[Big Daddy]

one big difference between nyc and toronto is that nyc has a beautiful skyline that they can be proud of while toronto has a ugly skyline that people think they are proud of.

Where did that come from?

 

[freshcutgrass]

You know, I've done my best to avoid ad hominem attacks but some of this is just crap.

Like Pat Benatar used to say...hit me with your best shot!!
(oh christ, I'm dating myself again)

Everyone who says that stuff could equally be accused of "my dick is too small" syndrome and "PLEASE PLEASE Let the City I Live in Be Called World Class By Everyone Else" syndrome.

Since I don't remotely fit into that category of "fan"...so much for that.

I'm not supporting any STATUS QUO I'm supporting the objective reality you have trouble confronting, which is that no matter how spectacular or crappy the architecture of any given project there is a planning process that exists in this province and, you know, pretty much elsewhere.

I never suggested foregoing the planning process.

EVERY project ends up with compromises.

Really??? I won't argue that it is a common occurrence, but I'm *still* asking why it "must" be done.

And that means he has to go through the same annoying process as something designed by Kirkor. If he designed a really gorgeous airplane, it would still have to meet FAA guidelines before American Airlines could start using them and if he designed a computer that made the iPad look like a PET, that would still have to get cleared by the FCC and the CSA and those type of people. If Frank Gehry bought a baseball team and designed their uniforms and stadium, he'd still only be allowed to put 9 people on the field at a time. Which is to say, we live in a society with rules and even the richest, smartest, most creative people are not above them.

Again, bad analogy, as no one is suggesting this project not conform to building codes.... or any "rules" at all. Let's not forget that one option is that the city could simply approve this project as is. People are talking like Mirvish is proposing something "illegal" or something. ha ha

This is just a total straw man. Your problem, pal, is you think that not only does your definition of "beauty" constitute an absolute truth, but also that it trumps regulations. You wouldn't care if the Gehry towers had 45-degree floors, or two parking spots, or if he eliminated an HVAC system because it interfered with his aesthetic.

Man...for someone accusing me of straw man arguing, you sure know how to produce them. Again, no one is suggesting any "regulations" be trampled. It is you who is inventing that argument.

I'll say it again: It's not a sculpture, it's a building.

Say it as many times as you like, but this "sculpture vs building" argument of yours is completely of your own invention.

Art, though you don't seem to get it, is subjective.

If it were that simple, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

A great building is to meet the building code and bylaws and still be beautiful.

Repeat the same statement over and over again all you like....the reply is the same...no one is suggesting this project not meet building codes.

I don't hate the design. I still acknowledge it must fit into a larger fabric, not force the city to bend around it, not to obliterate elements of the historical fabric by the sheer force of its awesomeness.

What is it exactly about this project that you feel doesn't fit into the larger fabric?

And "obliterate elements of the historical fabric". Is that your dramatic way of referring to those warehouses in question? Do you just adhere to the dogmatic principal that any existing building can never be demolished, or is there something you find particularly important about these warehouses that is worth fighting to preserve at any cost?

you display an amazing amount of naivete if you think the height and scale emerges from some sort of aesthetic perfection and not a profit motive. I hate to break it to you but they are precisely that tall so Mirvish could cut a few off (as he knew would happen) and still make a profit.

Well why be naive, when you can be amazingly naive!!! he he

So...are you trying to tell me that all this condo nonsense in Toronto is about....profits? People are making money off this??? No Way!!!

I was wondering when you were going to get to the part about Mirvish and his evil profits. Here's the other bizarre side of this story....let's take the least profiteering condo developer in the city, who is by far giving more back to the city than any other developer....and let's paint him as the evil, greedy scumbag condo developer. Hey....somebody needed to be the scapegoat, so let's make it the guy least deserving of it.

This is exactly the kind of self-defeating attitude I was referring to.

Mirvish's motive here is to leave a legacy...not profits.

When someone tries to build the highest towers in the city's history, it is hardly surprising that making them shorter should be the kneejerk reaction.

It isn't surprising at all....but not in a good way. As I mentioned before....where's the logic in approving a similar height building at Yonge & Jarvis, with a height increase later (or any of the similarly tall buildings around downtown and beyond)...but not for this project?

Why is it okay to demolish a significant Peter Dickinson heritage building so it can be replaced by a Toyota dealership?

And you dare ask me why I might be raising my eyebrows? No...better to label me a fascist. ha ha ha

An "altered" version is "better' because it's democratic.

One last time....no one is suggesting getting rid of "democracy"....I'm only suggesting using good judgement.

 

[greenleaf]

What on earth is "democratic" about a 10 member 'expert' panel meddling with this design, when none of the members were elected by the public to do so? If you really subscribe to the idea of 'democracy', then the approval of these towers should be put to public referendum, and not decided by an unelected body.

