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

[SP!RE]

Schematic drawings have shown a lot of underground parking, which is why I have concerns about that.

As for midrises, I never said they are revolutionary. But the point tower is not without its faults, either.

Yes, we only know so much at this point, but my concerns are based on a combination of what I expect of this development based on what we've seen so far, and Gehry's past issues with variable climates. At the end of the day, we have different priorities and expectations.

 

[Automation Gallery]

at the end of the day, we have different priorities and expectations.

bingo!

 

[TheTigerMaster]

What are the chances of the OMB approving this?

 

[adma]

There's also an irony here in how the Anderson building was given heritage status, in part, because it used a decidedly impractical terra cotta!

If it were all about practicality vs impracticality, then this has no business being heritage.

 

[adma]

If that is the case do not point to my personal statements in a belittling manner to prove a point which you yourself cannot support. It is not very becoming of you. I happen to be a Realtor and have extensive knowledge and experience on the subject having worked on heritage buildings on many occasions.

Look at it this way: if you're a bigshot-corporate-client kind of realtor, there's a good chance that you've run into (in your mind frivolous?) heritage conflict re some of the work-on-heritage-buildings you've done. It's like being "plastics guy" in The Graduate. (To take one example: if you think Context's gutting of the Ryrie building at Yonge + Shuter was a good and positive thing, then no wonder your myopia t/w the breadth of what cherishable heritage can be these days.)

Referring to another document available on the city's website, I tend to agree with this statement...

The Anderson Building at 284 King St W was constructed in 1915
by architect William Fraser. The Statement of Significance for this
buildings states that it is a rare surviving sample of a commercial
warehouse with terra cotta cladding. However, examples of commercial
buildings with terra cotta cladding by more prominent architects are
found elsewhere in the city. For example: the CHUMCity building at
Queen and John Streets by Burke, Horwood & White (1913); the Bank
of Montreal at Queen and Yonge Streets and Bank of Nova Scotia at
Bathurst and College Streets - both by Darling & Pearson in 1909 and
1912 respectively; the Hermant Building (19 Dundas Square) and
the Royal Bank of Canada at Danforth and Pape avenues by Bond &
Smith in 1913 and 1914 respectively; and the Excelsor Life Building
(36 Toronto Street) by E.J. Lennox (1914).
The Eclipse Whitewear Building at 322 King Street W was constructed
in 1903 by lesser known architects, Gregg & Gregg, who primarily
conducted ecclesiastic works, such as the Bloor Street United Church
(1890), and is thus not representative of their work.

Actually, by contextualizing the work honestly without making prima donna claims, I find that statement makes Anderson and Eclipse Whitewear *more* interesting, *not* less--maybe not in the face of the Mirvish/Gehry threat; but certainly in the face of any "much less" schemes. That's what makes heritage fabric and just plain "existing conditions" sexy--though certainly, in a way that might distress the builder/designer/developer/corporate-real-estate community which feels its livelihoods threatened, compromised, subject to Chinese foot-binding by, well, "the heritage zealot in all of us".

Which is why, ultimately, this debate can be boiled down to a war btw/ways-of-seeing-the-city--the builders vs the beholders; the professionals vs the psychogeographers...

 

[jje1000]

If it's going to be an iconic project, I expect it to aim for LEED goals as a minimum. This is 2013 --- truly iconic architecture seeks to be sustainable.

My concerns relating to "real world concerns" relate to sustainability, as well as issues such as leaks and vapour transmission through building assemblies. Looking at the expansive areas of custom-designed, curvaceous glazing on his models, I feel as though the institutions in the podium of this project are going to have some serious leaks and issues relating to longevity. A lot of Gehry's work has been successful in warmer climates, but I'm a bit worried how successful it would be here in Toronto. Designing a building for the extremes of Toronto is a lot different than designing a building for warmer or more moderate climates.

Several of Gehry's designs have had him sued for cracks, leaks, and mould issues, not long after their completion, and in his project for Bard College, the roof had issues that were attributed to Gehry's design specifications not taking properly into account the climate's variability. Gehry tends to blame "value engineering" as the culprit in his designs that have had leaks and mould problems. What is concerning about this in the case of the Mirvish & Gehry project is that there is so much "value engineering" in Toronto's condominium market already, and in order to make a reasonable profit, the same thing will happen on the Mirvish & Gehry project.

These concerns are not reasons for the buildings to not be approved, but they remain concerns of mine. Maybe I'm naive, but I don't trust Gehry's office anymore than I do other architecture firms, who make misguided compromises in their designs because to beef up a roof structure or change an assembly to suit our climate negatively impacts the look of their envisioned design.

