[scarberiankhatru]

So which forumer is Joey Slinger? This isn't the first time such articles have appeared a day or two after something like a fiendish rant.

 

[Pep'rJack]

^ Hadn't actually considered that connection, but I suppose it's not impossible. Reading it again, it does almost seem like a direct rebuttal.

Joey? Care to unmask?

 

[MetroMan]

That was one of the most difficult articles I've had to read in a long time. It drags on, makes no sense and is just a pure rant. Since when did The Star publish this kind of crap? "Don't know dick"???

 

[adma]

Providing the design is strong and attractive I have no issues with building at the R.O.M. As the city grows bigger and denser we're going to have to realize that tall buildings will start to sprout up in places once unheard of. And I know of at least a few members on here that would agree this site being only a block south of Bloor will hardly be out of place. I'm not sure what the big deal is with creating new skylines or why we need to protect virgin sightlines here in Canada's biggest city. If I wanted to see big open sky's void of tall buildings I wouldn't be living here.

Then why did Jane Jacobs choose Toronto?

It isn't about advocating "big open sky's void of tall buildings"; it's about advocating a subtler, more sensitive urban approach that isn't simply beholden to the "inevitability" of tall buildings.

IOW it isn't about protecting virgin sightlines, as much as it's about forcibly deflowering virgin skyscraper geeks. Otherwise, you might as well advocate "creating new skylines" at Bloor + Bathurst" simply because you can't bear to face a lack of tall buildings in your own home town...

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

From the ROM:

Clarification Regarding ROM Condominium Development

ROM Director & CEO corrects Globe and Mail story of May 3, 2007

This morning's Globe and Mail newspaper carried a story about the possibility of the redevelopment of the Royal Ontario Museum’s property at 90 Queen’s Park, the site of the former planetarium facility. The story requires several clarifications.

ROM Director and CEO, William Thorsell, has issued this statement in response to the story:

“The ROM is considering several proposals to develop the site in partnership with a third party. No specific plan for the site has been proposed by a developer, or approved by the ROM. If the ROM decides to enter into an agreement to develop the site with a developer partner, the process will start with community consultation in an effort to find a proposal that creates a consensus on what should be done. We do not expect to be in a position to announce any partnership until late summer, at the earliest.â€

The Royal Ontario Museum is currently preparing the public Architectural Opening and Building Dedication of its new addition, the Michael Lee-Chin Crystal, on June 2, 2007.

AoD

 

[Andrew3D]

I never said I can't bear to face the lack of tall building's at every corner, I'm only saying that it would take a lot for me to find a tall tower offensive in this location.

I'm not sure about your Jane Jacobs reference, she may have stood up against this proposed development but she wasn't against skyscrapers either. She advocated working neighborhoods with a mixed selection of architecture in both form and function.

I do appreciate why you Adma and so many others don't want this, I get it. I'm just going on the record as saying this proposition doesn't bother me.

 

[Venti de Milo]

I think they should build an Aquarium next to it! Ya, I said it first!

 

[scarberiankhatru]

I won't mind an institutional skyscraper provided it's nice and doesn't overwhelm the legislature, but between the faculties of law and music and future ROM expansions (hopefully after Libeskind croaks, heh) this is no place for a condo...perhaps especially because it'll be inhabited by the answering machines of absentee investors or Paris Hilton's grandmother-types. Yes, it takes even these people to make a city, but should they be living on prime institutional land? Of course not.

My first choice would be resuscitating the planetarium...

 

[Dan416]

This city has precious little public-realm space in its centre, and the ROM has no business splintering up bits of what there is by selling off some of it to the rich. Conversely, we have no shortage of parking lots and other far more appropriate redevelopment sites upon which to locate a condo.

South of Bloor and down to College between Queens Park and Huron should remain the terrain of the U of T and a couple of other hallowed institutions like the ROM. Some areas deserve to be special and should remain set aside for rare purposes.

There is simply no good reason for a condo on the site of the ROM other than to scrounge a little money for its current expansion. The south side should be left until such time as another expansion to the public galleries and/or curatorial offices and/or U of T Faculty of Music facilities is envisioned. Not a cubic centimetre of this area should be removed from institutional use.

42

You said everything I was thinking but couldn't articulate. I agree completely. This is not the place for YET ANOTHER CONDO. I like the institutional use along Queen's Park. It gives it character in my opinion.

 

[adma]

I'm not sure about your Jane Jacobs reference, she may have stood up against this proposed development but she wasn't against skyscrapers either. She advocated working neighborhoods with a mixed selection of architecture in both form and function.

It's not about her being against skyscrapers, it's about her being against skyscrapers as an indiscriminate be-all and end-all.

In that light, would you advocate trashing Lillian Massey, Annesley Hall, Eric Arthur's Wymilwood et al on behalf of skyscraper "inevitability"? That stuff's even closer to the centre of the skyscraper orbit, after all...

 

[Pep'rJack]

.
A bit redundant, but here youse go. And why the either/or re this site? Why not eventually a modestly scaled condo tower atop a new cultural/institutional space, akin to MoMA or the new film centre?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

ROM will err on side of caution


Thorsell says he has no plans to revisit condo tower fiasco for planetarium site

by Martin Knelman
May 4, 2007

http://www.thestar.com/artsentertainment/article/210368


William Thorsell, the smooth-talking visionary who runs the Royal Ontario Museum, does not make the same mistake twice.

