maestro
Senior Member
I expect Mirvish will sell and, if he doesn't, he will need partners who will dropped Gehry for at least the towers.
- Thread starter golodhendil
- Start date
buildup
Senior Member
Pessimistic, but possible.
If, God forbid, Gehry died before the project got to preconstruction but post sales would/could they proceed with his design? Is he required for execution?
If, God forbid, Gehry died before the project got to preconstruction but post sales would/could they proceed with his design? Is he required for execution?
someMidTowner
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Antoni Gaudi. Nuff said.
Last edited:
Big Daddy
Senior Member
Where did that come from?
Why would he sell? If he sells, where will his art treasures go? Where will the name "Mirvish" be displayed?
Mirvish needs this prominent site and the prominent architect to create his legacy. This is his "Rockefeller Centre" - He gets nothing by selling. At some point you start to think and plan for your eventual exit and you can't take it with you.
I have no doubt this wil get built - it's just a matter of time.
Last edited:
jje1000
Senior Member
No thanks, I'd prefer a slow-boil to perfection.
junctionist
Senior Member
As long as the design is more or less finalized, we should be fine if Frank Gehry dies. Viljo Revell died before his masterpiece at Nathan Phillips Square was completed, but it was built to his design. I'm now of the opinion that this project will be so spectacular that we have to build it. But I think Mirvish should be responsible for reconstructing the heritage buildings elsewhere.
AlexCorey
New Member
What's the reason for reconstructing the heritage buildings elsewhere? Where else would he move them - Mirvish Village? If you refer to the buildings' designation by-laws it's laid out what makes them relevant, and why they were designated. The Eclipse Whitewear Building's value lies in its being an early warehouse built upon the former site of UCC - context being deemed to be of significant value. Mirvish's subsequent revitalization of the neighbourhood began with his purchase of these buildings, which established the preservation of similar warehouse buildings in King West (context). This resulted in the public association of the neighbourhood with warehouse conversions, an aesthetic many developers continue to play upon in their condominium designs.
The aesthetic value of this building is comparatively slim when put next to its contextual value - the reconstruction of it at another location would result in the loss of its primary value, and most probably the building's right to be designated at all.
I don't think that you can successfully argue that the Mirvishes have less of a connection to King West than they do to Mirvish Village.
Ed Mirvish's revival of the Royal Alex and subsequent warehouses along King, most of which housed his restaurants, dramatically altered both the uses in the area, and people's perception of what the area was good for, reversing the decline it was in.
There's no indication that the three 80 storey towers will produce an obscene profit for Mirvish. The podium of one building gets gifted to OCAD U, while the other mostly goes to create the Art Gallery. That pretty much wipes out scads of personal profit, and it certainly squashes any obscene windfall. The word obscene is pretty inflammatory, I think you should have to defend your assertions when throwing around language like that casually.
Remember that Frank Gehry does not come cheap. While he claims his buildings come in around 10% more expensive than an average similar building, his fees are at least twice if not more than what local architects would be charging. Mirvish has still got to produce apartments that are affordable for 2500 or so buyers. Good luck to him covering all the costs.
I have no problem with condos on this site. I have no problems with retailers and office space holders (there will be few of them) helping pay for the functioning of the Art Gallery. It will be every individual purchaser's/lessee's decision to make. If they don't want to help fund the Art Gallery, they don't buy/lease here. Simple as that.
42
There are different ways to measure things.
The free Thanksgiving turkeys and cheap items all year round have definitely made an impact. The store and sign and "village" are famous, that's all good. It started earlier there too, yes. My argument is that the Mirvishes have been more transformative to the King street area than they were in the Bloor/Bathurst area. King was on the decline. Bathurst and Bloor never was, not to any such degree.
I'm not saying that David Mirvish is going to take a personal loss building these buildings. I'm saying that the whole venture is a very tricky one, and that he's unlikely to make a significant profit. You don't seem to recognize that the podiums here will represent most of the profit being drained away. The gift to OCAD U and the creation of the Art Gallery represent tens of millions of dollars in design and construction costs. If those features were being sold, that would represent the bulk of the profits on the development, but they are not being sold, and they represent far more spending than the S.37 funds required from most projects.
If Mirvish was out to make any significant profit on this project he would not have gone with Gehry; he would have gone with a cheaper to hire Canadian firm who could have produced something serviceable for much less money. Any number of firms could have designed something we could be proud of… but few other architects could produce anything like the transformative landmark we are now considering.
The Mirvish+Gehry project is far more about spending money then making it. It's about giving something amazing to Toronto through the architecture, through the OCAD gift, through the art gallery. No one else is in a position to do this at the moment—at least no one else is stepping up and proposing anything even remotely similar. If Mirvish succeeds with this, if he makes some profit, (another word for which is pay, everyone deserves pay for what they do), well, you can split hairs on how much is too much compensation, but I have trouble seeing where the vast profits could possibly come from here. A lot of people have trouble seeing how Mirvish/Projectcore will be able to afford this/build this at all.
