Not following a rule book is a recipe for disaster in just about any application. Suggesting planners are blind following outdated zoning reflects your own desires for something you believe as a necessity but, is far from the actual truth. This area has seen any number of recent planning studies that take into account neighbourhood planning opposed to flashy, private singular developments that are unlikely to be economically feasible in the first place.

This development would have to conform just about ahywhere with a strong planning discipline. Toronto is one of the more progressive cities when it comes to amending bylaws. The suggestions that Toronto's approach is provincial or that nothing produced during this boom or any other boom isn't of an international calibre is puzzling at best. Of all things, the guestbook includes a Gehry.
 
buildup said:
To cap it off, Keesmatt's wringing of her hands, worry that not everything might turn out as advertised... Ah, the uncertainty of life! Well Ms. Kessmat throw yourself behind this and make it happen - that's your Job. Your job isn't to sit by sounding like a skeptic.
Click to expand...

Planners' "jobs" aren't to throw themselves behind developments and "make them happen". Their jobs are to use planning tools in order to enact planning policy. This project does not conform to existing planning policy, against which the planning department must evaluate all plans. It is up to city council to decide wether to defer from planning policy, and not up to the planning department, so stop your incessant and ill informed criticism of Keesmat, you're only serving to reveal your extremely two dimensional view of how the system works, and read like a child in doing so.

From reading through this thread, the majority pro-M+G arguments I'm finding are that it would be "substantially better than what's there", that it's "designed by Gehry". Can someone provide a firm argument based on something more substantial? If you plan on making unprecedented changes to the area's built form that will alter how future developments proceed though the planning process, as well as question the legitimacy of all current and future heritage designations, I'd assume you'd have more objective and fact-based justification than what's been established to this point.

buildup said:
And no-one needs endless lectures about the NYCs historic hoods & bathhouses. Of course they are fascinating! But there's room for Old and New.
Click to expand...

Not in New York. It's asinine to compare Toronto to New York, both in built form and planning policy. The system in New York is far more sophisticated than Toronto, including an extremely powerful Landmarks Preservation Commission that I'm quite certain you'd be unhappy with.

If forum members are so desiring to have Toronto = New York, you have to take the full package. NY real estate developers clued in to it long ago and found inventive ways to work within and around the system. Toronto developers (save for a select few) lumber through the process like ogres, in comparison, employing the OMB (as is the case with this development) like the school principal when they don't like what the other kids said about them.
 
Last edited:
Planners' "jobs" aren't to throw themselves behind developments and "make them happen". Their jobs are to use planning tools in order to enact planning policy. This project does not conform to existing planning policy, against which the planning department must evaluate all plans. It is up to city council to decide wether to defer from planning policy, and not up to the planning department....

So their job isn't Planning, its just enforcing Code. You don't need a Planner then, just a codebook.

From reading through this thread, the majority pro-M+G arguments I'm finding are that it would be "substantially better than what's there", that it's "designed by Gehry". Can someone provide a firm argument based on something more substantial? If you plan on making unprecedented changes to the area's built form that will alter how future developments proceed though the planning process, as well as question the legitimacy of all current and future heritage designations.

Not to be flippant, but those two points are quite compelling, as compelling as the Keesmat trite comment. Who designated these warehouses as heritage, and when did that occur. Sounds more like a blocking tactic than any attempt to protect anything historic. To repeat - Metro Hall is already across the street. You make it sound like the street could be the setting for Westside Story.

The system in New York is far more sophisticated than Toronto, including an extremely powerful Landmarks Preservation Commission that I'm quite certain you'd be unhappy with...NY real estate developers clued in to it long ago and found inventive ways to work within and around the system. Toronto developers lumber through the process like ogres, in comparison, employing the OMB (as is the case with this development) like the school principal when they don't like what the other kids said about them.

I have no problem with the NY approach. Important neighbourhoods are aggressively preserved and new landmarks get built with regularity. Theyve also been aggressive in redesignating large areas of Manhattan to accommodate growth. If NY had an OMB it would be used in the same manner. If the OMB is being used too frequently perhaps its an indication the normal process is inadequate, slow, and poorly suited to current times.
 
skyrise said:
Me thinks you have missed the irony in your diatribe. I do not recall comparing Toronto to NYC, but I'm glad that you acknowledge that Toronto is a progressive city much like New York. I love all that New York has to offer (been there over a dozen times). The most interesting parts of the city are the oldest and I have a huge appreciation and admiration for the early to mid 20th century Art Deco that is so prevalent in the city. Likewise with Toronto I love the gritty neighborhoods like Chinatown and Kensington as much I like the Distillery District and St. Lawrence Market.
Click to expand...

