Pinewood Studios 2.5 Million Sq/ft development (1000 Condos, Hotel, Retail)

[old boy]

I think it's an extremely bizarre idea.

I can't see how anyone who has lived in an urban environment that has been regularly exposed to crews filming where they live would see living on a 'movie set' as appealing or novel.

I find the sense of entitlement that film crews already take when they have their 'permit' with cop in hand:

-lining every free parking spot with a pylon,
-blocking, congesting and closing streets,
-running cables all over the place,
-loading up sidewalks with equipment, extras, catering, etc.
-and a complete squatting by strangers taking over your neighbourhood

a violation of public space.

To live in a neighbourhood where this entitlement would be even stronger or promoted, would be torture.


Quoted from the STAR Article:

The viability of the residential portion of the project depends on there being interest from people who actually like the idea of living in this kind of environment. It will be interesting to see what materializes .

 

[Mongo]

Please keep in mind that it does not matter how many people don't like something (in this case, living in a "movie set"), what matters is how many people DO like that thing. The GTA has over 6 million people, with many more moving in every year. Even a tiny percentage of them liking the idea of moving to a "film set", in exchange for the very real benefits of living there, would be sufficient to completely populate the new region.

 

[Edward Skira]

I live in the St Lawrence Market area and we are stepping over film crews on a regular basis. I don't see how this is different. And I don't see the big deal.

I'll see if I can find the picture of Chris Noth I took from my window.

 

[beaconer]

The viability of the residential portion of the project depends on there being interest from people who actually like the idea of living in this kind of environment. It will be interesting to see what materializes .

Agreed, you can't have a development like this, and have it soley for the purpose of a movie set.

 

[beaconer]

Please keep in mind that it does not matter how many people don't like something (in this case, living in a "movie set"), what matters is how many people DO like that thing. The GTA has over 6 million people, with many more moving in every year. Even a tiny percentage of them liking the idea of moving to a "film set", in exchange for the very real benefits of living there, would be sufficient to completely populate the new region.

I prefaced what I said with "I can't see how anyone who has lived in an urban environment that has been regularly exposed to crews filming where they live "...

And yes, that's not everyone, its a small portion of the population, no disagreement there...
And even than, yeah, perhaps some don't mind the inconvenience, but they would have to magnify their past experience a couple of fold to imagine what it would potentially be like.

Given the right incentives (permit commissions?, tax property breaks?, etc) and/or the right buyers (investors?, movie production workers?, movie buffs?) anyone can be sold on a concept.

 

[beaconer]

I live in the St Lawrence Market area and we are stepping over film crews on a regular basis. I don't see how this is different. And I don't see the big deal.

I'll see if I can find the picture of Chris Noth I took from my window.

The production crews in St Lawrence I find are pretty contained and generally tolerable and are not "imposing". They generally film in areas which are not purely "residential" (i.e. Berczy, Toronto Street, and Scott Street are three examples). It's tolerable as well because it is intermittent and temporary. (it is when they close side walks and streets on a regular basis that it is an inconvenience).

I find living in St Lawrence as well, you live there accepting the trade offs (ie. closures due to Marathons, Santa Claus Parade, Woof Stock, etc,etC). I live a little aways from there to be effected.

Yes, i'd have to be a total prude not to realize that this is part of life in living in an urban setting.

Quote from the Article:

“One of the challenges for film crews in a congested city like Toronto is doing location shooting, where it’s difficult to impose yourself on neighbourhoods,” Edith Myers, the president of Pinewood Studios Toronto, said in an interview.

Living on a street zoned and purposed for movie making, for me, takes it to another level. This would imply that they would be imposing on the neighbourhood and certainly be taking more liberties with their movie making.

 

[Tuscani01]

Living on a street zoned and purposed for movie making, for me, takes it to another level. This would imply that they would be imposing on the neighbourhood and certainly be taking more liberties with their movie making.

Didn't realize we suddenly zone for movie sets.

