A couple of people have pointed out that they really don't like the three towers and especially since they're of relatively similar heights. When I first saw this proposal I was put back, thinking to myself that Toronto has dozens of twins, as do many cities around the world, and now it's getting worse by moving onto triplets. But the more I think about it, the more unique this proposal is. Each tower has a common design element but they're also different enough to stand on their own - at least what we've been shown so far, which I'm sure is still an early work-in-progress. Assuming all three get built at their proposed heights, they will most certainly become instantly recognizable as being "Toronto". The CN Tower will forever be our landmark, but I can see these becoming the secondary; nearly as tall as FCP... all three!

The podium that we've seen so far is clearly an early concept, which Gehry has admitted to. But what little bit has been shown so far I like. I have faith in Gehry's ability to bring the two components together, integrate well with the surroundings, give back to the street, and produce with an architectural gem for Toronto as a final result.

As for the OCAD University space and the public art gallery, I'm fine with the gallery being their Sec.37 contribution, but definitely not if any of those funds are going towards OCAD.

I await Gehry's updated designs with great anticipation.
 
Personally, I wanted this project to "transcend" the real estate cycle and I want to see the towers getting built as per the final proposal, even if we have to wait for it (instead of watering it down for expediency). It took 14 years to complete the Sydney Opera House - I think can we can afford to be patient so long as we are assured of the final result.

AoD
 
Last edited:
Do these new towers have any indication towards the type of buildings that are going to be built here? Are these Gehry towers setting a new standard for new buildings to come? Hope so! :)
 
Does anyone else see a major retailer such as Macy's/Nordstrom taking the corner of John and King?
 
Prediction: This will not get built. A combination of softening market and intense NIMBYism, likely spearheaded by Adam Vaughan will derail it. In the alternative, if they do get built: only one or two of the towers will be built -- and at a significantly reduced height in order to appease the NIMBYs.

There will likely be insane "Save the Princess of Wales!" nuttiness.
 
brockm said:
Prediction: This will not get built. A combination of softening market and intense NIMBYism, likely spearheaded by Adam Vaughan will derail it.
Click to expand...

Not at all.
From the Globe:
Councillor Adam Vaughan has been meeting with Mr. Mirvish for more than a year about the project, and said he was confident that heritage and height concerns could be addressed during the planning process. "This is a real positive for the city," he said.
Click to expand...

Not really sure why you think Adam Vaughan would be against this development....
 
brockm said:
Prediction: This will not get built. A combination of softening market and intense NIMBYism, likely spearheaded by Adam Vaughan will derail it. In the alternative, if they do get built: only one or two of the towers will be built -- and at a significantly reduced height in order to appease the NIMBYs.

There will likely be insane "Save the Princess of Wales!" nuttiness.
Click to expand...

Hasn't Adam Vaughan been a big champion of this project so far? From what I've read he seems to be in favour of the proposal.
 
Not sure if this has been posted already, but Gehry is also working on a big Arts campus in Miami. NY Times: Gehry to Turn Bacardi Complex Into Arts Campus

Many architects would be wary of touching a beloved Miami landmark like the multicolored Bacardi complex on Biscayne Boulevard.

But the architect Frank Gehry is a fan of the organization that just purchased it: the National YoungArts Foundation, a nonprofit that helps aspiring high school artists. He has had a long relationship with the founders of YoungArts — Lin Arison and her husband, Ted — who also created the New World Symphony, for which Mr. Gehry designed a new center in Miami.

And Mr. Gehry was intrigued by the foundation’s mandate: designing a master plan to convert the 3.5-acre former corporate campus into a multidisciplinary arts complex that will include year-round cultural programming.
Click to expand...
 
brockm said:
Prediction: This will not get built. A combination of softening market and intense NIMBYism, likely spearheaded by Adam Vaughan will derail it. In the alternative, if they do get built: only one or two of the towers will be built -- and at a significantly reduced height in order to appease the NIMBYs.

There will likely be insane "Save the Princess of Wales!" nuttiness.
Click to expand...

From here: http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/cit...k-gehry-mirvish-project-will-test-many-limits

“Who doesn’t want to be across from a Gehry?” asked local city councillor Adam Vaughan at the project’s unveiling.
Click to expand...

Councillor Vaughan says the project “has transformational opportunity.” Gehry aims to “sculpt the buildings into existence; they’ll organically rise out of the site.”
Click to expand...

“If this was just a building with a single retail space below and tower above, I’d not be interested,” Vaughan said.
Click to expand...