There is still a fraught approvals process lying ahead for this proposal; there's no guarantee that it will make it through. A lot of people are determined that this project should fit snuggly into every broadly prescribed municipal guideline despite its exceptional quality. All the best to Mirvish and Projectcore, and thanks to them for going out on a limb to build something simply spectacular in my beloved home town.
42
The free Thanksgiving turkeys and cheap items all year round have definitely made an impact. The store and sign and "village" are famous, that's all good. It started earlier there too, yes. My argument is that the Mirvishes have been more transformative to the King street area than they were in the Bloor/Bathurst area. King was on the decline. Bathurst and Bloor never was, not to any such degree.
I'm not saying that David Mirvish is going to take a personal loss building these buildings. I'm saying that the whole venture is a very tricky one, and that he's unlikely to make a significant profit. You don't seem to recognize that the podiums here will represent most of the profit being drained away. The gift to OCAD U and the creation of the Art Gallery represent tens of millions of dollars in design and construction costs. If those features were being sold, that would represent the bulk of the profits on the development, but they are not being sold, and they represent far more spending than the S.37 funds required from most projects.
If Mirvish was out to make any significant profit on this project he would not have gone with Gehry; he would have gone with a cheaper to hire Canadian firm who could have produced something serviceable for much less money. Any number of firms could have designed something we could be proud of… but few other architects could produce anything like the transformative landmark we are now considering.
The Mirvish+Gehry project is far more about spending money then making it. It's about giving something amazing to Toronto through the architecture, through the OCAD gift, through the art gallery. No one else is in a position to do this at the moment—at least no one else is stepping up and proposing anything even remotely similar. If Mirvish succeeds with this, if he makes some profit, (another word for which is pay, everyone deserves pay for what they do), well, you can split hairs on how much is too much compensation, but I have trouble seeing where the vast profits could possibly come from here. A lot of people have trouble seeing how Mirvish/Projectcore will be able to afford this/build this at all.
There is still a fraught approvals process lying ahead for this proposal; there's no guarantee that it will make it through. A lot of people are determined that this project should fit snuggly into every broadly prescribed municipal guideline despite its exceptional quality. All the best to Mirvish and Projectcore, and thanks to them for going out on a limb to build something simply spectacular in my beloved home town.
42
Last edited:
alklay
Senior Member
The Mirvish family is selling the Bloor properties. I think that is a pretty good indication as to the extent the family wants the property for "legacy" purposes.
TrickyRicky
Senior Member
As I mentioned in a previous post if I were David Mirvish (which I am not so it doesn't matter) I would sell the King St. properties for maximum profit and use part of the Bloor Bathurst site as a legacy site with Gehry as principal Architect to house the Art collection, OCAD space, and a space dedicated to the family legacy and collection of oddities. The rest of the Bathurst site could be developed while retaining the Markham Street properties or turning it into a kind of West-end market closed to traffic. The King St. properties would become high-rises but they would almost certainly retain their present facades and character.
That would be a win-win-win scenerio. The way Mirvish is actually trying to do it is frankly, outside of the architecture lovers on this forum, annoying a lot of people and putting a question mark over his intentions and the legacy of his family. I believe his intentions are win-win but that is not how it is playing out.
Maybe my interpretation is wrong but if you question it I ask you who would have a problem with my suggestion vis a vis what is actually happening?
That would be a win-win-win scenerio. The way Mirvish is actually trying to do it is frankly, outside of the architecture lovers on this forum, annoying a lot of people and putting a question mark over his intentions and the legacy of his family. I believe his intentions are win-win but that is not how it is playing out.
Maybe my interpretation is wrong but if you question it I ask you who would have a problem with my suggestion vis a vis what is actually happening?
anonymous0024
Active Member
OCAD for one, I'd imagine, as Bathurst and Bloor is nowhere near their campus (spread out as it may be).
Big Daddy
Senior Member
Thank you 42, that's exactly the point - and exactly why planning and council should be lining up behind this project. Has anyone else come forward with a plan to build world class architecture along with public amenities and art school to benefit the city long term? Like 42 said, a good part of the scale of the project is to pay for the project. What Mirvish gets out of the deal is satisfaction that he has given back to Toronto, with the assistance of a home grown architectural superstar and the safe preservation and sharing of his treasured art collection - basically a gift to the city.
This is a significant win for Toronto - I don't know when we will the likes of such a proposal again.
maestro
Senior Member
His legacy so far is to upzone and sell his holdings. I see no difference here. Actually, I do think council/planners should take the quality of the project as a consideration but, not something that is twice the norm for the neighbourhood.