Let's hope we get something in the 10%..........
 
Automation Gallery said:
I guess, but i doubt these towers will be as tall as the obsevation deck of the CN Tower (338 metres-1,108.9 ft)
Anyways, how in the hell are they going to pull off this kind of height in the Entertainment District, when there is a height limit of 157 meters
I guess anything is possible......."money talks, bullshit walks". Gee, the casino will be just down the street:)
Click to expand...

With the power of money combined with who you know in the political world you can get things done. :)
 
If a building is to best First Canadian Place as Toronto's tallest, I wouldn't mind it being one of these three. Also, it would be a way of putting some heft on the notion that downtown has shifted it's architectural emphasis from a banking town to being a people town.

I'm repeating myself quite quickly here, but since both sides have their heels dug in on the preservation vs. new construction argument, I wouldn't mind hearing some constructive ideas that would satisfy both camps. Any takers?
 
CanadianNational said:
I wouldn't mind hearing some constructive ideas that would satisfy both camps. Any takers?
Click to expand...

Gutting old buildings to build condos inside their husks is vile. Instead, use an elaborate jacking system to perch the old brick-and-beam buildings on top of the new condos, raising them up floor-by-floor atop the new construction, until they end up meticulously preserved, 80 stories in the air.
 
CanadianNational said:
I'm repeating myself quite quickly here, but since both sides have their heels dug in on the preservation vs. new construction argument, I wouldn't mind hearing some constructive ideas that would satisfy both camps. Any takers?
Click to expand...

This is an easy one in my opinion.

There is no reason why we cannot have our cake and eat it too.

The heritage buildings on this site could be carefully dismantled brick-by-brick and reconstituted at another project site nearby.

Take for example the nearby Cinema Tower. Imagine if one of these heritage buildings had been used as the podium instead of the rust-colored precast concrete?

We have seen with recent projects such as Shangri-la how historic buildings can be completely dismantled piece-by-piece and rebuilt better than new.

It should never be a question of tearing down a heritage building but rather finding a new home for it.
 
Last edited:
I would rather historic brick buildings be moved then bulldozed under, given that stark choice - but that said, I have misgivings about such buildings being torn from their historical roots for the sake of making way for new structures. History is at least as much physical location and origins as it is about certain materials and architectural styles.

Given a choice, I would always lean toward incorporating existing buildings (and yes, even including dreaded facadectomies) into new buildings, rather than displacing the old ones, shifting them from where they originated.

Toronto has indeed lost a great deal of its old brick stock and I find that deeply unfortunate. I've been working in old industrial Hamilton lately and I'm pretty sure many of us on this board would love to still have the same percentage of large, solid, industrial brick buildings that they still retain. Alas, that's just not the case anymore. We have been busy erasing our past in this city. I realize many are not bothered by this in the slightest; more's the pity.

Still, the Gehry trio of towers is very exciting. It's great to see the designs evolve... I hope it goes forward and doesn't incur serious design cutbacks for the sake of expediency/budget... it promises to be stunning.
 
One thing to remember is that preservation cost money - and presumably, it will eat into Gehry's budget. In any rate, not all the buildings along the stretch is worth saving, perhaps they could just preserve the facade of Anderson Building and use it elsewhere?

AoD
 
Sir Novelty Fashion said:
Gutting old buildings to build condos inside their husks is vile. Instead, use an elaborate jacking system to perch the old brick-and-beam buildings on top of the new condos, raising them up floor-by-floor atop the new construction, until they end up meticulously preserved, 80 stories in the air.
Click to expand...

At last, a new idea with the potential to bridge the divide here on UT! Another possibility would be to suspend them on cables over open spaces, eg the 401, the railway tracks, or Nathan Phillips Square. Oops, sorry, the last idea would cause shading problems.
 
Blockbusting is exactly what this is. Especially considering this is the length of almost an entire city block, and the outcome isn't some public space but private residences. And yes, the buildings don't look very nice. But neither would any building hidden under grey or taupe paint. If the paint was removed, I think people would get a better understanding of what is being lost here.

8055800067_8c4db0a280_b.jpg
[/url] kimg_gehry-mirvish_2 by 44 North, on Flickr[/IMG]
 
Last edited:
44North:

No, blockbusting is a very specific term - whereby a private interest snaps up individual properties within an area (one with low(er) socioeconomic status), replace them with undesirable uses such as rooming houses or otherwise neglect the structures, generally causing neighbourhood decay, driving down the value of the remaining holdouts and facilitating further consolidation of property at a lower cost, ultimately enabling the goal of wholesale redevelopment. Clearly that's not the case here - the area in question was undesirable to start off with, until Mirvish came in with their businesses, which for all intents and purposes help to drive up the property value of the neighbourhood. The term DOES NOT refer to redevelopment of a block sized property - just because the term is odious doesn't make it applicable.

AoD
 
Last edited:
But this development would, regardless if you like it or not, contribute to the condo monoculture and turn an array of different buildings into what is one essentially block-long complex.
 
SP!RE said:
But this development would, regardless if you like it or not, contribute to the condo monoculture and turn an array of different buildings into what is one essentially block-long complex.
Click to expand...

Creating a condo-monoculture is still very different from manipulating ethnic tensions to uproot communities, which is what blockbusting refers to.

And it seems debatable that this would be a 'monoculture.' The proposal includes OCAD space and display space. The nearby example of the TIFF building, with it's movie theater and what not, clearly suggests that a properly executed podium-condo project can go beyond a 'condo monoculture.'
 
Okay, I guess the term is the wrong one to use. But I don't what better one would describe the tear-down of an entire block. And regarding the idea that Mirvish is somehow solely responsible for turning the area around...that's definitely not the case. I'd say Barbara Hall can take the credit for that by allowing changes to zoning: http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2012/09/09/hume_how_barbara_hall_made_toronto_better.html http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/inpr/su/sucopl/upload/The-Kings-Regeneration-Initiative-Toronto-Ont.pdf That, and the overall change in attitude towards the downtown and use of its older buildings.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top