think it has sparked off a great conversation about heritage vs. progress, what those terms really mean, and how they're relevant to this city.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I was referring only to the now deleted posts.

For a while I felt like we'd been short-changed with Gehry's tallest work being in NYC, but seeing this come to his hometown, and my adopted town, warms my heart!
 
E.B. said:
Actually, this was a translation from French into German then into Chinese and then into English. What a trip to get around into English, uh? :)
Click to expand...

haha, it all makes sense now. :) I didn't reply to the original point you made, because I thought it was a good point. I also liked the French-German-Chinese-English translated quote.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top