Toronto Forma | 308m | 84s | Great Gulf | Gehry Partners

These towers at 52, 54, and 56 stories are useless and will lose all of their awe factor. In my opinion all towers must exceed 72 stories (800ft) in height to have that landmark awe factor where people take notice immediately, anything less and I would just scrap the whole project.
 
Not a massive fan of the podium.

935248_10151402940026923_491278679_n.jpg
 
travis3000 said:
These towers at 52, 54, and 56 stories are useless and will lose all of their awe factor. In my opinion all towers must exceed 72 stories (800ft) in height to have that landmark awe factor where people take notice immediately, anything less and I would just scrap the whole project.
Click to expand...

Yeah, don't know what's the point of chopping these beautiful proposed towers that are approx. 500 meters from some of the tallest buildings in Canada:confused:
 
devjohnson said:
Not a massive fan of the podium.
Click to expand...

Agree....the towers look amazing but there seems to be a kind of disconnect with the wood beams at the base...

Toronto planners, those earnest guardians of the rules, have yet to grasp that Mirvish’s scheme represents an opportunity that comes along once in the life of a city. Surely, their response should be to put aside the checklist and do everything they can to make it work?
Rules, of course, were meant to be broken. The trouble here is not that we break rules, but that we break them for the wrong reasons. This time the height and heritage cards are trumped by the possibility of gaining a major architectural landmark, Toronto’s first of the 21st century.
Click to expand...

For once, Hume has hit the nail on the head....the Toronto planners' response is so typical, and illustrates exactly how clueless they are....nobody in that department seems to have any wisdom when it comes to a sense of perspective....these towers are indeed a once in a lifetime opportunity to add something very special to the city, and they, in their inane, bureaucratic way, are trying to diminish them...pathetic...
 
Last edited:
yyzer said:
For once, Hume has hit the nail on the head....the Toronto planners' response is so typical, and illustrates exactly how clueless they are....nobody in that department seems to have any wisdom when it comes to a sense of perspective....these towers are indeed a once in a lifetime opportunity to add something very special to the city, and they, in their inane, bureaucratic way, are trying to diminish them...pathetic...
Click to expand...

I think it was the Massey Tower thread where it was explained that the planners HAVE to follow the zoning bylaws for the area a proposed project is located, even if they actually like the design. They have no personal leeway. Their job is to say "recommend approval" or "recommend rejection" based on the level of conformance a given design has to those bylaws and design guidelines, it is up to City Council to actually approve or reject the project. Of course the Council can request additional benefits from the developer in exchange for approval, but if they refuse to allow the project to proceed, the developer can always go to the OMB.
 
IMO I feel even if in the 50s regardless these babies will still make quite a huge impact with that kind of design. Also with all the comments in all the forum pages regarding to many box like towers and boring designs, I dont understand those same people not liking this proposal. Its far from a box, Has huge impact, Has a different way of meeting the street and the podium blends into the building its self superbly and isnt just a rectangle or again BOX, looks to be great materials. So i dont get the negativity. also they are huge sculptures not just buildings. so how does one hate artistic expression, especially in Toronto. Those who dislike it and reject it, Id personally like to know why. And not from a city planning and council point of view.
 
Last edited:
I can understand the rationale of the position of the Planning Department, even though I personally don't support it. I do think that the proposal as it is now portrayed offers a superlative opportunity. The wood columns is very Gehry, especially his earlier works in the 80s.

yyzer:

For once, Hume has hit the nail on the head....the Toronto planners' response is so typical, and illustrates exactly how clueless they are....nobody in that department seems to have any wisdom when it comes to a sense of perspective....these towers are indeed a once in a lifetime opportunity to add something very special to the city, and they, in their inane, bureaucratic way, are trying to diminish them...pathetic...
Click to expand...

And when a sub-par project comes along asking for the same height, what rationale would you have for denying it? There is no grounds for denial on the basis of architectural quality. Be careful what you wish for - I am all for opening the Pandora box in this instance, but one better do it with their eyes wide open.
 
AoD, I totally agree....that's why there should be more to evaluating a project than just the current parameters....perhaps a consideration of architectural quality? Although that could get subjective....

edit/what I mean is that right now, from the planning department's perspective, there seems to be no differentiation between a 900 ft. G+C abomination, and a 900 ft. Gehry marvel...that's the problem...
 
Last edited:
I wasn't going to post these, but seeing as the Planning Department are proving themselves to be the servile administrators of policy rather than the city-building visionaries they should be, I will. They are from the public meeting last month and show a couple of options which reflect the approach the City of Toronto wants Gehry to take for the podium of this incredible complex.

*Warning* - if you are sensitive to bullshit, navel-gazing mediocrity, avert your eyes.

IMG_7282[1].jpg


IMG_7284[1].jpg


IMG_7286[1].jpg


IMG_7288[1].jpg
 

Attachments

  • IMG_7282[1].jpg
    IMG_7282[1].jpg
    88.2 KB · Views: 486
  • IMG_7284[1].jpg
    IMG_7284[1].jpg
    90.1 KB · Views: 918
  • IMG_7286[1].jpg
    IMG_7286[1].jpg
    88.8 KB · Views: 476
  • IMG_7288[1].jpg
    IMG_7288[1].jpg
    92.6 KB · Views: 936
yyz:

AoD, I totally agree....that's why there should be more to evaluating a project than just the current parameters....perhaps a consideration of architectural quality? Although that could get subjective....

edit/what I mean is that right now, from the planning department's perspective, there seems to be no differentiation between a 900 ft. G+C abomination, and a 900 ft. Gehry marvel...that's the problem...
Click to expand...

There is also the question whether it would stand before the OMB - I have a feeling it won't unless the Planning Act is revised, and that's a tall order.

PE:

Yuck - rather banal.

AoD
 
Last edited:
Why on earth would these nobodies think that they can mess with the vision of a recognized great artist? Do they really think that they 'know better'?
 
They're certain much less interesting and much more banal (perhaps purposefully?), but I do appreciate the preservation of that one building.

I think that Gehry and his team aren't taking this far enough in the way a new building could interact with the existing heritage stock. In my opinion it would be incredible if the existing street frontage was preserved, and the podium and towers built on top of those. Maybe shape it like something growing from the existing buildings, or make it look like it's floating on top like a Deconstructivist cloud.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top