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

don't panic folks, the decision is tomorrow.........

/fingers crossed...
 
I... I.. I kinda like the City planning version more. If they could keep the stepping of the towers like that but maybe add 5-10 floors on each from the planning department proposal, I think I will be satisfied.
 
buildup said:
You seem to acknowledge the majority would up vote the project, yet you stubbornly conclude that "in context" they wouldn't -why? If this were proposed for the Annex I'd see the context was absurd. Smack in the middle of the entertainment district makes me think the context is utterly perfect.

Why do you feel your minority (expert?) view is more important than Ford Nation? I can't stand Ford, but his followers tend to be decent people for the most part and their votes count. Never underestimate the judgement of the common man - experts tend to overthink, be needlessly contrarain, and fail to see the obvious as a result.
Click to expand...

Look at it this way--"context" is a more complicated, multifaceted thing than mere raw smack-in-the-middle-of-the-entertainment-districtness. Even a lot of the heritage/preexisting-minded "antis" wouldn't dispute your point...*if* we were dealing with a virtual tabula rasa a la what preceded Metro Hall to the south or TIFF to the west.

For you see, it isn't just a matter of presenting a project as a "raw thing"--it's also in the way that one frames or mediates the presentation. With that in mind, the overwhelming-landslide support will almost certainly sustain "shrinkage", the more the inconvenient "statused" (through designation or, in PoW's case, cultural-institutionness) presently on-site is drawn to the electorate's attention. Maybe not enough for defeat; but enough to, well, healthily complicate the debate.

Same thing with my Boston City Hall argument--frame it as a strict anti-eyesore campaign and shut the DOCOMOMO/Concrete Boston "contextualizing" crowd out of the equation, you've got your landslide. Bring in the contextualizers, and you've got yourself a healthily, sophisticatedly mediated debate in lieu of unchecked populist rage.

Oh, and don't forget that there are those who'd attack the Mirvish/Gehry clearcut camp as themselves "experts [who] tend to overthink, be needlessly contrarian, and fail to see the obvious as a result." All in the eye of the beholder, natch. (Of course, the same can *very* obviously be said about the dynamics which produced Boston City Hall in the 60s--yet in a way, a contemporary "Concrete Boston" embrace might be a defter modern way to adaptively subvert past hubris than raw vilification and extermination.)
 
diminutive said:
It's actually even stupider than that. Since future Mirvish-Gehry residents wont cease to exist if Mirvish-Gehry ceases to exist, transit demand would remain more or less unchanged if slightly redistributed. Since most of Toronto's downtown transit network is short on capacity, reducing the scale of Mirvish-Gehry would do nothing to reduce overall capacity shortages.

I assume that Keesmat imagines more development occurring on the 'Avenues', many of which eventually feed on to the Yonge subway south of Bloor to reach the CBD. Channeling more development there may well exacerbate a more serious capacity gap.

(one caveat: In a simple model, any new housing supply should lead to a higher quantity of housing being demanded. So, in that sense, it could be said that building M-G increases aggregate transit demand. But of course the relative shift in housing supply implied by M-G is negligible in the overall context of GTA housing or even downtown housing and hence the marginal impact on demand would be equally negligible.)
Click to expand...

Using the same logic as the Planning Department, no future office development should take place downtown since the transit network is at capacity. From Transportation Planning 101, it's commercial uses that generate the bulk of transportation trips. As diminutive said, the residents that will move into M+G already exist and are currently utilizing transportation infrastructure. What would add additional demand to the transit network is if employment increases.

Future M+G residents would be within a 15 minute walk to the financial district. City planning cites impacts on transit but does not back it up with any study. What's more likely is that a higher than average percentage of M+G residents will walk to work, possibly reducing peak demand on the King streetcar. Something to consider, how do the future M+G residents currently get to work?
 
buildup said:
ok, so I didn't need to post all of THIS?

How Canadian, a compromise!! We can have everything!! Too Tall? Cut them in half! Don't want to lose two warehouses, keep them as well!!

Keesmatt is small time, small town. She sees something that overwhelms her so she falls back on platitudes about public space. So all of a sudden we need a frickin park? Here?? Just improve the park directly across the street - its called David Pecaut square!

