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

[Lansdude]

Actually, while my bored/offhanded Stockhausen ref gave it a flippantly blase context, I'm actually more prone to backing away from the more purely Stockhausenesque "scale, originality, and beauty" matter to the more abstract, less rawly work-of-arttish (and hence less inherently pretentious) notion of 9/11 being the most important aesthetic experience of our time. And it isn't just about a plane smashing (hey, a picture can only convey so much): it's 9/11 in its entirety--its effect on everything from the Lower Manhattan geography to our psyches. Evil or not, it transfixed us in a way that, well, effectively surpasses "art" while nullifying it. That's why I don't--can't--refer to it as "art". Merely as an "aesthetic experience".

... Mirvish/Gehry? Hey, whatever happens. But if it doesn't happen or something gets messed up in the process, don't go bawling your eyes out; as 9/11-as-I-described-it proves, urbanity is far, far richer than that...

Slavoj Zizek channeled through Rosie Dimanno?

 

[diminutive]

At least you agree that it's a "major impact" nonetheless.

That's the biggest intentional misreading I've seen yet.

It's creating housing for part of 6% of the 30,000 new residents downtown. Whether it's all "new people" or all long-time downtown residents moving from a block away doesn't make a difference...it's still 4,000 residents existing where some warehouses-turned-businesses and a theatre existed.

And if they didn't exist on these warehouses they would be on Adelaide or Blue Jay Way or Liberty Village, filling the same infrastructure you're bellyaching about.

Honestly, I'd say somewhere else. King at John isn't exactly a leafy boulevard with ample bike lanes. It's in the thick of downtown traffic mayhem. I used to be an avid cyclist, and it's through the core that I'd find the most cumbersome and borderline dangerous ride. If you follow all the rules and want to be safe/seen, it can be a slow trek. Even something as simple as finding an empty ring/pole to lock up a bike has gotten quite difficult in recent years. Regardless, the parking garage isn't going to be full of bicycles and a couple of 60's era VW vans. These aren't exactly broke hippies moving downtown.

If you really think King and John is to busy to cycle or walk then, I dunno, good for you. This building will be right on the PATH network, giving climate controlled pedestrian access to the biggest employment area in Canada.

There's a reason why developers in the area have been lobbying to have parking minimums reduced. People buying a condo in this area are the least likely people in the country to use a car for their daily commute.

 

[diminutive]

Well your assumption about most M-G residents walking to work downtown is just that, an assumption. I don't think it'll be most. But with that, I don't know what it will be. The fact is, a good percentage of those leaving this block will be leaving in cars, or hopping on transit. Since the only transit line this condo site is on is plagued by slow speeds and terrible service, the fact that hundreds of single-occupant vehicles will be leaving this block every morning/arriving every evening will only slow things down some more. Both immediately adjacent to the site, and amplified in a several block radius.

No, it's not an assumption. People who move into the core area lead to an almost 1:1 reduction on transport infrastructure. After core area employees, the biggest demographic of these downtown condos tends to be retired empty-nester types, who don't commute extensively in peak hours.

It's also not the case that the King Streetcar is the 'only' transit line around M-G. St. Andrew is a 5 minute walk and has plenty of capacity even during peak hours, especially in the opposite direction (e.g. live at M-G, work @UHN or Queen's Park...)

And as for the FCP connection. I don't know what it is exactly, but I'd probably feel a lot better about this proposal if it was an office development. When I see office building proposals, it makes me think that a company wants to make its mark, and believes in this city's future, economic prowess, and is making a net positive. When I see condos - especially very large ones - I just see vertical subdivisions...a cash-cow being milked at the expense of other city dwellers because the right housing market conditions have allowed for it, and the City and the OMB have caused poor planning to reign supreme.

You're missing the underlying point. Condos don't contribute to infrastructure overloading nearly as much as employment uses. Rush hour is entirely a phenomenon of people travelling to work. Even a modest office building would put more strain on transit networks than a very large condo like M-G. FCP probably 2-3 times the amount of strain.

And you're deluding yourself if you think office buildings somehow aren't cash-cows. Look at SouthCore or Bay-Adelaide. They're economic glass boxes designed purely to maximize profits. That's fine, but Mirvish-Gehry is far more a labor of love. We have tons of examples of condo projects in this City designed to maximize developer profits and they look nothing like M-G

FCP and the surrounding CBD did cause damage in its size and scope, especially as it pertains to our transit-deficient, four-lane arterial core. But it also spawned an underworld (literally, PATH) that made up for the loss of restaurants and local businesses. Although it went against the Jane Jacobs ideal, a remedy for the impact and loss of human-scale mixed use development was ultimately provided/returned. I can't say the same thing about mega-condo projects.

JANE JACOBS! HUMAN SCALE! MIDRISEEEE!!!

 

[urbandreamer]

I think what frightens planners the most is that this project is just the tip of the iceberg. Just like 1 Bloor East is making property owners in that node apply for more height (Cumberland, 50, 80 Bloor, 848 Yonge--and more to come!) the idea that the entire block between Queen, Front, Spadina (Bathurst?) and University will become a new giant building district is very real ... by 2040?