For planning issues, my primary concerns are the continued demographic homogenization it will encourage in the neighbourhood, and the over-provision of parking (encouraging vehicular use and traffic). Lower-cost housing is a desperate need in downtown Toronto, and will be even more-so in a few years. And yet again, as I have said earlier, I think this project encourages the precedent set by other condo projects in Toronto. The "point tower" is very overdone and we really need to find ways to explore mid-rise development, especially in areas outside downtown.

I have doubts this project will ever be sustainable even with LEED initatives. First of all, the site is beng cleared tabula rasa- none of the buildings are being reused; everything is either going to the dumps or being recycled. Second of all, buildings don't look particularily designed to take maximum advantage of site conditons (sunlight, etc.), and certain elements (i.e. the massive glazed podium) look incredibly energy intensive in manufacturing (glassworks) and maintenance (heating).

Like what you said above, I'm not sure that Gehry's design will be able to hold up to Canadian weather without some streamlining to ensure proper drainage for rainwater and snow. Moreso, I'm not quite sure if Mirvish will be able to take on this project without cost-cutting, remember that Gehry's designs tend to be more expensive the more complicated they get.

Of possible note on SSP:

It's a good heartfelt argument for the density but ultimately this project isn't going ahead because the developers have no experience or capital.

Much larger problems than a pesky counselor or two.

Yeah, but that's not hard to overcome. I could see Mirvish partnering with a experienced, local developer.

I could see mervish partnering with a local developer, only problem is i don't see a local developer partnering with Mervish.

This proposal had a very very slim chance of happening from the get go, and it hasn't really been met with success on every front. I give this one about a 5% chance of happening in its current form and a 50% chance of happening in a vastly revised (smaller/cheaper) form.

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=195904&page=10

 

[buildup]

If it's going to be an iconic project, I expect it to aim for LEED goals as a minimum. This is 2013 --- truly iconic architecture seeks to be sustainable.

My concerns relating to "real world concerns" relate to sustainability, as well as issues such as leaks and vapour transmission through building assemblies. Looking at the expansive areas of custom-designed, curvaceous glazing on his models, I feel as though the institutions in the podium of this project are going to have some serious leaks and issues relating to longevity. A lot of Gehry's work has been successful in warmer climates, but I'm a bit worried how successful it would be here in Toronto. Designing a building for the extremes of Toronto is a lot different than designing a building for warmer or more moderate climates.

Several of Gehry's designs have had him sued for cracks, leaks, and mould issues, not long after their completion, and in his project for Bard College, the roof had issues that were attributed to Gehry's design specifications not taking properly into account the climate's variability. Gehry tends to blame "value engineering" as the culprit in his designs that have had leaks and mould problems. What is concerning about this in the case of the Mirvish & Gehry project is that there is so much "value engineering" in Toronto's condominium market already, and in order to make a reasonable profit, the same thing will happen on the Mirvish & Gehry project.

These concerns are not reasons for the buildings to not be approved, but they remain concerns of mine. Maybe I'm naive, but I don't trust Gehry's office anymore than I do other architecture firms, who make misguided compromises in their designs because to beef up a roof structure or change an assembly to suit our climate negatively impacts the look of their envisioned design.

For planning issues, my primary concerns are the continued demographic homogenization it will encourage in the neighbourhood, and the over-provision of parking (encouraging vehicular use and traffic). Lower-cost housing is a desperate need in downtown Toronto, and will be even more-so in a few years. And yet again, as I have said earlier, I think this project encourages the precedent set by other condo projects in Toronto. The "point tower" is very overdone and we really need to find ways to explore mid-rise development, especially in areas outside downtown.

I'm bedazzled at the inventiveness and diligence put into crafting objections to this project. Congrats for crafting more concerns and worries - demographic homogenization, sustainability, leaks, longevity, the possibility of future compromises, low cost housing shortages, parking, point tower concerns, a need for more low rise elsewhere...etc. And all of this put on the back of M-R, whereas countless other second rate projects barely attract a second glance. Lots of building have leaks (most buildings) but its not newsworthy in most cases. If he's encountered the problem before then he's probably better prepared to avoid it in the future. Anyway, good work in coming up with that. I wonder whether sun reflection might melt a car, and why has no-one raised the danger to migratory birds?

I'd differ with Hume, its not that Toronto 'isn't ready for the big time', instead we too sophisticated, discerning, our concerns are more rarified. Let him flog his work in New York and elsewhere!

 

[SP!RE]

If you think sustainability (or demographic homogenization) are concerns that take a great deal of "crafting", then you haven't read my critiques of various projects in this city.

Why should an iconic project of this size, or any project for that matter, NOT take sustainability into account? That is one of the paramount concerns with any new small building, let alone three 80+ storey towers.

