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

SP!RE said:
The condo boom in Toronto, for all its advantages, has and continues to push many lower-income people out of the city's core. It's increasingly unaffordable.

The idea that the creation of even more condominium units will bring rents down in any dramatic way, is a fairytale story that we tell ourselves so that we can feel better about the inequalities that exist in our cities. Without a provision for more affordable units, enforced by the city or other levels of government, the "free market" is going to continue to divide our city. Condos are great, but we need to keep some sort of balance in this city; the market will not create balance nor will it serve everyone. I do believe that without government involvement and regulation, a lot of people get stepped all over and forced out. This is happening in Toronto, as it has in American and various international cities, and it's well-documented.

I do, however, agree with another forumer above, that the construction of affordable housing options in mid-rise neighbourhoods on the fringes of downtown (i.e. West Don Lands) is a very encouraging sign, even if it's only a drop in the low-cost-housing bucket.

You're welcome to make snide remarks towards me, but I speak about these things from a place of genuine concern, from my knowledge of some of these issues and of the industry, and from the standpoint that I think they are worthy things to discuss.

Anyways, this is getting "off-topic" now and delving into other matters. I still think a truly world-class development would be one that takes sustainability into account. TCHC and Teeple can create LEED projects, so Mirvish and Gehry can do at least that too.



I am not against the high-rise building form. But density =/= sustainability, contrary to popular belief.

You can build towers or high-density neighbourhoods that are sustainable, and you can build them in such a way that they are environmentally short-sighted. In Toronto, we err towards the latter.

SP!RE out. Time to do some more Envelope Systems studying, then crumple up some paper into weird shapes... Architecture!
Click to expand...

Funny, at the latest Daniels Fora, "Sustainability and its Discontents" last Thursday, Vishaan Chakrabarti argued precisely that point - that density (when married to transit and a host of other things) is perhaps the most inherently sustainable thing there is. Even if the individual towers constructed aren't as 'sustainable' as we might like them to be, the simple act of putting people together so that they can pool resources and share amenities, all while walking or taking transit, is the most 'sustainable' thing we as humans can do.

So inspired was I, I picked up his book, A Country of Cities, at the talk and devoured it over the weekend. It is certainly highly recommended reading for anyone on either side of this 'debate.'
 
junctionist said:
No, this project will continue to generate discussion for some time.
Click to expand...

What's the point? People get fed up when threads are bumped without offering any useful information/news. Who wants to wade through pages of literary flexing, searching for something relevant?
 
Last edited:
Well, it raises passions. Y'know, the case *for* Gehry's over-the-top; the case *against* Gehry's over-the-top; the case *for* the existing warehouses is over-the-top; the case *against* the existing warehouses is over-the-top.
 
The heritage preservation laws must be strong to do what they're supposed to do. If that means the failure of this project, so be it.
Click to expand...

And what exactly is it you think they are supposed to do?

It can't be to prevent demolition of anything ever built, so why pretend it does?

And judging from past abuses, they aren't very strong at all, and aren't applied or managed very well either. The proof that we really don't take heritage preservation too seriously, is the over use of poorly executed facadism. It's this kind of compromise that passes as astute design decision making in this city that keeps great things from happening (more often than it does).

And heritage preservation is not something to be blindly used, as in the end, their purpose is to enhance the city. As a tool for city building, you need to weigh the necessity for preservation against the need for progress and change. You have to be blindly dogmatic if you can't see why this is not the project to dig your heels in to save these warehouses. You also must not care about the greater good to the city a project like this promises.

We short change ourselves in the city building department for the same reason we short change ourselves in the transit department...we allow politicians to make the decisions, rather than leave it up to real experts, of which we have plenty.
 
So how would the staunch pro-Gehry crowd feel about his towers hypothetically being reduced in height by half? Does this heavily detract from their "blank slate" "sculpture" appeal, or does it not really make a big difference?

One of my oppositions to the project is that its density is too extreme for its small downtown footprint. And it definitely seems like the artistic and architectural merit of a Gehry project should have little to do with its height. But do others feel that the height is integral to the project's allure?
 
