buildup said:
It IS accurate to say "two different trajectories". There were two main elements here - the tower component and the base/podium. The Tower element remains although in a very modified form. However the podium is essentially gone and with it any opportunity to see whether in the 21st century a motivated proven architect could create an engaging street level presence with a clean slate.

Keesmatt was too conservative to take that risk on her watch. So we have safe, functional, warehouses. Nothing wrong with letting other countries do the bold experimentation for us - its the safe approach.
Click to expand...

Sure, one could say that there have been at least two different trajectories for this ONE site proposal (there may possibly have been earlier "trajectories" that the public never got to see. Who knows?). But then so what? The last three-tower iteration was still a work in progress. The first two-tower iteration is still a work in progress.

There is no doubt that the podium has shrunk when compared to the three-tower version. But at the same time, there has been some heritage retention, repurposing of some existing structures and the preservation of the Princess of Wales theatre - a plus for the Entertainment District.

With regards to Keesmatt, she's not designing the building, the architect is. It was his choice to do away with the design details shown in the three-tower version of the proposal. She has no control over what happens in other countries. The building boom has been going on for quite a while in this city. You can hardly blame a new city planner for what developers have opted to do or not to do when it comes to design over all those many years.
 
argus said:
I view the redevelopment of the site as a work in progress. There are iterations - just as there were on the three tower phase. The applicants showed a number of proposed design ideas and augmented them as they moved forward.
Click to expand...

The proposal originally submitted for approval was rejected by the city planning dept. That was scrapped and a new plan was hatched from scratch that incorporated details strictly based on getting approval.


argus said:
Great that your speaking for Mirvish and Gehry now.
Click to expand...

If you were to actually do any research before posting, you would know what I just said is repeating what Mirvish is on record as saying.

argus said:
Not sure what you are referring to here. I suspect that he has a good understanding of what his financial scenarios are likely to be.
Click to expand...

You obviously don't know what I'm refering to, and yes, let's make a wild assumption that Mirvish has a better grasp of this than you do.

I'll try one last time to present the situation as simply as I can make it....the philanthropic portions of the project (you know...the stuff other regular developers never do) was to be paid for by the profit-making portions of the project. That was calculated when they came up with the original density of the project (on record...look it up). The profits on 700 condos, plus whatever profit-making opportunities that lay within the 2-block 6 story commercial/mixed use "cloud" podium structure Gehry had designed, are gone. They are gone because the city demanded that the density be cut and existing structures incorporated.


argus said:
Regarding his art collection and the space he wishes to allot for it, he owns a number of buildings on the site. If he wished, he could put part of it on display right now. Access might not be free, but as he warehouses many of the works, one presumes that there is a cost associated with that which he's not recovering. In short, some of his art is in storage and not being seen by the public. He could change that now. Moreover, since he owns the building to which the proposed gallery space is to be added, he could extend the gallery space below that addition into the existing building - if he wished to. It's his choice to do with his art. Not mine. Not yours.
Click to expand...

Again, you are just making simple options up on what he can and can't do. It doesn't work that way. I already mentioned (again...try reading) that I hoped the gallery could be enlarged by utilizing the existing Whitewear building. Let's assume this option, and many we could never know has already gone through his head. Instead of projecting absurdly simplistic ideas, why don't you instead invest the time researching the topic. He's on record explaining the issues that revolve around his art collection, and what his goals are for it.
 
freshcutgrass, your responses here are tinged with such bitterness. Really, get a grip on the fact that your favourite version of this thing has been cancelled. It's dead. Neither I nor anyone else here killed it, so lumping on the snark makes no difference. You have a different opinion? Fine. But repeating things fifty times over is dull, so I'll leave you to defend what's dead and gone. I'm gonna look forward to what's going to come on this proposal.
 
argus said:
freshcutgrass, your responses here are tinged with such bitterness. Really, get a grip on the fact that your favourite version of this thing has been cancelled. It's dead. Neither I nor anyone else here killed it, so lumping on the snark makes no difference. You have a different opinion? Fine. But repeating things fifty times over is dull, so I'll leave you to defend what's dead and gone. I'm gonna look forward to what's going to come on this proposal.
Click to expand...

Deflecting the topic of discussion to me after having your argument dismantled is hardly the optimistic approach you claim to prefer. Don't want your posts challenged?...don't post them.
 
Well, they came up with an original proposal that violated every planning regulation in the book. What did they expect?

Now, if we got rid of the OMB there would be a good argument for bending the rules for these buildings.
 
freshcutgrass said:
Deflecting the topic of discussion to me after having your argument dismantled is hardly the optimistic approach you claim to prefer. Don't want your posts challenged?...don't post them.
Click to expand...

Not deflecting, but acknowledging a fact: the previous iteration of this development proposal is gone - whether you like it or not. A new one is to come. For me, that's the actual focus of interest. Don't like it? Too bad.

And as a member of this forum, I'll comment how and in what manner I see fit. At this point it's just a waste of time to debate trivialities with you regarding a version of an evolving proposal that isn't going to see the light of day. Argue all you want, the version you love isn't returning. It's unclear what more there is to say on the matter.
 
Soho said:
The Gehry street interface had to be scrapped to save a 20th century warehouse? Good thing TIFF got built on the opposite corner before planners tried to save Farb's Fast Carwash.
Click to expand...
smiley_rofl.gif
Farb's Fast Carwash? Love it. Was that actually a thing or did you make it up?
 
You can google it.

It was gone from the site of the TIFF Bell Lightbox sometime in the early 90s, turning into just a parking lot for a while.

42
 
interchange42 said:
You can google it.

It was gone from the site of the TIFF Bell Lightbox sometime in the early 90s, turning into just a parking lot for a while.

42
Click to expand...

But it should have been designated as an historically significant parking lot.

btw, does anyone know of a specific developer that has integrity for the quality of the interior and exterior?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top