The planners aren't necessarily frightened though, but they fear for their elected friends in city hall. They fear the nimby revolt.

I will say this should speed up the approval of the DRL via King Street.

I do challenge Buildup's assertion that Gehry is the best architect in the world. I would say no, he's the best connected. As an architect, he's downright mediocre

 

[buildup]

Honestly I don't know who the best architect is. It doesn't matter since you're being disingenious.

I should ask you how he's the best "connected"? Is he married to all these developers who commission him, did he go to school with them, is it a conspiracy? What does 'connected' mean and how does it work? Please enlighten.

If he's mediocre to you, then other UT Forumers can take note and decide whether your viewpoints are sophisticated enough to review generally.

As Gehry's work is unique, I'd assume it's either terrible or fantastic, certainly not mediocre. I see the latter.

 

[urbandreamer]

By connected, I mean he's the Rolling Stones of architecture. He's famous ... but rather past his prime. His minions are doing the real architecture/designing.

It's like taking NimbyTect, a huge marketing budget and money connections, and then having aA do the real design work but under the NimbyTect sketchup design directives.

Gehry's what I call a conceptualist ... great on paper but the reality?

There are many--thousands really--great and fantastic modern architects out there. Look past the lamestream newsmedia headlines to find them.

I am not against this project. I say build it. But it's sad that so many people blindly believe Gehry is the only architect for this project. There are dozens of talented architects who live and breathe Toronto and could deliver something great here. (For example, the AGO addition. It's awful. aA local firm could've done better.)

 

[E.B.]

Keesmaat posted this interesting M-G article on her twitter page. However, I don't agree with the writer. Once again, the writer is telling Gehry how he should design the project. Because we all know she is obviously an experienced adviser to seasoned architects (NOT)

http://spacing.ca/toronto/2013/10/09/icon-architecture-land-mirvish-gehry/

 

[buildup]

I am not against this project...But it's sad that so many people blindly believe Gehry is the only architect for this project. There are dozens of talented architects who live and breathe Toronto and could deliver something great here.

Just so I understand you. You are saying anytime a grand project comes along with a talented architect our response ought to be "proceed, but use another architect because there are dozens of other talented ones out there too". That's the funniest thing i ever heard! To top it off, its not even your dime!

 

[SP!RE]

Because we all know she is obviously an experienced adviser to seasoned architects (NOT)

In fairness, architects, as a profession, have a pretty bad record for urban planning. That is her job, and not Gehry's specialty.

You are welcome to disagree with Keesmaat's stance, but please don't pull out the "Gehry-is-a-God-who-shalt-not-be-questioned" schtick.

 

[RC8]

If these types of buildings continue to be the norm, we will continue feeding a lifestyle of moving into the city in your 20s and moving out in your 30s.

These things just don't allow people to grow and age in-place, and will be bought and lived-in by people who don't suspect what it's like to live 60 stories up there. We are replacing car-dependency with elevator-dependency, and creating two inherently flawed and highly exclusive cities within the greater city: the core, and the suburbs, with little in-between.

What pisses people like Keesmat off about this proposal is that it does not encompass an inclusive and long-term planning vision... and that's fine... but it's the planner's job to try and enforce one.

If these were office towers I'd be leaning to support them, but they are not. These will be people's homes. I can guarantee that after a greater share of Torontonians have experienced what life is like in a very tall apartment building, towers will get shorter, not taller.

On a completely unrelated note, I feel they would have a much more aesthetically pleasing impact if they were of an equivalent height to the buildings around them. With the Ritz, Lightbox, and Theatre whatever, the area would feel like a magnificent showcase of Toronto's contemporary architecture - all harmoniously put together side-by-side.

 

[Ramako]

If these types of buildings continue to be the norm, we will continue feeding a lifestyle of moving into the city in your 20s and moving out in your 30s.

These things just don't allow people to grow and age in-place, and will be bought and lived-in by people who don't suspect what it's like to live 60 stories up there. We are replacing car-dependency with elevator-dependency, and creating two inherently flawed and highly exclusive cities within the greater city: the core, and the suburbs, with little in-between.

What pisses people like Keesmat off about this proposal is that it does not encompass an inclusive and long-term planning vision... and that's fine... but it's the planner's job to try and enforce one.

If these were office towers I'd be leaning to support them, but they are not. These will be people's homes. I can guarantee that after a greater share of Torontonians have experienced what life is like in a very tall apartment building, towers will get shorter, not taller.

On a completely unrelated note, I feel they would have a much more aesthetically pleasing impact if they were of an equivalent height to the buildings around them. With the Ritz, Lightbox, and Theatre whatever, the area would feel like a magnificent showcase of Toronto's contemporary architecture - all harmoniously put together side-by-side.

I disagree with the notion that construction of these kinds of condos are feeding a particular kind of lifestyle. The opposite is true. It's a desired lifestyle among buyers that is dictating the kinds of condos going up. That's a fundamental aspect of the free market.