So you can be sure he is not going to risk another debacle like the one 18 months ago over a proposed 46-storey condo tower – which forced him to surrender and retreat.

"We have no specific proposal for a condo tower," Thorsell said yesterday, choosing his words carefully while describing as "completely wrong" a newspaper report the ROM is reviving plans for a huge residential tower at the south end of its land on Queen's Park Crescent to help fund its $250 million-plus Renaissance ROM expansion designed by Daniel Libeskind.

Thorsell wants to focus on the opening of Libeskind's Crystal four weeks from now – which he bills as a cultural milestone – rather than be drawn into controversy at the moment.

Still, it was inevitable that sooner or later the ROM would come back to the question of what it can do with the site of the defunct McLaughlin Planetarium – especially considering that with $50 million still to be raised, the ROM can't afford to give up a potential windfall.

A few things seem certain:

# Something will be built on that site, but it will have to be a project that doesn't frighten the horses or upset the neighbours. And it won't be a monster tower.

# The ROM will proceed slowly and gingerly, trying to reach a consensus of what its partners and neighbours find acceptable.

# The museum and the university will go out of their way to make nice, with each side being ever so sensitive to the needs of the other.

Calm, controlled and unruffled, Thorsell looked very much at home yesterday in the tastefully subdued setting of the Empire Club, reeking of old Toronto establishment. As the guest speaker, delivering a talk on the history of the city's architecture and the golden age he hopes is now being ushered in, he was received with the deference due a statesman of the cultural world.

No doubt he prefers that kind of reception to the raucous outcry of November 2005, when he was heckled and denounced at a public meeting while trying to explain and defend the ROM's plan at the time to build a sensationally tall tower on the sacred ground of the Queen's Park precinct it shares with the University of Toronto and the Royal Conservatory of Music.

That deal, which would have earned the ROM $20 million from its partner, Graywood Developments Ltd., turned into an embarrassing public-relations fiasco, making public the tensions and jealousies between the museum and the university that have bubbled for years below the surface of their historic, officially collegial, association.

"We learned from what happened last time that any proposal needs to be developed in consultation with the community," says Thorsell.

A couple of prospective development partners have expressed interest in working on a proposal for the site, he says, but without any details of how big the building would be or what it would be used for.

The museum's board has not considered these partnerships, let alone approved anything.

Thorsell favours a "mixed use" approach. But the important issue is not whether residential units would be part of the building but rather the scale of the building, which has to be a good fit with the U of T and the Royal Conservatory of Music.

Next question: How many millions can the ROM collect if it settles for a modest, tasteful and subdued building (with or without condo units)?

And where will it find the rest of the $50 million needed to complete the project?

Not to panic. The final phase of the makeover – renovating galleries in the older part of the building – is not due to be finished before 2010.

"The fact is we are seven years into a 10-year project," says Thorsell. "We've still got time."
.

 

[Andrew3D]

It's not about her being against skyscrapers, it's about her being against skyscrapers as an indiscriminate be-all and end-all.

Where did I mention anything about it being the be-all end all? All I said was it's to be expected that we will see buildings showing up in places once un-heard of, not that it has to happen but that it will happen as the city densiffies. I never said we need walls and ghettos of towers, now it just seems you're just creating an argument for the hell of it. If you're going to use Jane Jacobs to expostulate something I posted, at least make sure that what I posted is in the same context. And as for advocating trashing Historic structures in this city, of coarse I'm against that. But I also wouldn't clump those structures you mentioned with something completed in 1968.

If I had it my way I'd keep it as a planetarium. I'd appreciate if you stopped trying to paint me as someone who thinks we need to bulldoze over our history at any chance we get for a few new towers. Not appreciated at all.

You can breathe a sigh of relief now anyway if today's article in the star holds true.

 

[Hydrogen]

I would hope that the site would be preserved for a stand-alone cultural building. There are plenty of other places for new condos.

 

[wyliepoon]

I think the Planetarium would be quite successful if reconfigured into an IMAX or OMNIMAX theatre, similar to the Cinesphere or the one at Ontario Science Centre. Besides showing the "geeky" nature, science or history IMAX films, they could also show the popular movies that are featured at Famous Players. That should allow the ROM to make some money.

... or how about converting the space under the Planetarium dome as banquet space or a restaurant. If the projector is still there, it can be used to project images/colours on the dome to suit any event going on in the space. Just make sure that restaurant won't be a Korean BBQ place that would add grime to the domed ceiling!

 

[salvius]

This city has precious little public-realm space in its centre, and the ROM has no business splintering up bits of what there is by selling off some of it to the rich. Conversely, we have no shortage of parking lots and other far more appropriate redevelopment sites upon which to locate a condo.

South of Bloor and down to College between Queens Park and Huron should remain the terrain of the U of T and a couple of other hallowed institutions like the ROM. Some areas deserve to be special and should remain set aside for rare purposes.

There is simply no good reason for a condo on the site of the ROM other than to scrounge a little money for its current expansion. The south side should be left until such time as another expansion to the public galleries and/or curatorial offices and/or U of T Faculty of Music facilities is envisioned. Not a cubic centimetre of this area should be removed from institutional use.

42

I fully sign on to this post, and could not have said it better.