"Just cause a building is old doesn't mean it matters."
This is true however building age, like location, is a potentially intrinsic souce of value. Something being new is not a source of intrinsic value because you can always build more new stuff. A famous designer (such as in this case) is in my opinion a pseudo-source of intrinsic value because fashion tastes change over time. Most of the catalogue of Gehry's buildings will not survive into the next century. This is not a knock on the architect or his designs, history just suggests this will be the case. At the ever accelerating speed of urbanization and urban renewal around the globe I expect that maybe 50 years will be considered a good run for a building to survive even by our most famous contemporary designers.
Still no settlement available to the public. We should get something from Adam Vaughan tomorrow though. Could the delay indicate a complex settlement agreement or possibly no settlement at all and the fight proceeds to the OMB? Suspenseful!
In all likelihood it's just in queue. Council has a massive list of items to go through and it could go well into Wednesday.
The question is is this King Street project in it's current form worth it? Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But the question of who is very central to many of our feelings either way. If I designed these buildings as seen in the rendering and you never heard of me would that alter the equation on your feelings on the project?
Interchange42, my comment may have been conjecture or exaggeration but it does have root in facts. Frank Lloyd Wright is a perfect example actually. Maybe 55-60 of his buildings, including many of his most architectural significant buildings, have already been demolished or destroyed in the approximately 60 years since their completion. The Martin house in Buffalo, which I had the pleasure of visiting a few years ago, was saved from turning into a parking lot by a little luck and the help of the Japanese. It's still undergoing rebuilding and parts of it were very poorly preserved and barely survived.
I have shown this proposal to many people and by far the most have supported the project. I'd have to say most had no clue who Frank Gehry is or in the least then knew of him as an Architect but little more. Those who did had no knowledge of his history in this city. Not everyone out there is a architecture or skyscraper geek.
I don't know if this one could be a ballot issue in the next election but if it was within the city as a whole, it would be approved by a massive majority. Massive.
We've had this discussion many times. http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/showth...Toronto-(ProjectCore-82-84-86s-Gehry)/page111
My point is a political one. No developer should be able to make such a huge impact on the city's built form without going to the community for input. I'd be much more supportive of this building if Mirvish had taken a more publicly-minded approach, even if the proposal ended up being basically the same architecturally.
Just to clarify, my problem with this project is Mirvish's "my way or the highway" attitude to civic engagement:
perhaps they should go live under one of those pampered sultans in the UAE.