If you really mean what you say, then all of Toronto planning guidelines should be put to a public vote, and not decided internally within the planning department. And guidelines for heritage designation should also be put to the public's vote. Each property suggested for heritage designation should be voted on by the citizens of Toronto - correct? Otherwise, it's not democratic. I believe none of these issues have ever been addressed by the rule of democracy, except for city council rubber stamping what was recommended by the bureaucrats.

Why don't you say what you really mean? That certain unelected, bureaucratic, special interest groups, each with their own agenda, have problems with this proposal, as it breaks their existing rules, which were created in secret, internally, and were never subject to any democratic vote or acceptance by the public.

Otherwise, don't insult the intelligence of UT forumers, by waiving the flag of "democracy". This is syllogistic nonsense at its worst.

First, you (and folks previously) have always had an opportunity to write to the city and say whether you support or not a heritage designation. You have a say. And you also have a vote for councillors who sit and committees and councils who vote on projects like this. That's democracy.

Second, an extraordinary project like this requires an extraordinary repsonse. Like a committee that will work with both the city and the developer and act as a citizen mediator. Do you have a better idea for how this should work?

 

[Hanlansboy]

one big difference between nyc and toronto is that nyc has a beautiful skyline that they can be proud of while toronto has a ugly skyline that people think they are proud of.

I would ask that you speak for yourself, I love our ever expanding skyline. And secondly, we are not now, nor shall we ever be, NYC, so why compare the two?, it's apples and oranges. We are a relatively young city, considering our first big skyscraper boom never really started until the early 70’s, I'd say our city is simply amazing at how much we have accomplished in a relatively short period of time.

 

[buildup]

urbandreamer. Thanks for posting pics of the warehouses. Ordinarily its easy for older buildings to look attractive because of patina or level of detailing. But I'm really struck how cheap and shoddy these warehouses by their own standards. They are pretty crude frankly.

City Council is well within its right to insist some of warehouses stay, M+G are well within their right to say King Street frontage is critically important and they wont proceed under those conditions. The more I think about it, why should M+G have to abandon street level to hide above and behind?

One point I enjoy repeating (because no-one ever responds) is the fact that Metro Hall, Festival Tower, and Lamb's Theatre condo completely surround this site. Its total high rise already! lol.

I am gravely worried by the time Toronto approves some Frankenstein compromise we'll have lost the cycle.

 

[MrR]

I am gravely worried by the time Toronto approves some Frankenstein compromise we'll have lost the cycle.

Me too....seems as if Toronto has a chance to shoot itself in the foot it WILL make sure it does everything in its power to do so, which is kind of pathetic.

Hopefully im wrong.

 

[buildup]

I deeply resent the asymmetric claims.

Preservation crowd insist mediocre heritage is more valuable than the very best of the Modern.

In other words they wont trade the most banal historic for the very best of the new. I don't get it. That is not compromise.

Even supertall fanboys would defend historic neighbourhoods or individual and significant historic structures. So why are people defending these crummy warehouses that even the most fundamental historicist radical can only defend on the basis of fabric & context rather than quality.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

urbandreamer. Thanks for posting pics of the warehouses. Ordinarily its easy for older buildings to look attractive because of patina or level of detailing. But I'm really struck how cheap and shoddy these warehouses by their own standards. They are pretty crude frankly.

You said it nicer than I could have. It's a Hotel Waverly-esque eye soar. I really hope Ghery doesn't end up being forced to facade this thing onto the building. It may have worked nicely for something less crude, but this warehouse probably isn't going to cut it.

In a way it's almost unfortunate that M+G isn't another anonymous glass box condo. The facading probably would worked better.

 

[adma]

urbandreamer. Thanks for posting pics of the warehouses. Ordinarily its easy for older buildings to look attractive because of patina or level of detailing. But I'm really struck how cheap and shoddy these warehouses by their own standards. They are pretty crude frankly.

Huh? Who are you to judge? I honestly do not see the fatal cheap/shoddy/crudeness you're seeing--it looks like pretty solid brick-walled/timber-beamed stuff to me, no worse than one'd find in places like 401 Richmond. Yeah, the detailing may be more "utilitarian" than you'd find in a corner bank or Carnegie library; not that that's horrible or anything--hey, it's a warehouse. But it's been listed for *four decades now*; surely that's got to convey something. (And Tim Horton's? Just a tenant--and they actually don't treat the space all that disrespectfully; leaves me wondering if there'd be the same kind of easy/convenient disdain if the space were occupied by some Jamie Kennedy venue rather than proletarian Tim's.) Maybe the worst is in the exterior brick being "painted over" (which is neither that horrible nor that unremediable); but otherwise, the worst "fault" is simply according to the client-commissioned Michael McClelland party line: a worthy enough specimen of its ilk, but no match for what Mirvish/Gehry has in store.