But, y'know...the "progressivism" I was delineating was less in terms of the actual city, per se, than in the way we take in and perceive a city. Which is a scaleable matter of appreciating the totality of so-called "interesting" *and* so-called "uninteresting" within a place--the exceptional, and the everyday. Which in terms of Toronto, might be not only your Kensingtons and Distillery Districts but also your Wexfords and Mount Dennisses and the crack-denned urine-tree'd heart of Ford Nation. And likewise, my NYC includes the Bay Ridges and Canarsies and Jackson Heightses and Co-Op Cities and whatever depths of Staten Island. And it's the perfect antidote to too much dependency on the ooh! aah!; i.e. more "progressive" in how it actually breaks down and subverts the fatuity behind the "progressive" concept.

You see Adma it isn't an either/or proposition. We can actually have both! Yes its true...its not like the city is at risk of losing it "grittiness". Shouldn't we aspire to have a few high profile, quality developments? Otherwise wouldn't we be more like Hamilton or Buffalo?
Click to expand...

Did I ever suggest we *shouldn't* have both? Remember that the argument for the warehouses isn't and shouldn't be synonymous w/the argument against either Gehry or supertall. All I'm saying is: don't put too many of your eggs in that particular basket, it's not healthy.

And re Hamilton or Buffalo: if they've fallen backward, it's for reasons faaaarrrr deeper than NIMBYs blocking world class starchitecture--and besides, the marvel of my own delineated "progressive" approach to appreciating and experiencing urbanity is in how it actually redeems and does justice to a Hamilton or Buffalo. And if to you, they're nothing more than tired tank towns in terminal decline, that's your problem.

Why so short-sighted Adma? Why no vision? Imagine yourself 100 years in the future. What has more historical significance, a block of early 20th century warehouses, or a 21st century Gehry masterpiece?
Click to expand...

Both.

If you don't know the answer to that, Buffalo is beckoning for you.
Click to expand...

My Toronto includes Buffalo.
 
buildup said:
So their job isn't Planning, its just enforcing Code. You don't need a Planner then, just a codebook.
Click to expand...

There job is planning, and part of planning is interpreting and enforcing the Official Plan and existing zoning - tools that are used to enact plans created by planners. It also includes updating said OP and zoning, which they do quite frequently. Consider them analogous to referees - they serve as an unbiased regulator making sure everyone sticks to the current rules. Just because you don't agree with their call (based on the current rules) doesn't mean they aren't doing their jobs.

buildup said:
Who designated these warehouses as heritage, and when did that occur. Sounds more like a blocking tactic than any attempt to protect anything historic.
Click to expand...

266, 276, 284, and 322 were all listed as heritage properties in 1984 (a bit early for a blocking tactic) and were supported by Mirvish. In addition all four buildings were designated in August of 2010 (still early for your presumed blocking tactic) and were not appealed by the owner, Mirivish. There were designated following extensive research and work by HPS, with community and city support.

buildup said:
I have no problem with the NY approach. Important neighbourhoods are aggressively preserved and new landmarks get built with regularity.
Click to expand...

Most of what gets built in Manhattan has to make concessions, more often than not required by the LPC. As an outside observer you are still able to admire the end result, you're just ambivalent to what was initially proposed and removed during negotiations. To set the record straight, I'd be quite happy to see the Gehry towers rise on this site, but I believe they need to incorporate the existing structures.

buildup said:
Theyve also been aggressive in redesignating large areas of Manhattan to accommodate growth. If NY had an OMB it would be used in the same manner.
Click to expand...

They have not been re-designating large areas - they have been re-zoning large areas. The zoning has absolutely no impact on the existing historic districts and listings. I'm assuming you're referring to Hudson Yards, and the proposed Midtown East rezoning. If you looked at the entire list, you'd see that much of the re-zoning is in fact lowering densities that were in place from 1961, not increasing them, and allowing for more mixed uses. Much of the UWS was recently down-zoned, for example.
 