And transit, I am amazed our own chief planner has fallen for this red herring. Even I know it will in aggregate take cars OFF the streets, increase pedestrians (on the wider sidewalks M-G will create), or put people on TTC against the flow. Fix the transit Keesmat if you're so worried about it and stop droning on about bike lanes.

I know some people on this board HATE & DETEST famous architects but are more forgiving of innocuous ones. Only Hogtown would, after all the crap that's been built, decide to draw a red line at the most visually stunning proposal (quite possibly in the world, yes I said it) because we couldn't part ways with 2 warehouses. I am beyond words.

Adma, congratulations. Its academics like yourself working tirelessly to obstruct that we have to thank.

M-R should just withdraw. Seriously.

I think the warehouses would be an ideal site for a Comedy Central franchise.
Click to expand...

Re David Pecaut Square/parkland...my proposal would involve demolishing Metro Hall and its adjacent buildings. This would involve a significant amount of funding. See if there's a way to relocate the existing office space in these buildings (possibly in a new development on a different site). David Pecaut Square would become an enclosed park (bordered by trees) with grass in the center (a la Bryant Park). The new park would be bordered by Roy Thomson Hall, King St, Wellington, and John. Here is a very rough idea of what I mean, sans trees (see below). This would provide the city with a beautiful park in the center of the Financial/Entertainment District. If built, this would be one of the most popular spaces in the city, offering great views of the skyline, and a place to relax and enjoy the city atmosphere. This park would be especially needed if the Gehry proposal goes through. The current square isn't large enough for all the density that is coming to this area, and downtown in general. Either way, it would be an excellent and much needed addition to the city. What are the chances of something like this coming to fruition?

2m7bzox.jpg
 
Last edited:
skyrise said:
CLARIFICATION: This is just the City Planning Depts. recommendation not to approve this project as is and presenting a plan that conforms with the current precendent. No surprise here as this was already mentioned earlier in this thread. This still has to go before council for a vote. Note they also recommended not approving Massey and Eau du Soleil, both of which were approved; Massey with no changes and Soleil with a minor variation.
Rumor has it that council will approve this as is, or with some minor concessions.
Stay tuned folks...
Click to expand...

Adam Vaughan's motion was to:

1. Submit this item to Council without recommendation.

2. Request the Director, Community Planning, Toronto and East York District, to work with the applicant, and local Councillor, and bring forward directly to City Council for its meeting on December 16, 2013, any settlement terms that may result from the negotiations with respect to the Zoning Amendment Application for 266-270 King Street West and 274-322 King Street West.
Click to expand...

A settlement was not reached, which is a setback for M+G IMO. I am also surprised that City Planning is recommending refusal since Adam Vaughan's motion that carried at community council clearly directed that the report be submitted without recommendation. City Planning was only suppose to bring forward settlement terms, if any. Comments on this??

I am optimistic though that City Council will reject City Planning's recommendation alternative development concept.
 
buildup said:
ok, so I didn't need to post all of THIS?

How Canadian, a compromise!! We can have everything!! Too Tall? Cut them in half! Don't want to lose two warehouses, keep them as well!!

Keesmatt is small time, small town. She sees something that overwhelms her so she falls back on platitudes about public space. So all of a sudden we need a frickin park? Here?? Just improve the park directly across the street - its called David Pecaut square!

And transit, I am amazed our own chief planner has fallen for this red herring. Even I know it will in aggregate take cars OFF the streets, increase pedestrians (on the wider sidewalks M-G will create), or put people on TTC against the flow. Fix the transit Keesmat if you're so worried about it and stop droning on about bike lanes.

I know some people on this board HATE & DETEST famous architects but are more forgiving of innocuous ones. Only Hogtown would, after all the crap that's been built, decide to draw a red line at the most visually stunning proposal (quite possibly in the world, yes I said it) because we couldn't part ways with 2 warehouses. I am beyond words.

Adma, congratulations. Its academics like yourself working tirelessly to obstruct that we have to thank.

M-R should just withdraw. Seriously.

I think the warehouses would be an ideal site for a Comedy Central franchise.
Click to expand...