Then again, buildup, given how when I posted that Torontoist link earlier in this thread, you seemed oblivious to what Torontoist (and presumably by extension, features within like the Historicist) even was, maybe such well-meaning untutored ignorance as to what constitutes the heritage canon these days, relative to Toronto and beyond, is to be expected from you.

 

[adma]

You said it nicer than I could have. It's a Hotel Waverly-esque eye soar.

The fact that you can't spell "eyesore" spells out your heritage ignorance nicer than I could have.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

The fact that you can't spell "eyesore" spells out your heritage ignorance nicer than I could have.

Edit: It's cold and auto correct sucks. Thanks for pointing it out.

 

[buildup]

Huh? Who are you to judge? I honestly do not see the fatal cheap/shoddy/crudeness you're seeing--it looks like pretty solid brick-walled/timber-beamed stuff to me, no worse than one'd find in places like 401 Richmond. Yeah, the detailing may be more "utilitarian" than you'd find in a corner bank or Carnegie library; not that that's horrible or anything--hey, it's a warehouse.

What do you mean "who am I to judge'? Odd question.
But seriously is that the best you can say about these warehouses? I mean they're standing in the way of a M+G, I'd expect a more committed defense.

But it's been listed for *four decades now*; surely that's got to convey something. Maybe the worst is in the exterior brick being "painted over" (which is neither that horrible nor that unremediable); but otherwise, the worst "fault" is simply according to the client-commissioned Michael McClelland party line: a worthy enough specimen of its ilk, but no match for what Mirvish/Gehry has in store.

This passive-aggressive defense of the warehouses is odd. You yourself can't seem to say anything beyond 'they're not so bad..."

Then again, buildup, given how when I posted that Torontoist link earlier in this thread, you seemed oblivious to what Torontoist (and presumably by extension, features within like the Historicist) even was, maybe such well-meaning untutored ignorance as to what constitutes the heritage canon these days, relative to Toronto and beyond, is to be expected from you.

I'll take another look at the Torontoist, but you should accept some responsibility for posting such an amateur article, it did not reflect well on the publication. I shouldn't have made such broad comments, I'll admit that.

Wit regards the heritage canon, I try as best I can to look at each project on its merits. I am not part of any camp. But I feel strongly about this project.

 

[jje1000]

This passive-aggressive defense of the warehouses is odd. You yourself can't seem to say anything beyond 'they're not so bad..."

They aren't bad. That's the point. I think they provide a certain aesthetic and grounding that would would potentially make a great project even better. I don't know why people keep on treating this like a take it or leave it project- 'cause it's not. If we retain the warehouses in some aspect, the architecture isn't going to be magically worse or that we lose out on the museum or college. Those things, are up to Gehry and Mirvish, not the city.

 

[salsa]

3000 posts later and this thread hasn't changed one bit. It's the same old city planners vs preservationists vs skyline fetishists hyperventilation. Round and around we go...

 

[adma]

What do you mean "who am I to judge'? Odd question.
But seriously is that the best you can say about these warehouses? I mean they're standing in the way of a M+G, I'd expect a more committed defense.

And that's for the authorities in charge to formulate. All I'm expressing is that what I see there is not "shoddy" or "crude" or "cheap" at all--no more than at 401 Richmond. It just may be, at worst, not on the same "momentous" plateau as a M+G replacement--which is the argument McClelland is offering on behalf of the client; under different circumstances he might actually be *defending* Eclipse Whitewear, and rightly so. To draw the conclusion that it's somehow "second-rate" from urbandreamer's photos is as absurd as the old City-Hall-walkways-a-view-blocking-eyesore/tear-them-down argument.

This passive-aggressive defense of the warehouses is odd. You yourself can't seem to say anything beyond 'they're not so bad..."

Because they *aren't*. But are you expecting me to dub them a masterpiece on a par with H.H. Richardson? I'm not into hyperbole.

I'll take another look at the Torontoist, but you should accept some responsibility for posting such an amateur article, it did not reflect well on the publication. I shouldn't have made such broad comments, I'll admit that.

If anything reflects an amateur grasp of the bigger picture, it's how you're still labelling Torontoist as a "publication". (It's not. It's an urban blog.) And I admit: the heroes/villains thing is a bit of a puff piece by definition--but certainly not in a way that's "unreflective". (And here's an earlier, less fluffy or "villain-judgmental" Torontoist piece-- http://torontoist.com/2013/11/david-mirvish-and-frank-gehry-versus-heritage-warehouses/ )

Wit regards the heritage canon, I try as best I can to look at each project on its merits. I am not part of any camp. But I feel strongly about this project.

My suggestion: stop viewing the city as a network of "projects" and start viewing it as a network of "existing conditions" that may or may not predicate such "projects". It's healthier and more preemptive.