Tastes and markets evolve over time. Twenty years ago there was a stigma against condo living. Buyers, including younger people, gravitated toward single-family homes in the suburbs. Accordingly the condo market was relatively small. Today, the city has become more metropolitan and there is a greater desire among people, particularly youth, to live downtown. The market responded by building condos that we're appropriate for young and single people. Who's to say that in twenty years when those same people want larger units, for example, that developers won't accommodate them?

With respect to your elevator complaint - that's one I haven't heard before. First off I'd argue that the trade-off with longer elevator waits is better view. Secondly, I think you're underestimating innovation in the industry. What you're seeing now is developers offering separate entrances and elevator banks for higher floors, such as at Yonge + Rich. This is standard practice with tall office towers, so it only makes sense to import it to residential towers. This could easily become the norm among taller condo towers.

From an aesthetic perspective, I'd be disappointed if these towers were shortened to match the surrounding buildings. Aside from the fact that these are designs that deserve to stand out among the many pedestrian designs going up in the neighbourhood, punctuating parts of a skyline with peaks creates visual interest.

 

[Lansdude]

What pisses people like Keesmat off about this proposal is that it does not encompass an inclusive and long-term planning vision... and that's fine... but it's the planner's job to try and enforce one.

I don't agree, but let's grant that. So why are we having this discussion now? Shouldn't there be a pull back on the dozens of mediocre projects that are contributing to the same phenomenon instead of the one outstanding one with multiple compensating aspects?

That's a fine discussion to have, but to come down on this particular project for that is ironic and lamentably, typically Torontonian.

 

[junctionist]

I think the podium would look better with Gehry's signature swooping forms rising over the old buildings (reconstructed to build the towers). The present design has what appears to be a massive 5 storey glazed facade with the token "wooden beams" positioned diagonally. It's largely expendable, and I think Gehry knows that the heritage facades may fill that space--at least partially. That's why the glazed facade seems to be the same height of the heritage buildings. It wouldn't be like the BA Centre's heritage facade arbitrarily tacked onto an otherwise alien glass structure because the design looks like it takes that heritage streetscape into account.

Gehry's design is all about the sloping podium roof and the iconic towers themselves. Check out the streetscape comparison in the UT database collection of renderings in the link above ("present design"). The present streetscape looks better than a full block of glazing. Yet the two could easily be blended together and look amazing. If I'm walking on the sidewalk in front of the complex, I'd rather see the varied heritage facades than a long, sterile block of glazing.

 

[E.B.]

In fairness, architects, as a profession, have a pretty bad record for urban planning. That is her job, and not Gehry's specialty.

You are welcome to disagree with Keesmaat's stance, but please don't pull out the "Gehry-is-a-God-who-shalt-not-be-questioned" schtick.

To your first point, I agree 100% and I didn't say that in my original post.

To your second point, I should have made it clear that the "she" I was referring to was the writer of the article, Kristen Gagnon. Kristen is a student pursuing a PhD in Architecture.

btw, I don't believe for a minute that "Gehry-is-a-God-who-shalt-not-be-questioned". I reserve that title for myself. And if you listen closely, you can hear the angels in heaven singing.

Now back to my response, what I do find irksome with Ms. Gagnon are comments like this:

"then why do we not change the architecture to make it financially sustainable at a (even slightly) smaller scale? And while we’re at it, why not find a way to save or at least integrate both the historical and culturally significant portions of the existing site? Gehry is a great architect – there should therefore be a way for him to make an affordable, proportional and historically/culturally sensitive development."

Also "Perhaps the public’s upset over the potential loss of a part of the city shows a need for Gehry to use his architectural imagination to find a way to save some of it"

The reason I find this irksome is because M-G have already stated that they would make adjustments to accommodate certain things. What Gerhry has said is he won't incorporate the existing buildings into the design, if that's required he won't proceed with the project. And that isn't unreasonable. If he had to incorporate numerous existing buildings into all his projects that were totally out of context with the entire vision of the project. That would seem unreasonable.

Whether we like it or not Gehry is recognised as a significant architect. He doesn't need this project to enhance his reputation. If he or anyone else with a reputation to lose, takes on too many local requirements for their vision, then they likely wouldn't do it either.

Imagine Steven Spielberg making a movie in Toronto and the Mayor says he needs to add 2 or 3 shots of the CN Tower or he can't make the film here. But spielberg says my movie is a western. What do you think Spielberg would say and do? I'm just sayin.

 

[44 North]

Check out the streetscape comparison in the UT database collection of renderings in the link above ("present design"). The present streetscape looks better than a full block of glazing. Yet the two could easily be blended together and look amazing. If I'm walking on the sidewalk in front of the complex, I'd rather see the varied heritage facades than a long, sterile block of glazing.

That's a compromise that could possibly get the anti-M+G crowd to support the project. At least the people concerned with maintaining the streetscape and heritage. And as it stands, the buildings are currently covered in grey/off-white paint (and one faux stone). If they were sandblasted to show their true brick beauty, I think people would see their appeal.

But according to many here, Gehry isn't one to compromise.