News   Mar 28, 2024
 1K     2 
News   Mar 28, 2024
 570     2 
News   Mar 28, 2024
 874     0 

Mirvish/Gehry

Your view on Gehry/Mirvish project?

  • Quickly approve, basically as Gehry proposes

    Votes: 12 80.0%
  • Approve with substantial modifications to height or incorporation of several exisiting buildings.

    Votes: 2 13.3%
  • Reject and preserve the current heritage block.

    Votes: 1 6.7%

  • Total voters
    15
  • Poll closed .
None of the three choices reflect my view.

I can't agree with the first choice (at least not yet), because we have yet to see an actual working design proposal. It's just a basic concept at the moment. It also reeks of bias (even without referencing the author), because as the only choice positive of the project, it is worded in a manner to make it appear a foolishly hasty position.

I can't see myself agreeing with the second choice, as I don't see the existing buildings being worthy of trying to incorporate into the design in the first place. There's a physical problem, wherein the buildings in question take up practically the entire site (with the exception of POW). Secondly, I don't see anything to be gained by splitting the difference here.

I'm not even sure what the third choice entails.
 
None of the three choices reflect my view.

I can't agree with the first choice (at least not yet), because we have yet to see an actual working design proposal. It's just a basic concept at the moment. It also reeks of bias (even without referencing the author), because as the only choice positive of the project, it is worded in a manner to make it appear a foolishly hasty position.

I can't see myself agreeing with the second choice, as I don't see the existing buildings being worthy of trying to incorporate into the design in the first place. There's a physical problem, wherein the buildings in question take up practically the entire site (with the exception of POW). Secondly, I don't see anything to be gained by splitting the difference here.

I'm not even sure what the third choice entails.

I'm not sure why you find this difficult. Naturally there are an infinite number of possible outcomes, I can't summarize them all. The first one is basically a bet on Gehry himself, some people would be comfortable with the bet, others not so much. Are you saying the implicit bias to the question is pro-Gehry or anti-Gehry (foolishly hasty)?

Clarifying the third choice - the project is rejected outright because the buildings are historic and the neighbourhood functions. An obvious variant here is that some small infills might occur later but not with Gehry.

Have some fun assume these are your choices, nothing else is proffered?
 
Last edited:
Buildup,

With respect, this poll doesn't really get at the reasons for why people like me have misgivings about the project. I didn't vote, but if I had to, i'd pick the first option because I think it's ludicrous to keep a tacked-on heritage facadectomy to a Gehry original for the sake of token heritage preservation. And I still think that this project, if it comes through, is more special than what we have now.

But you have to understand that I approve this project wearingly because the devil you know is always better than the devil you don't know. We have no definitive idea of what the project will turn out to be nor how it will actually look when its built. We do know, for certain, that the collection of buildings is a well-scaled contribution to the flair of the neighbourhood and that the Princess of Wales theatre, as it exists, is culturally important to the city. So if the Gehry proposal gets scuttled, we, as a city, are not at a collective loss because the existing block is a great asset for the city to begin with.

This project tests my limits of what I think acceptable heritage trade-offs are. I wouldn't sacrifice these buildings for anything less than what's being proposed, and I wouldn't sacrifice a marginally more culturally and architecturally important block for anything in the world.
 
The first one is basically a bet on Gehry himself

That would be making the incorrect assumption that this project begins and ends with Gehry aesthetics. I would give the name Mirvish as much billing as the name Gehry on this project. I'm sure there is a "you had me at 80 stories" crowd in favour of this project for that simple reason.

I am in favour of this project because it is a mixed-use, (commercial, residential, cultural and institutional) project of great significance (all of the components), that represents a vast improvement over the status quo. And yes, with Gehry as the architect, at least suggests the prospect of great architectural merit to boot.


Clarifying the third choice - the project is rejected outright because the buildings are historic and the neighbourhood functions.

This would be an admittance of our barbaric and shall I say...stupid idea of how to handle the stewardship of our "heritage". The status quo is hardly an example of heritage preservation. To say that these buildings cannot be altered in any way other than a faithful restoration because they are of a certain age shows the shortcomings of our idea of what constitutes heritage preservation. Yes Mr Gehry, could you please incorporate these POS buildings into your design please.

Tim Hortons & Golf Town fans (and white-washed brick fans) thinks it functions just great the way it is. I think it could do better.
 
I am in favour of this project because it is a mixed-use, (commercial, residential, cultural and institutional) project of great significance (all of the components), that represents a vast improvement over the status quo. And yes, with Gehry as the architect, at least suggests the prospect of great architectural merit to boot.

Yes, I meant to say this. IMO the Mirvish Gallery and OCAD element are vital. I feel they are a trade-up in the sense new performance halls can always be built if demand warrants it. But cities cannot conjure up public galleries such as Mirvish is offering.
 
This project tests my limits of what I think acceptable heritage trade-offs are. I wouldn't sacrifice these buildings for anything less than what's being proposed, and I wouldn't sacrifice a marginally more culturally and architecturally important block for anything in the world.

I think this is really well put, couldn't agree more.
 

Back
Top