[E.B.]

I am pissed off too at Hume's comments in the Star today. It's unfair to hit at Ms. Keesmat, including suggesting she is under qualified to have an opinion on this matter.

If the City gives up on heritage, gives up the height, the current rules allow Mr. Mirvish to sell his development rights to anyone he wants and they can build it without Gehry etc.

Keesmaat also fears that, like many Toronto developers, Mirvish will resort to “bait and switch,” that what we see is not what we’ll get.

Can anyone here say whether Mirvish has done “bait and switch,” on any of his projects?

Ms. Keesmat also says she worries that it’s too dense, too tall and architecturally “trite.”

She says the project is "trite". She is unqualified to make a statement like that, as she is only a public planner. She's there to make planning statements not her ridicules artistic statements. She thinks she's Joan of Arc coming to the rescue.

You really think Mirvish & Gehry would be involved in a bait and switch scheme, with both of them stating they want to have this be their legacy.

Gehry would ruin his reputation, like he did on Guggenheim Museum, Walt Disney Concert Hall, Weisman Art Museum, Dancing House, Art Gallery of Ontario.

 

[jje1000]

Keesmaat also fears that, like many Toronto developers, Mirvish will resort to “bait and switch,†that what we see is not what we’ll get.

Can anyone here say whether Mirvish has done “bait and switch,†on any of his projects?

The main concern I have is that the project will be too expensive, and will need to be dramatically simplified to fall within budget.

 

[Lenser]

Same here. The cost overruns will be hideously expensive.

 

[renvel]

The transit argument is the worst reason to reject Mirvish-Gehry. The City's done extensive work on the matter with pretty unambiguous results; residential units built within the core area reduce trips into the core area almost 1:1.

Notional residents who would live in Mirvish-Gehry would be forced to live elsewhere, say Liberty Village, in which case their commute would require them to drive or take the streetcar.

Given M-G's location, almost any subway trips originating from St. Andrew would be contra-peak, and hence not a contributor to overcrowding. Unless M-G residents somehow made massive detours to commute through Yonge and Bloor en route to Yonge and King, the net result of densification would be to alleviate transit congestion.

Regarding your comment that it's difficult to walk on this stretch "for much of the day," that's simply hyperbole.

Similarly, it's pointless to mention things like lack of school space. >90% of Mirvish-Gehry will be populated by childless singles or couples, and the few units which do house children would house infants...

I can't agree with you more. Besides , I would siggest , that city should demand from the developer an observation floor with restaurant to be costructed on the top of the highest tower...

 

[waterloowarrior]

Keesmaat also fears that, like many Toronto developers, Mirvish will resort to “bait and switch,†that what we see is not what we’ll get.

Can anyone here say whether Mirvish has done “bait and switch,†on any of his projects?

Ms. Keesmat also says she worries that it’s too dense, too tall and architecturally “trite.â€

She says the project is "trite". She is unqualified to make a statement like that, as she is only a public planner. She's there to make planning statements not her ridicules artistic statements. She thinks she's Joan of Arc coming to the rescue.

You really think Mirvish & Gehry would be involved in a bait and switch scheme, with both of them stating they want to have this be their legacy.

Gehry would ruin his reputation, like he did on Guggenheim Museum, Walt Disney Concert Hall, Weisman Art Museum, Dancing House, Art Gallery of Ontario.

Personally I like this project but really was disappointed by Hume's column. Pretty low blow to make a dig at her qualifications to run a big city planning department, especially since he didn't mention she was involved in a number of projects in the GTA.

Zoning should not be based on who the developer is. They could easily be short on cash or make a bad investment and sell the property to someone else.

Trite seems to be in the context of the response to heritage - as a token response to the destruction of four heritage building.

Gehry is 84 and could be passed away by the time these get built and another firm could be brought in to bring down the cost. None of those other Gehry projects will have the impact of three 80+ storey buildings on the same block.

In Ontario's planning system, the zoning and the design of the building itself are separate. Once you give a property three 80 floor buildings the approvals will likely be there forever. Pretty renders and models have no legal status.

 

[Peepers]

Keesmaat also fears that, like many Toronto developers, Mirvish will resort to “bait and switch,” that what we see is not what we’ll get.

Can anyone here say whether Mirvish has done “bait and switch,” on any of his projects?

Ms. Keesmat also says she worries that it’s too dense, too tall and architecturally “trite.”

She says the project is "trite". She is unqualified to make a statement like that, as she is only a public planner. She's there to make planning statements not her ridicules artistic statements. She thinks she's Joan of Arc coming to the rescue.

You really think Mirvish & Gehry would be involved in a bait and switch scheme, with both of them stating they want to have this be their legacy.

Gehry would ruin his reputation, like he did on Guggenheim Museum, Walt Disney Concert Hall, Weisman Art Museum, Dancing House, Art Gallery of Ontario.

With her ridiculous and offensive comments Keesmaat has publicly demonstrated that she is completely unfit for the job of Chief Planner and she should dismissed immediately! She must not be allowed to put at jeopardy what is probably the most significant development ever proposed for Toronto.