From here: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...rvishs-king-street-in-toronto/article4577221/

Councillor Adam Vaughan has been meeting with Mr. Mirvish for more than a year about the project, and said he was confident that heritage and height concerns could be addressed during the planning process. "This is a real positive for the city," he said.
Click to expand...
 
What are typical time lines to find out the city's reaction to this proposal? This may end some of the speculation, and we may get an idea if there is a height reduction in the wind. I personally hope Mirvish and Gehry tell them to blow smoke if there is a movement to drastically change the whole proposal. There are a lot of cities that would love a project like this just as it is.
 
cassius said:
A couple of people have pointed out that they really don't like the three towers and especially since they're of relatively similar heights. When I first saw this proposal I was put back, thinking to myself that Toronto has dozens of twins, as do many cities around the world, and now it's getting worse by moving onto triplets. But the more I think about it, the more unique this proposal is. Each tower has a common design element but they're also different enough to stand on their own - at least what we've been shown so far, which I'm sure is still an early work-in-progress. Assuming all three get built at their proposed heights, they will most certainly become instantly recognizable as being "Toronto". The CN Tower will forever be our landmark, but I can see these becoming the secondary; nearly as tall as FCP... all three!


The podium that we've seen so far is clearly an early concept, which Gehry has admitted to. But what little bit has been shown so far I like. I have faith in Gehry's ability to bring the two components together, integrate well with the surroundings, give back to the street, and produce with an architectural gem for Toronto as a final result.

As for the OCAD University space and the public art gallery, I'm fine with the gallery being their Sec.37 contribution, but definitely not if any of those funds are going towards OCAD.

I await Gehry's updated designs with great anticipation.
Click to expand...

I totally agree! What i love most about these three towers is each one is unique. Losing a fairly new theatre and a few mundane old buildings for a future Toronto land mark in the end will be worth it. Chicago and New York have skyscrapers that are world-renowned and instantly recognizable land marks. Now it will be Toronto's turn.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Toronto already has landmarks, notably the CN Tower. It makes me sad that it's thought that for some reason we should build this because we need to "be like NYC and Chicago!!!". I'm not saying I'm necessarily against this development concept overall, but IMO, purpose-made landmarks that aim to equate us with other cities are a tacky goal for a city. (ie. the ROM, which has gotten a little bit of international attention but serves the ROM very poorly.)

As for anyone who thinks Adam Vaughan is a NIMBY, Good Lord, I hope you realize that you're referring to one of the better city councillors and urban visionaries on council. If Adam Vaughan is a NIMBY, I'll gladly take NIMBYism over the alternative!
 
Last edited:
brockm said:
When he says that the height concerns can be addressed, what he means is he wants them to reduce the height.
Click to expand...

And you would know this how? Once again, the focus on height seems to be a singular concern. King-Spadina has a planning regime in place where building heights gradually drop from Festival Tower moving westward toward Spadina. This proposal lies to the east of festival Tower. There are some possible zoning regulations that might be taken advantage of that may allow for additional height on that site. It's clear that there is a significant cultural contribution that would result from this project that will be a major benefit for the area and for the city. In effect, that type of zoning might go a ways to preventing every subsequent developer from demanding more floors and threatening to scurry off to the OMB if they don't get what they want.

If there is an issue that will need to be dealt with in terms of the effects of such density it's traffic and transit. Both of these are already under intense pressure due to all the building going on, and will only become the object of more scrutiny from local residents as development pushes forward on all the buildings proposed for the area.
 
Ramako said:
From here: http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/cit...k-gehry-mirvish-project-will-test-many-limits


From here: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...rvishs-king-street-in-toronto/article4577221/
Click to expand...

To be sure Vaughan had some nice things to say about the proposal but the last quote is the most telling. Vaughan is "confident that heritage and height concerns could be addressed". What concerns? Does Vaughan think the towers are too high? Does Vaughan think the heritage buildings should not be torn down as currently proposed? Does he support the project as proposed? Yes or no?

Unfortunately the way things work in this city - individual Councillors have way too much power when it comes to approving projects. The egotistical Adam Vaughan must be in his glory being in a position to dictate his demands and personal preferences to the great Frank Gehry.

If Urban Toronto is planning to interview Vaughan about this project these would be the two questions that I would ask him; does he support the proposed height of the buildings? Does he support the fact that the heritage buildings are not incorporated into the proposal?

I am happy with the proposal as is. If anything I would like to see the towers a bit taller. I wish each of them was at or over the important 1000 ft. benchmark.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top