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

Or you could just walk down the street and make that judgement for yourself and not base the notion of the area as being 'hardly low-rise' on an infographic.
 
Well, city hall already ruined Theater Park. It is turning out so nice. Such a shame that they scaled down the height to practically the same as Cinema, and other average towers. Let's hope the same isn't done with M-G.
 
I used to be on the fence about this project, but now I'm turning against it. The buildings look great, but architecture - though it's our primary interest on this forum - is just one consideration.

I'm getting kind of sick of Mirvish's arrogance over this project. How he seems to think we should be grateful while he breaks a long list of heritage and zoning rules in order to make himself hundreds of millions of dollars richer by dumping almost 3000 new units on an already bloated condo market. If Mirvish wants to leave a legacy that the people of Toronto will appreciate, why not hire Gehry to build a City of Toronto Museum somewhere. I'm sorry if I'm not feeling pride over another condo developer trying to gorge themselves.

Meanwhile, I'm really not convinced by Christopher Hume (and others) clutching his pearls over the fact that Toronto's not going to be a "world class city" without this development. Can anyone really say or hear the term "world class city" without rolling their eyes?
 
I used to be on the fence about this project, but now I'm turning against it. The buildings look great, but architecture - though it's our primary interest on this forum - is just one consideration.

I'm getting kind of sick of Mirvish's arrogance over this project. How he seems to think we should be grateful while he breaks a long list of heritage and zoning rules in order to make himself hundreds of millions of dollars richer by dumping almost 3000 new units on an already bloated condo market. If Mirvish wants to leave a legacy that the people of Toronto will appreciate, why not hire Gehry to build a City of Toronto Museum somewhere. I'm sorry if I'm not feeling pride over another condo developer trying to gorge themselves.

Meanwhile, I'm really not convinced by Christopher Hume (and others) clutching his pearls over the fact that Toronto's not going to be a "world class city" without this development. Can anyone really say or hear the term "world class city" without rolling their eyes?

I agree with this statement. As well everyone makes it sound like we should give David more rope to work with because he helped build the city. Lets be clear ED Mirvish was the one whom built the Mirvish brand. For those who think David couldn't just be in it for a quick pay day and has his mind on legacy, why then just continue to sell off everything Ed made. Why are the sceptical people being judged when David hasn't done anything for the city. By the way if he wanted to he could just donate his Art to the AGO but instead he's using his name and art as justifying breaking all these codes.
 
"I used to be on the fence about this project, but now I'm turning against it. The buildings look great, but architecture - though it's our primary interest on this forum - is just one consideration.

I'm getting kind of sick of Mirvish's arrogance over this project. How he seems to think we should be grateful while he breaks a long list of heritage and zoning rules in order to make himself hundreds of millions of dollars richer by dumping almost 3000 new units on an already bloated condo market. If Mirvish wants to leave a legacy that the people of Toronto will appreciate, why not hire Gehry to build a City of Toronto Museum somewhere. I'm sorry if I'm not feeling pride over another condo developer trying to gorge themselves."


It doesn't sound like you were ever really on the fence.
I do agree and have said before that some of the resistance here is the tall poppy syndrome. Whether he's more of less arrogant than any other developer, frankly I don't care. All I care is what we're getting, and from the look of things we need a lot more arrogance in this city.
 
"t doesn't sound like you were ever really on the fence.
I do agree and have said before that some of the resistance here is the tall poppy syndrome. Whether he's more of less arrogant than any other developer, frankly I don't care. All I care is what we're getting, and from the look of things we need a lot more arrogance in this city.



Exactly my thoughts. Look at what we're getting. I'm afraid If Mirvish loses this fight, he will sell to another developer who will save the warehouses and do something atrocious like this.

2lxeb6t.jpg
 

Attachments

  • 2lxeb6t.jpg
    2lxeb6t.jpg
    88.2 KB · Views: 407
It doesn't sound like you were ever really on the fence.
I do agree and have said before that some of the resistance here is the tall poppy syndrome. Whether he's more of less arrogant than any other developer, frankly I don't care. All I care is what we're getting, and from the look of things we need a lot more arrogance in this city.