 

[44 North]

"the most significant development ever proposed for Toronto"?

Really? It's a condo proposal. Nothing more. Sure, they're tall. And yes, some overrated/overused architect designed them. But to call three condos "the most significant development ever proposed for TO" is a stretch. As residences, I'd say St Jamestown (Canada's densest 'hood) or Regent Park (Canada's first and largest projects) have way more significance. As a development, we have buildings that are actually open to the public (Skydome, CN Tower, ROM, AGO etc) and as such, have much more significance in their size, use, engineering, attraction, draw and so forth.

 

[400WellingtonGuy]

In Ontario's planning system, the zoning and the design of the building itself are separate. Once you give a property three 80 floor buildings the approvals will likely be there forever. Pretty renders and models have no legal status.

Exactly my point from a few posts back but stated much clearer. As a planner in this City, you are forced to think about the worst case scenario and look only at the black line drawings and zoning amendments without all the fluff. You learn from experience and I can tell you many instances where a developer and architect say "trust me" and everyone backs off, and they don't come through with no real consequences at all. Happens all the time in this City at all sorts of projects, big and small.

I think Mirvish's strategic mistake may be that he should have made his big ambitions part of something even bigger than him (Pan Am games, Ontario Place revitalization etc.) and not his personal "legacy". Something bigger and broader where the scrutiny would have been much less and backed by the province in terms of "this thing is going to get built", get out of our way.

Look at what the TIFF building got away with in terms of height (the incredible height bylaw breaking precedent) and as a friend said about the public realm, that giant "billboard" on the west part of the building's frontage on King at street level (so true). It was so uncool to bash TIFF at the time. I would think JK would say the same thing about the TIFF building's public realm if it was presented to her today.

 

[buildup]

"the most significant development ever proposed for Toronto"?

Really? It's a condo proposal. Nothing more. Sure, they're tall. And yes, some overrated/overused architect designed them. But to call three condos "the most significant development ever proposed for TO" is a stretch. As residences, I'd say St Jamestown (Canada's densest 'hood) or Regent Park (Canada's first and largest projects) have way more significance. As a development, we have buildings that are actually open to the public (Skydome, CN Tower, ROM, AGO etc) and as such, have much more significance in their size, use, engineering, attraction, draw and so forth.

I don't think you make a strong case - even by your own "size, use, engineering, attraction, draw" criteria. Furthermore, they WILL be open to the public; have you forgotten the Mirvish Gallery and OCAD?

 

[44 North]

Ah yes, OCAD and an art gallery. The lure in the proverbial bait-and-switch. Perhaps they can be wedged between the floors with the exercise room and swimming pool.

 

[yyzer]

Hume is actually pretty right on in his article, slight condescension to JK notwithstanding ....interesting quote from Keesmaat...

“If we could take the promise at face value, I’d be right there,” she says. “The tension for us is whether the project will deliver on the promise.”

So - no real worries about heritage, height or density? Alrighty then...

As E.B. posted on the previous page, let's look at Mirvish's track record - I don't recall any bait and switch by him ever. Heck, he single handedly rescued 1 King W., there was no switch there, even when bailing out Harry Stinson's mess...

and Frank Gehry doesn't strike me as someone who would risk his considerable reputation in some dubious bait and switch..

 

[WiddleBittyKitty]

Ah yes, OCAD and an art gallery. The lure in the proverbial bait-and-switch. Perhaps they can be wedged between the floors with the exercise room and swimming pool.

44 North, your arguments, which pretty much amount to the proverbial screen door on a submarine, are laid naked by your sneering contempt in the above post. You aren't helping yourself.

 

[freshcutgrass]

This is ridiculous. Several of those article reference the same "Camberwell Study," which doesn't even deal with 'dense urban areas.' It doesn't suggest that some densities are worse than others. None of the studies you link make any distinction between low, medium, high or 'ultra-high' density areas, nor is it even clear what those terms mean when you use them.

The only exception is the last one, which is methodologically ridiculous. It's based solely on 81 interviews in some Indonesian suburb. Just looking at the issues it describes it's quite clear that NONE of them would apply here. Unless you're seriously comparing overcrowded flats in Indonesia where waste isn't collected and running water isn't reliable to a super-premium Toronto condominium designed by the world's most famous architect, I'm not sure why you include it.

Because he is dishonest...that's why.

Why this project should be approved should be self-evident. But then again, why you should have not voted for Rob Ford should have been self-evident as well...and look what happened.

 

[buildup]

“If we could take the promise at face value, I’d be right there,” she says. “The tension for us is whether the project will deliver on the promise.”

I'm worried at her need for a guarantee of outcome. There are no guarantees, anywhere. But as far as bets go, I'd bet on Mirvish and Gehry. We have 10 years to figure out the infrastructure, and we'll have additional property taxes to help. I think someone said 4,000 residents are expected to live here - small potatoes compared to 15,000 (my guess) who work on FCP!

 

[picard102]

But then again, why you should have not voted for Rob Ford should have been self-evident as well...and look what happened.

Rob Ford is the new Godwins Law for Toronto based forums.