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

junctionist said:
If Gehry weaves his complex around the buildings, engaging with them, the end result will be a more sophisticated streetscape than a monotonous wall of glass.
Click to expand...

Yep. This is easily the most sensible way forward, and it's a discredit to our civic dialogue that this has been allowed to devolve into an either-or proposition.

Save the heritage facades, wrap the clouds around them, and have the new towers emerge from them both literally and symbolically.

If well executed, the space between the clouds and the facades could be as dramatic a forecourt as any in the world.
 
Northern Magus said:
Yep. This is easily the most sensible way forward, and it's a discredit to our civic dialogue that this has been allowed to devolve into an either-or proposition.

Save the heritage facades, wrap the clouds around them, and have the new towers emerge from them both literally and symbolically.

If well executed, the space between the clouds and the facades could be as dramatic a forecourt as any in the world.
Click to expand...

Except that it is an either-or proposition. Mirvish has told Gehry that he has a carte blanche on the property that Mervish owns, and Gehry has as much as indicated that he thinks these heritage buildings are worthless. The choice of the city will be to accept this proposal or reject it.
 
Northern Magus said:
Yep. This is easily the most sensible way forward, and it's a discredit to our civic dialogue that this has been allowed to devolve into an either-or proposition.

Save the heritage facades, wrap the clouds around them, and have the new towers emerge from them both literally and symbolically.

If well executed, the space between the clouds and the facades could be as dramatic a forecourt as any in the world.
Click to expand...

Adam Vaughan, as the ward councillor, will play a major role in the negotiations with Mirvish+Gehry. He sits on the preservation and heritage boards for the city and has a track record of incorporating good city building policies as part of Section 37 settlements. I trust his judgement regarding the possible incorporation of the heritage buildings.
 
Last edited:
seventies said:
Well, first off I will acquiesce that this proposed development will fuel the rapidly changing neighbourhood fabric to the point where it may define the "new neighbourhood". Personally, I am okay with the prospect however I can appreciate how many would not be. If that is the preservation you are seeking, the preservation of a rapidly changing node, then you have a very valid point.

Though as I understand, and forgive me if I'm still misinterpreting your original post but it seems to me that you're argument is based on principle. Citing Penn Station in relation to this debate...how is this a practical comparison? Bad things happened when it was torn down so we should not tear down any more Heritage buildings?
Click to expand...

Perhaps my initial thought when citing Penn Station was a response to the singular rhetoric coming from using the TD Centre as an example. What I find slightly nefarious here (on UT) is that the precedent that would be set by allowing such a megaproject to be constructed, thereby demolishing a stretch that is so very stimulating and integrated within the urban fabric of the city (what I suspect/hope we all desire from all this urban development), without the adequate revision is being so easily overlooked. There appears to be a displeasure with the amount of reasonable concerns and criticisms this project has received, from both the local community and municipal bodies. This displeasure I find to be slightly reckless, and ignorant of the many steps it took for citizens and planning to reach this type of mutual respect and cooperation.

Now when it comes to this project specifically, I find it difficult to toss these few buildings so easily aside if there are a significant number of citizens that find much meaning in them. Why build something on the speculative pretext that it will bring meaning, sophistication, and beauty to us, if most of us already find that this is present in what is currently there. I'm not necessarily saying this is definitely the case, however if it indeed is the case, thank god for the approval process we have established that made preservation possible.

I personally find that this stretch could indeed use some intensification, in fact I rather like the proposals and to a degree find them appropriate given the location. But when we talk about 'changing' and 'adapting' our city to fulfill our contemporary needs, I do not understand why that does not translate to individual buildings. We have the means to readapt, reconfigure, and integrate old structures with new functions. I don't think this project necessitates a tabula rasa to be a success, and quite frankly I do not think the notion, in this particular case, should even be entertained.
 
A defeat of Gehry+Mirvish does not mean the heritage buildings will be saved. Mirvish could easily decide to sell to a developer that will propose something far less visionary and not exceeding the planning department's unofficial height limit for the area.

The planning department's main objection is the density of the towers, not necessarily the loss of the heritage buildings.
 
junctionist said:
If Gehry weaves his complex around the buildings, engaging with them, the end result will be a more sophisticated streetscape than a monotonous wall of glass.
Click to expand...

Northern Magus said:
Yep. This is easily the most sensible way forward, and it's a discredit to our civic dialogue that this has been allowed to devolve into an either-or proposition.

Save the heritage facades, wrap the clouds around them, and have the new towers emerge from them both literally and symbolically.

If well executed, the space between the clouds and the facades could be as dramatic a forecourt as any in the world.
Click to expand...

Easier said than done.

Wrapping the existing buildings with billowing glass won't create a dramatic forecourt and will do nothing to improve the sidewalk, it's too narrow a space. Even if they did try that, the City would then demand payment in perpetuity for the new buildings to be overhanging the right-of-way. It's a non-starter.

Gehry's proposal widens the sidewalks, responding to the concern regarding their lack of pedestrian space. It also puts the new structure at street level, not half a level above or below.

42
 
 
Last edited:
Usahid:

When dealing with density, we're more concerned with how the building will interact with the street and existing infrastructure. Will the sidewalks be wide enough to accommodate the pedestrians? Is the transit good enough to accommodate the extra riders? Can the sewage and electric system handle the extra load? Can the roads accommodate more vehicles? Are there enough parks, schools, entertainment, policing etc...
 
Its a joke that some people here are in favour of a bunch of old average warehouses over this world class development...truthfully they're not happy with anything that might change the face of this city
 
Last edited:
ushahid said:
interchange42 are u in favor of this project or not.
Click to expand...

I try to present facts rather plainly when I can help, and so not every post of mine comes with obvious opinion attached, but when I am being plain about it, I've been pretty unequivocal on this: in my estimation the Pros of building Mirvish+Gehry heavily outweigh the Cons (which I acknowledge are there). I want to see this proposal built, and I am fine with it on this particular property, but I understand the hesitation that others have.

42
 
TheTigerMaster said:
Usahid:

When dealing with density, we're more concerned with how the building will interact with the street and existing infrastructure. Will the sidewalks be wide enough to accommodate the pedestrians? Is the transit good enough to accommodate the extra riders? Can the sewage and electric system handle the extra load? Can the roads accommodate more vehicles? Are there enough parks, schools, entertainment, policing etc...
Click to expand...

friend I understand your point but the thing is that there are many cities in the world who have more population than Toronto and have density in skyscraper but they can manage it so why cant Toronto, a 1st world city.
 
TheTigerMaster said:
Usahid:

When dealing with density, we're more concerned with how the building will interact with the street and existing infrastructure. Will the sidewalks be wide enough to accommodate the pedestrians? Is the transit good enough to accommodate the extra riders? Can the sewage and electric system handle the extra load? Can the roads accommodate more vehicles? Are there enough parks, schools, entertainment, policing etc...
Click to expand...

These are all non-issues and have been addressed ad nauseam, in order:

- sidewalks will be much wider than currently
- most residents will either walk to work, walk to Union Station or travel opposite to the TTC flow. In other words they place less pressure on transit than development elsewhere.
- sewage & electrial systems - the city needs to keep up, they have 5-10 years to get their act together
- As mentionned = fewer vehicles
- Schools - no comment
- Entertainment?? Policing?? Are you kidding me, how is this a problem?

Stop throwing the kitchen sink at this one.
 
I totally agree with the last few comments. Can anyone here name a single proposal in Canada or even the US that is as interesting as this one?
I just got back from a trip to Rome, and after seeing 2000 year old buildings, the value of a 100 year old cubic warehouse seems ridiculous to me.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top