I'm surprised to read people supporting arbitrary analysis and cheerleading by paid public servants and calling for firings. It's the City planner's job to help Council interpret the planning documents and provide advice to support their decision-making. It's up to Council if they want to say "This doesn't meet our policies but we like the pretty building."

Here is the city's preliminary report from when the application first came in, which goes into the context and a few potential issues. Based on what we've heard so far the City planning position would likely be that it does not meet policy.
http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2013/te/bgrd/backgroundfile-56083.pdf

Here is the developer's planner's Planning Rationale, which outlines their opinion on why the rezoning meets City policy and represents good planning.The developer's planner is saying that it meets existing policy and doesn't require an Official Plan Amendment to change City policy. The developer has made no changes to the zoning application since originally applying.
http://www.toronto.ca/planning/pdf/266-322-king-planning-urban-design-rationale.pdf
 
Last edited:
waterloowarrior said:
Staff report is out! Recommend opposing it at the OMB.
http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2013/te/bgrd/backgroundfile-63687.pdf
Click to expand...

The report does a good job of why this is such a wrong place for this development. Great work by the planning team to articulate their points. I hope the OMB listens and sends Mirvish+Gehry back to the drawing board.

Mirvish should consider taking his proposal to Front and Simcoe where there is a large lot with a long stalled (read: read) development proposal there. I can easily see this becoming a better development there. better access to park facilities, closer to the tall financial district, better transport access, no loss of heritage buildings.

I used to be supportive of Mirvish+Gehry on King but my thoughts are swaying to Front and Simcoe as a much more appropriate site. Mirvish could buy the land from the current owners (Allied IIRC) and test Gehry there. This is all pie-in-the-sky stuff but its a possibility.
 
argus said:
Your original post suggest that either Mirvish-Gehry gets built in order for Toronto to progress, or we will end up like Buffalo.

It is what you have implied.
Click to expand...

No what I have implied is if one does not favour change or progress, one should aspire to live in a non progressive, stagnant city like Buffalo, a city that peaked 50 years ago. Buffalo's stock of historical buildings exist due to lack of growth, not preservation. Toronto came into its own 50 years ago and made sacrifices to move forward and grow. Had we not made said sacrifices and refused to grow, then yes we would be like Buffalo.

We are currently experiencing unprecedented growth, and the city is clearly struggling to comes to terms with this. This project, more than any other is symbolic of a planning dept., city counsel, and some forumers refusal to accept the reality of the situation.

Reading through the City's OMB refusal report really highlights how out to lunch the planning dept. and city is. They are clinging to a master plan that no longer applies and even acknowledge this in their report. They speak about the current and proposed projects (sans the Mirvish proposal) adding density and potentially bringing in over 18,000 residents vs. 148, yes that is correct 148 residents that lived in the area 20 years ago.

Rather than amend planning, address issues with transit and "crowding" and work to make this neighborhood a success, they would rather site outdated planning such as the 30m height limits in the area (no longer applicable) and the skyline tapering policy (no longer applicable). Although they did conduct a study of the area after approving over 20 projects that differ dramatically from the original master plan in this area.

City of Toronto Planning Dept. what is your plan to address the potential 18,000 residents moving into the neighborhood? What is your plan to address transit issues? What is your plan to address the lack of Hydro and infrastructure? What is your plan to address the lack of community services and schools? What is your plan to address the lack of green space? You have over 18,000 residents moving into this area in the next 7 to 10 years.

Denying this project and making it the scapegoat for your short-sightedness and lack of adaptably does not solve any of the issues you sighted in your refusal report. Do you believe that by denying this project that these issues will magically disappear?

Like I have said umpteen times, Ms. Keesmaat and company, time for some vision and leadership here. Time to get your head out of the sand and take responsibility for your actions (or lack thereof). This applies to Mr. Vaughn and company at city counsel as well, as they are equally responsible for this fiasco.
 
Last edited:
Wrong location.

mrxbombastic said:
Ah so it is CF. I was under the impression that the project was dead and hence Mirvish could pay CF for the plot.

Guess not. Either way king street here isn't right for this.
Click to expand...

You are dead on !

We have enough empty parking lots end derelict buildings begging to be redeveloped.
The only difference is , that Marvish does not own them...
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top