[67Cup]

67cup:

Look up his proposal for St. John the Divine in NYC as well. Almost Gaudi-esque.

AoD

Gaudi-esque is a good description. I don't know if I actually like that never built addition, but there is no doubt it is anything but ordinary. I would hope there would be something more than a glass tower with a pseudo perpendicular Gothic arch or two. Calatrava would supply that!

A matter of concern after some googling: there appear to have been complaints about massive costs in connection with projects in Calgary and Valencia. I don't know if there is any merit to these complaints.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

67Cup:

There are - and you don't have to go that far, just the WTC PATH hub in itself is at least 1B overbudget. Then again, Sydney Opera House by Utzon is more than 10x overbudget - and no one can imagine the city without that symbol today. At the end of the day, masterpieces require patronage.

AoD

 

[67Cup]

I doubt very much that a downtown church is in good enough financial shape to be a patron of outstanding architecture these days. It's far more likely they are developing the site to generate income for either ministry projects or to support their fixed costs or both. For their sake, I hope it is the former. But the proposed condo will have to make economic sense for it to be built.

A high budget Calatrava structure would be a wonderful dream but if he does have a track record of running over budget, it is unlikely to happen, I fear.

 

[AlbertC]

Just had a thought; are all United Church's going the way of the condo?

With attendance dwindling and subsequent funding problems it appears to be the rising trend of condoization. Several UC buildings in the West End have already been converted into lofts, with more on the inevitable horizon.

 

[AlbertC]

Unless it's PPG Place or Cathedral of Learning level of architecture.

AoD

Touché. Though, I'd just settle for them ditching Young & Wright and going with a more competent local firm.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

67Cup:

No, a truly iconic piece of architecture probably isn't a good economic fit for this particular project - that said, given the site, one would hope for something complementary to the MUC.

I do hope they revisit the plans however - I am not sure a tower aligned to MUC is the greatest idea.

AoD

 

[brianyyz]

FYI, last week there was a drill team doing core samples throughout the north parking lot area.

 

[khris]

Yes, I saw that as well. Forgot to report it here.

 

[DSC]

Though I do not think that the plans for the development project have moved forward it is perhaps of interest that the Daycare (that has been associated with the Church for 77 years) is closing in the next few weeks. The reasons given are lack of funding, move to full-day daycare and the 'redevelopment" and associated renovations to the Church.

 

[khris]

While browsing around on Google tonight, I found something I don't remember anyone ever posting. It's more a feasibility as described on the page for it.

http://lancerdevelopments.com/projDisp.php?gp=13&proj=17&pg=3

 

[Automation Gallery]

This is a rental bldg.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I think St. Mike's should snap up this piece of property and hold it for the eventuality of expansion - the current footprint is rather limited.

AoD

 

[Skeezix]

I think St. Mike's should snap up this piece of property and hold it for the eventuality of expansion - the current footprint is rather limited.

AoD

Ha ha. I thought you meant the Cathedral. I was about to respond "Really? Expansion of what?" before I clued in and realized that you meant the hospital. That makes a lot more sense.

ETA: It occurs to me that the most recent plans for the new St. Mike's emergency have only a two storey building on the SW corner of Shuter and Bond, presumably designed for additional storeys to be added at some future date. I suspect it might be very difficult for them to find funding to purchase a costly site zoned for high-rise residential when their current redevelopment plans don't even have them building out their existing footprint. But, yes, I agree with you that there is a logic to having them grab it now for the future.

 

[interchange42]

Correct: the emergency department rebuild at St Mike's is being designed with the possibility of adding above it afterwards.

42

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Ha ha. I thought you meant the Cathedral. I was about to respond "Really? Expansion of what?" before I clued in and realized that you meant the hospital. That makes a lot more sense.

And of course, that St. Mike's completely escaped my mind when I was responding...

ETA: It occurs to me that the most recent plans for the new St. Mike's emergency have only a two storey building on the SW corner of Shuter and Bond, presumably designed for additional storeys to be added at some future date. I suspect it might be very difficult for them to find funding to purchase a costly site zoned for high-rise residential when their current redevelopment plans don't even have them building out their existing footprint. But, yes, I agree with you that there is a logic to having them grab it now for the future.

It will be costly - but I think it would be a far, far better use of the land than building a condo on top. Besides the downtown population will be going up for the foreseeable future, and the amount of space left for expanding the footprint of existing healthcare facilities are limited. Better to futureproof than to cry over missed opportunities.

AoD