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

If city council/planners want to be taken seriously, they would benefit more from proposing to put all the electric wires downtown underground than fighting to save 3 old warehouses that oppose practically every goal of modern city planning (in the way they interact with the pedestrian realm, etc.).
 
To me one of the major pros of this project is that it breaks the skyline tapering.
Forcing the city's shape into highlighting big bank buildings as the center of the world is just wrong IMO.
 
This project should be renamed The Three Dwarfs.
Click to expand...

You know something strange is going on when 60 storey-ish buildings are considered dwarfs.
 
nopacnone said:
To me one of the major pros of this project is that it breaks the skyline tapering.
Forcing the city's shape into highlighting big bank buildings as the center of the world is just wrong IMO.
Click to expand...

I'm glad I'm not the only one to notice the heights in the Planning Department concept seem to be based on preserving the skyline cone/tapering policy. Ridiculous.

The panel with mediation is actually a very good outcome, and I look forward to what they will present during their public meeting next year.

The city puts far too much emphasis on height and density because its easy to regulate. Let's instead focus on how these skyscrapers interact with the street. It's much harder to regulate good design, but it will be much more beneficial to the city.

Back in the 1980s, the developer of Scotia Plaza requested to add four additional stories beyond the approved 68 and the city said responded with a resounding "No!"

Does anyone believe that the city's quality of life would have been harmed if Scotia Plaza was built to 72 storeys instead of 68? It would have exceeded the density maximums in the zoning bylaw at the time and planners feared the worst.
 
junctionist said:
The city's alternative is the way to go. It's a fairly crude depiction, but the way it weaves together new and old is how things should be done in contemporary times--not clearing entire blocks of the old city like in the 1960s. The warehouse facade will look better with the paint removed and sash windows. The city's alternative shows that Gehry's architecture can still be as bold and prominent as you'd expect a Gehry landmark to be, with the heritage buildings intact.
Click to expand...

The city alternative concept debases both the old and new.
 
junctionist said:
The city's alternative is the way to go. It's a fairly crude depiction, but the way it weaves together new and old is how things should be done in contemporary times--not clearing entire blocks of the old city like in the 1960s. The warehouse facade will look better with the paint removed and sash windows. The city's alternative shows that Gehry's architecture can still be as bold and prominent as you'd expect a Gehry landmark to be, with the heritage buildings intact.
Click to expand...

Sucking out the soul of the heritage buildings and then compromising Ghery's work with facading hardly seems appropriate to me. Perhaps the planners would be satisfied if Projectcore could setup a glass box condo nearby and apply the facading there?
 
In the city's alternative, the warehouses are standing as buildings. The complex grows organically over them in uncompromised style, taking root where the POW stood. The streetscape showcases layers of the city's growth and development rather than one wall of glass that tells you nothing about this city and which could be located anywhere in the world.
 
The flaw in your argument is that it's those warehouses that could be located anywhere in the world.......
 
I've seen warehouses like that in places like Winnipeg and Regina, they are a dime a dozen....conversely, what would in fact be unique to Toronto is the "wall of glass" that you denigrate....in all the world, these three Gehry towers would be unique to Toronto, and they would tell the world all about our city in the 21st century....isn't that what you want?

/building Gehry, of course many of the materials would be sourced locally, as if it matters....
 
Last edited:
nopacnone said:
To me one of the major pros of this project is that it breaks the skyline tapering.
Forcing the city's shape into highlighting big bank buildings as the center of the world is just wrong IMO.
Click to expand...

Skyline tapering has nothing to do with preserving the bank towers or even the appearance of the skyline itself. It's a science about maximizing densities while minimizing the demand on infrastructure and minimizing shadowing.

This development as is would only serve as a precedence for more 80 storey towers in the neighbouhood. The effect of breaking up the cone shape would be short lived and, I have little doubt, future forumers would be ranting and raving about the city cutting down 120 storey buildings to 80 floors. It will take time to build out but, the end result of any skyline anywhere will lead to a table top or cone shape.
 
Last edited:
maestro said:
Skyline tapering has nothing to do with preserving the bank towers or even the appearance of the skyline itself. It's a science about maximizing densities while minimizing the demand on infrastructure and minimizing shadowing.
Click to expand...

Can you point to studies that speak to this skyline tapering science? I can accept the shadowing part but the maximizing densities and minimizing demands on infrastructure not so much.
 
maestro said:
This development as is would only serve as a precedence for more 80 storey towers in the neighbouhood.
Click to expand...

A lot of forumer's have raised the concern that more 80 storey towers would be proposed in this neighborhood if M&G is approved at its current height. My question is, where? The majority of the area is already spoken for with 27 towers approved. I am struggling to see where these additional towers would go. Secondly, economics will dictate height as well not just precedent.
As far as shadowing, often taller towers on smaller floor plates with setbacks do a far better job of limiting shadows than shorter wider slab like structures. There has been many developments where the city recommended increasing height and reducing floor plates because of this. Four Seasons is one example and the DRPs recommendation regarding 1 Yorkville. So I see the camp that is anti-height on the same level as those who are pro height at all costs. Each project needs to be looked at on a individual basis.
 
Last edited:
yyzer said:
I've seen warehouses like that in places like Winnipeg and Regina, they are a dime a dozen....conversely, what would in fact be unique to Toronto is the "wall of glass" that you denigrate....in all the world, these three Gehry towers would be unique to Toronto, and they would tell the world all about our city in the 21st century....isn't that what you want?

/building Gehry, of course many of the materials would be sourced locally, as if it matters....
Click to expand...

The important thing is that these warehouses make our history clear in the streetscape. It's a history of industry that newer cities won't have in their downtowns. Many cities have this history, and to share it makes our identity richer. The city alternative gives a good opportunity for Gehry's bold work while maintaining older layers of the city intact. These layers will be more and more interesting the further we get from that past.
 
fedplanner said:
Can you point to studies that speak to this skyline tapering science? I can accept the shadowing part but the maximizing densities and minimizing demands on infrastructure not so much.
Click to expand...

Hmm., skyline tapering and current zoning by-laws, just means there are very few places left to build a +250m structure:confused:
Ill be curious on how Toronto city planning will handle Oxford Place, and Concord Adex, Signature Tower
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top