As I said, I like the proposed buildings on an aesthetic level. I'm torn between what would be aesthetically preferable: century old warehouses or condo starchitecture. However, the more I think of it outside the aesthetic/architectural dimension, the more I don't like the project.

What really bugs me about this development are the precedents it sets for ignoring heritage and planning guidelines. It's not tall poppy syndrome to believe that democratically created laws/guidelines should be respected by private enterprise. I think Gehry's AGO is great, but it was designed and developed in close consultation with community stakeholders. Gehry went through multiple designs before arriving at one that was realistic and acceptable to the public. His design was also very sensitive to heritage concerns. He heavily redesigned Walker court, but in a way that brought it back to life and made it the centre of the gallery once again. He also kept his hands off the Grange house/park. The results speak for themselves.

This "take it or leave it" attitude from Mirvish should have no place in Toronto. It certainly wasn't the approach that made the AGO the great building it is.
 
Lets be clear ED Mirvish was the one whom built the Mirvish brand. For those who think David couldn't just be in it for a quick pay day and has his mind on legacy, why then just continue to sell off everything Ed made. Why are the sceptical people being judged when David hasn't done anything for the city. By the way if he wanted to he could just donate his Art to the AGO but instead he's using his name and art as justifying breaking all these codes.

It should also be pointed out that one of Ed Mirvish's great contributions to the city was Mirvish Village. That only came into existence because the city would not allow him to demolish all those houses to create a parking lot for Honest Ed's. Just another example of why democratic deliberation, rather than "great individuals", should be the main driver of city-building.
 
Yes Toronto has a few slabs as well. But you were saying that Toronto is not a world class city because we don't build as many towers as those 3rd world cities. My point is that you shouldn't judge a city based on it's skyline because it doesn't mean that it's great to live there. Of course those cities have some nice buildings too, but Toronto is a different kind of city and we shouldn't necessarily copy what Dubai does.

Toronto is a wonderful city. 6th livable city in the world and when I said "world class city" I meant the skyline of the city is boring and I never said to copy what Dubai or Hong Kong does. I said that more projects like mirvish Gehry, Oxford place and one yonge should be proposed, not only proposed but approved as well.
 
I'd rather have that in the city than open the floodgates for more Auras.

That may be the saddest comment ever posted here....if you would rather have the pathetic mishmash shown in gabe's post, rather than take a chance on something truly great, there is no hope for you, my friend.....

You've given a hundred reasons over the past months why you don't want M-G.....too tall, too dense, too outlandish, sidewalks are too small, not enough subways, not enough infrastructure, disregard for mediocre heritage, disregard for bureaucratic guidelines, too many people, too much traffic, even too much dog poo in the parks....etc. etc.....and now, of course, by your logic, this would 'open the floodgates' for more towers like Aura....even though Aura's approval came years before M-G, and its design and execution have absolutely nothing to do with M-G....

If you think that M-G is the single project which will facilitate 80 storey buildings in Toronto, you are mistaken....they are already here....and if councillor Vaughan supports this project in his ward, that doesn't mean he will support the next 80 storey opus by Canderel...
 
Last edited:
You are confusing me with someone else.

My concerns are 1) that this project is not built for the people who will live in it, or for the people who'll live around it, and 2) that it will set a precedent whereby ignoring every single rule in the book is acceptable when coming up with a proposal.

Density won't be a problem with this project. It will be however if it sets a precedent for surrounding lots. City planners did their best to ensure Festival Tower did not do this, but it did... and it's in that context that we must make a decision today.
 
If M-G is rejected it will simplify Keesmat's job and that of her planners.

A small but growing segment of citizenry who started to express interest in architecture will drift away concluding Great Architecture is something you fly somewhere else to see. As many here intone endlessly Toronto is 'quality of life' safe, first rate police, smog isn't bad, restaurant scene is lively, multi-cultural suburbs. Its a great place, and we're able to enjoy it undisturbed since tourists have no interest in coming here. Its the 'great architecture does not make a great city' view.

So when people go back to their old debates over taxes, underperforming sports franchises, bike lanes, and garbage removal; then the State Planners can go back to deciding what gets built.
 
"My concerns are... that it will set a precedent whereby ignoring every single rule in the book is acceptable when coming up with a proposal."

I love the precedent! Present something exceptional and we'll consider giving you a pass.
 

Top