Boy, that's an air-headed tone you've got going there. And consider this--a good, thorough, sophisticated manner of understanding and delighting in urbanism actually encompasses an ability to embrace and delight in the "innocuous". Even in metropolii like NYC, London, Paris. Otherwise, you'd be just another dumb tourist under the delusion that you're "discerning".

Not to say that Mirvish/Gehry won't pull through in the end, for "reasons cited". Just that if it doesn't, it's not the end of the world, or the end of Toronto, or tar-and-feather-Keesmaat time...
 
I'll risk stepping into the lion's den... Adma, what is your opinion on City Planning's alternative development concept for M+G, specifically the approach to heritage preservation?

...hopefully I don't get mauled. :)
 
kd86 said:
I agree. Atlanta, San Fran, LA, Chicago,Dallas, etc.. I hate to say it but Canadian skylines are boaring in general. The truth hurts sometimes
Click to expand...

That's not entirely true. We do have a couple of unique towers, such as Scotia and TD, however we have far more bland towers such that the iconic ones are not as noticeable anymore. What is for certain though is that if a developer is planning a building with an iconic design, it absolutely needs to be tall enough that it would be noticeable for many years to come.

Charlotte has two towers that I'd consider to be very unique: The Bank of America Tower and the Duke Energy Center. Both of those would be very welcoe additions to our skyline, however they wouldn't make that much of a difference overall just due to the sheer density of our DT core's towers. We're obviously not there yet, but we're approaching the point where NYC is, which is that new developments are always welcomed, but they almost don't matter anymore since there are already 5,000 other towers there. The only real way to make a difference to NYC is if the tower is 400+ meters. In Toronto's case, a tower would need to be 300+ meters in the financial district, and 220+ just outside the FD to make a major noticeable difference. Otherwise, all that a new tower accomplishes is adding density and further amplifying the hallway effect our DT streets have (which is not a bad thing at all).

L Tower is unfortunately going to be a victim of our sheer density. It's a beautiful tower, however it's about 50m too short for it's location and therefore is barely noticeable from the lake. If you put L Tower in Charlotte, or any city not named NY, Chi or SF, it would make a huge difference to their skyline since no other US city even comes close to Toronto in terms skyscraper density in the core.
 
kd86 said:
I agree. Atlanta, San Fran, LA, Chicago,Dallas, etc.. I hate to say it but Canadian skylines are boaring in general. The truth hurts sometimes
Click to expand...

I'm hoping that generalization doesn't include Toronto. The city is widely regarded as having one of the world's best skylines

middeljohn said:
L Tower is unfortunately going to be a victim of our sheer density. It's a beautiful tower, however it's about 50m too short for it's location and therefore is barely noticeable from the lake. If you put L Tower in Charlotte, or any city not named NY, Chi or SF, it would make a huge difference to their skyline since no other US city even comes close to Toronto in terms skyscraper density in the core.
Click to expand...

L Tower would have been a perfect fit for a city like London. The scale of the tower is far too small Toronto.
 
I remember seeing somewhere when the two TD bank towers were built in the late 60's the whole population went crazy saying it would ruin the downtown core. They apparently built them anyways. They were also the tallest buildings in Canada at the time.

Now they just blend in and are "normal" part of the downtown skyline.

Isnt this the exact same thing??
 
MrR said:
I remember seeing somewhere when the two TD bank towers were built in the late 60's the whole population went crazy saying it would ruin the downtown core. They apparently built them anyways. They were also the tallest buildings in Canada at the time.

Now they just blend in and are "normal" part of the downtown skyline.

Isnt this the exact same thing??
Click to expand...

I don't think anybody who legitimately thinks that M+G will ruin downtown is to be taken seriously.
 
TheTigerMaster said:
I'm hoping that generalization doesn't include Toronto. The city is widely regarded as having one of the world's best skylines



L Tower would have been a perfect fit for a city like London. The scale of the tower is far too small Toronto.
Click to expand...

You mean London, ON, right? I'm actually loving there for the time being, and every time I see the skyline I fantasize about a 200+ m tower joining it. There is a really good angle I found a few days ago to view the skyline that makes it look massive, but I wasn't able to stop and take a picture. It's on the to-do list for before I move out of there though.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top