Does any of the anti-warehouse mirvish apologists know what this is?

10406017636_12a3c547df_c.jpg
 
One of my oppositions to the project is that its density is too extreme for its small downtown footprint.
Click to expand...

I really don't see any difference between this and many other projects proposed or u/c....Aura for instance. Same height and density, yet crappy architecture and no cultural amenities. And I'm sure something "historical" was torn down to make the parking lot it sits on.

But do others feel that the height is integral to the project's allure?
Click to expand...

Well, of course. From both a skyscraper enthusiast aspect, as well as an art aspect...it is what the artist has designed.

I think the onus is on those who say tall is bad to prove such a claim. This isn't a game where you simply knock off floors to get approval. What kind of fools at City Hall are doing this?
 
Actually, the city's official plan and vision for this area called for mid-rises, and all that went to hell with the precedent-setting TIFF Bell-lightbox tower which was not supposed to set a precedent, and was in fact approved conditionally on it not being precedent-setting...

This beautiful triplet by Gehry may also signify the future approval of 7 new Auras next door by the OMB if the planning department does not proceed with extreme caution.
 
44N:

So how would the staunch pro-Gehry crowd feel about his towers hypothetically being reduced in height by half? Does this heavily detract from their "blank slate" "sculpture" appeal, or does it not really make a big difference?
Click to expand...

Actually, to me a reduction in height in this case will severely compromise the feel of his current design - whatever the replacement will have to be far more than a mere rescaling for it to be "remarkable".

RC8:

This beautiful triplet by Gehry may also signify the future approval of 7 new Auras next door by the OMB if the planning department does not proceed with extreme caution.
Click to expand...

Now that to me is the most pressing issue, and one that laid the planning process bare.

AoD
 
Last edited:
44 North said:
So how would the staunch pro-Gehry crowd feel about his towers hypothetically being reduced in height by half? Does this heavily detract from their "blank slate" "sculpture" appeal, or does it not really make a big difference?

One of my oppositions to the project is that its density is too extreme for its small downtown footprint. And it definitely seems like the artistic and architectural merit of a Gehry project should have little to do with its height. But do others feel that the height is integral to the project's allure?
Click to expand...

You keep repeating these words but have provided little evidence to back them up.

RC8 said:
Does any of the anti-warehouse mirvish apologists know what this is?

10406017636_12a3c547df_c.jpg
Click to expand...

It's the well-scaled base of 8 Spruce, why?

RC8 said:
Actually, the city's official plan and vision for this area called for mid-rises, and all that went to hell with the precedent-setting TIFF Bell-lightbox tower which was not supposed to set a precedent, and was in fact approved conditionally on it not being precedent-setting...

This beautiful triplet by Gehry may also signify the future approval of 7 new Auras next door by the OMB if the planning department does not proceed with extreme caution.
Click to expand...

Why would the Planning Department have to proceed with 'extreme caution' to prevent '7 new Auras next door' if the OMB can override them anyways? What force do they (or, perhaps, more provocatively, should they) really have when theirs is not the final say?
 
Is there any way this can be approved and NOT be a precedent for the area in terms density, size, height, etc? Are there any tools to demarcate these particular blocks to exist outside the realm of otherwise normal planning & zoning and outside the scope of decision making of the OMB? The idea of landmark zoning was introduced several pages back and something like that would be interesting (I wonder what the CN Tower is zoned as?), but extremely difficult to manage politically.

As I am trying to think creatively from a bureaucratic point of view, I suppose another option could be to create heritage vistas from numerous angles that reinforce the existing zoning around this project.
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
44N:

Actually, to me a reduction in height in this case will severely compromise the feel of his current design - whatever the replacement will have to be far more than a mere rescaling for it to be "remarkable".

RC8:

Now that to me is the most pressing issue, and one that laid the planning process bare.

AoD
Click to expand...

Makes you wonder how the CN tower ever got approved.

Sometimes the city has to acknowledge a landmark project that ultimately benefits the city - without setting the stage for 7 new Auras across the street.

Perhaps the city is "using" the OMB as the scapegoat to get approval without actually giving it themselves.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top