 

[isaidso]

I
I'd differ with Hume, its not that Toronto 'isn't ready for the big time', instead we too sophisticated, discerning, our concerns are more rarified. Let him flog his work in New York and elsewhere!

That comment just leaves me speechless.

 

[buildup]

What has demographic homogenization to do this this project? Men & women of all nationalities will live here. If you're taking about families, the elderly, or low income they can be addressed by other dedicated projects if necessary with the appropriate subsidies if required. This project doesn't need to serve all markets. As for sustainability by definition these towers are sustainable relative to 95% of all other residential buildings in the GTA when you consider the load they would REMOVE from transit infrastructure.

Have you raised demographic homogenization as an objection to other projects? To that point what groups are you imagining would want to live/work in the entertainment/financial district that this building can't accomodate?

 

[RC8]

To that point what groups are you imagining would want to live/work in the entertainment/financial district that this building can't accomodate?

There's lots of families who would want to but we provide zero infrastructure for them and make it artificially unaffordable through real estate speculation.

 

[SP!RE]

Have you raised demographic homogenization as an objection to other projects? To that point what groups are you imagining would want to live/work in the entertainment/financial district that this building can't accomodate?

Downtown Toronto is increasingly unaffordable for anyone but the wealthy. I have raised this issue for various projects, because UTers don't seem to question the way the open market shapes our developments and our city. It has rapidly become more expensive and forced lower-income groups out, and continues to do so. You are going to have a very hard time convincing anyone who has studied this phenomenon that it is not a major problem. Take a look at various American and international cities and you'll see why some of us worry.

As for sustainability, you have remained quiet on that, so I take it that like most UTers, you don't think that's an important consideration for developments in the 21st century.

Anyways, I'll excuse myself from this thread and let you guys continue to have a circle jerk over this project.

*For all the warm sentiments on UT towards public transit and reduced care use, I think it's ridiculous how we cheer on just about every development, regardless of its energy goals.

 

[buildup]

I'm aware living downtown is nice. Nice things, scarce things are costly. And I think more people with lower income should be able to live at King and John with their families. The only solution I see is for the city to increase our taxes to help subsidize those lifestyles. It could help a few people but not cover the entire need.

Personally, when I was a student I didn't expect to live at King & John. I lived at Glenholme, Gerrard, North York and had no problem with that.

I get sustainability, but can see anyway to built homes for 3,000 people with consuming some materials. Incidently its a total red herring that only the affordable live near downtown. Completely false, unless my friends are lying to me and have trust funds.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I get the need for mixed uses and mixed income - but at the end of the day you are dealing with exceedingly powerful economic forces in the downtown area (particularly one this close to the financial core) - the possibility of mixed income housing on a private site is limited. Besides, the core area is large enough that we can live with some fine grain inequities (compensated by say, the presence of social housing in newly developed neighbourhoods like WDL, Regent Park, etc).

AoD

 

[diminutive]

Downtown Toronto is increasingly unaffordable for anyone but the wealthy. I have raised this issue for various projects, because UTers don't seem to question the way the open market shapes our developments and our city. It has rapidly become more expensive and forced lower-income groups out, and continues to do so. You are going to have a very hard time convincing anyone who has studied this phenomenon that it is not a major problem. Take a look at various American and international cities and you'll see why some of us worry.

The issue is that you're confusing cause and effect in terms of rising in-affordability. It's simply not credible to argue that projects like M-G, or really any project for that matter, worsen affordability.

Restricting development would do nothing at all to solve the underlying issue, which is there's more and more demand for downtown living. Again, there are many examples of attempts to control gentrification and in-affordability by restricting development completely backfiring since it does nothing to address the root causes. Look at San Francisco, which has for years been highly restrictive towards development. Now it's not only the least affordable American city, it's spilling over into places like Oakland. Stopping condos from getting built doesn't somehow stop rich people from buying up homes from poor people, it just limits the number of homes.

In Toronto's case, the policy solution has to involve improving rapid transit access to and from the core to reduce pressure on living right downtown or near the Yonge line. Ideally, we would be talking about 2-4 more radial lines to the City's extremities (even the 905).

As for sustainability, you have remained quiet on that, so I take it that like most UTers, you don't think that's an important consideration for developments in the 21st century.

I'll admit that the sustainability concern is legitimate. I'm not sure what the cost implications of pursuing LEED status would be on M-G, but maybe the City could raise this as a condition for approval? That would be more productive than wringing our hands over some warehouses.

Maybe requiring all new developments to reach LEED status would be good policy? Though, since it would surely add costs to new construction, we'd also be talking about heightening affordability issues.