Lets be realistic here... How often is a film crew going to be using those living sets? Just because they are being built as living sets, doesn't mean they will be used 24/7 for filming. The minor inconvenience (If you even see it as one, I for one don't) of having a film crew outside your door every now and then is a tiny price to pay for living in a unique neighbourhood.

 

[Traynor]

I have worked on several TV and movie shoots....

Perhaps the architects of a "Living Set" would factor in hidden amenities for film-making disguised as regular street-scape scenery. Such as hooks for lighting built onto facades and streetlamps or streetlight poles, at various heights, eliminating the need for so many light stands when filming. Outlets for power cables in planter boxes, mailboxes, etc... As well, sub-surface cabling routes under sidewalks and roads to accommodate various power cables. These false panels could be lifted easily to lay cables then replaced as to not form a tripping hazard for residents. Also, on-site storage facilities disguised as shop fronts. Or electric generators hidden as a parked FED EX truck....etc...

I have an endless list of other ideas I would design into such a community designed for filming in.

 

[interchange42]

Has it not occurred to anyone that the primary access for residents will not be impeded by filming? Elements that will look like Chicago or New York streets with front stoops and entryways are likely to be minor entrances or even false ones to the residences; those streets are actually more likely to function more like their back access. I assume that underground garage access and lobbies are likely to face cross streets which will not be used for filming, and which will remain open at all times. Who would knowingly move in to a development like this if these concerns were not dealt with? It doesn't take too much imagination to sort this out.

42

 

[beaconer]

Didn't realize we suddenly zone for movie sets.

Lets be realistic here... How often is a film crew going to be using those living sets? Just because they are being built as living sets, doesn't mean they will be used 24/7 for filming. The minor inconvenience (If you even see it as one, I for one don't) of having a film crew outside your door every now and then is a tiny price to pay for living in a unique neighbourhood.

Taken from the same article:

"Residents of the new film district won’t be able to complain either. They will know up-front they will be living in a community that is to be used as a set. The streets are private and can be closed at any time for shooting.

“They will have to sign convenants, so that even if they sell their home the new owners will be subject to the same requirements. It won’t be for everyone,†said Myers.

“But when there is no shooting going on, it will be fun to walk around Chicago one day, and New York the next.â€

During shooting the buildings will have access from surrounding public streets so residents will be able to access their units, while looking out their windows on the activity outside."

I'm not sure if the above quote qualifies as "Zoning", and perhaps it is the wrong word for it.

Being a tenant in your own community, is probably more accurate.

 

[neuhaus]

With the large Chinese population and rich investors I am surprised that a Hong Kong or Shanghai streetscape were not considered, though that would require an insane amount of tall dense buildings.

With the strong Canadian dollar and weak U.S. dollar & economy, you would think the U.S. film industry would be backing off filming in Toronto.

 

[Peepers]

With the large Chinese population and rich investors I am surprised that a Hong Kong or Shanghai streetscape were not considered, though that would require an insane amount of tall dense buildings.

With the strong Canadian dollar and weak U.S. dollar & economy, you would think the U.S. film industry would be backing off filming in Toronto.

There has been a sharp reduction in filming in Toronto which is why a project like this is so important in bringing production back to Toronto. We cannot rely on a weak dollar anymore to give us an edge.

 

[Traynor]

With the large Chinese population and rich investors I am surprised that a Hong Kong or Shanghai streetscape were not considered, though that would require an insane amount of tall dense buildings.

No, that stuff can (and is most often) added later in post-production, digitally. All they need are some low-rise storefronts and homes that replicate Wan Chi and Kowloon in Hong King or The Pudong and The Bund in Shanghai.

 

[whatever]

I find the most aggravating things about filming in my neighbourhood are the trailer convoys taking up all of the sidewalk parking, and the rats' nests of cables everywhere. If, as mentioned, the power supplies could be integrated into the streetscaping, and the need for trailers was greatly reduced this sounds like it wouldn't be all that bad. It would be cheesy as all get out to pass through New York, Chicago, and Paris on the way to the bus stop, but it would be excusable under the circumstances

 

[Jasonzed]

site