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

[MileHigh]

Toronto continues in it's mediocrity... from it's transportation system to square boxes dotting the skyline.
Nothing new here folks, keep it moving.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

He's correct. If these were green glass rectangles there would be no problems here.

I don't buy that for a second.
if it was ONE 80-storey tower, maybe I'd buy it. I didn't see Keesmaat saying, "We're fine with the heights and heritage destruction but they're just too twisty!"

But it's a strange world we're living in where people think a private citizen can buy a piece of land, hire a guy to draw up not one but THREE residential towers bigger than anything else in the city and that city council would approve it, unable to voice a single legitimate concern. Mirvish and Gehry have no obligation to think about anything other than their own sense of aesthetics and profit. Council's job (in theory, at least) is to think about the greater good.

No matter what buildup says above, those concerns have not all been dealt with. Dear lord, since when is "form a working group" a "scorched earth policy"?

"It will make Toronto awesome!" is not a legitimate planning argument and I don't think Jimmy Kimmel does a lot of planning-related humour. How pretty they are is totally beside the point and while saying "I think they're ugly" shouldn't be a reason to reject them, nor should "I think they'll be stunning," be a reason to put aside other concerns.

Nobody (or at least not me) is arguing the project should be rejected wholesale but the idea that it just be rubber stamped, with Keesmaat bowing before Mirvish and thanking for bestowing this gift upon the city is equally ridiculous. They will be pretty to look at for most of us but I know I won't be able to afford living in them, probably won't visit Mirvish's gallery or attend OCAD. I won't be able to go to shows at the Princess of Wales anymore or admire the warehouses. They will be, in short, of no practical use to me or most Torotonians except as a largely inaccessible part of landscape. Therefore, I have no problem with council/staff making sure they are contributing to, and not taking away from, the larger city.

This is a private development that most of us will have no actual use for. Intensification downtown is good, but this is a literally unprecedented amount and therfore warrants scrutiny. I'm honestly baffled why someone without a vested interest would get so worked up about the current situation. You're worried about the city's reputation as an architectural wimp? You don't have enough different shapes to look at in the sky? You just care so deeply about condominium towers that it hurts your very soul to see Toronto failing to pounce on them? Your friends think Toronto is so lame and you want to show them we're not because FRANK GEHRY gave us apartment buildings? Really - what's the major concern here?

 

[buildup]

"But it's a strange world we're living in where people think a private citizen can buy a piece of land, hire a guy to draw up not one but THREE residential towers bigger than anything else in the city and that city council would approve it, unable to voice a single legitimate concern."

What exactly are these "legitimate" concerns?????

"They will be pretty to look at for most of us but I know I won't be able to afford living in them, probably won't visit Mirvish's gallery or attend OCAD. I won't be able to go to shows at the Princess of Wales anymore or admire the warehouses. They will be, in short, of no practical use to me or most Torotonians...."

Ahh, now we're getting to the heart of it...you can't appeciate something unless its yours?

"I'm honestly baffled why someone without a vested interest would get so worked up. You're worried about the city's reputation as an architectural wimp? You don't have enough different shapes to look at in the sky? You just care so deeply about condominium towers that it hurts your very soul to see Toronto failing to pounce on them?"

I wouldn't word it that way - but yes in a sense you're capturing part of it.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

"But it's a strange world we're living in where people think a private citizen can buy a piece of land, hire a guy to draw up not one but THREE residential towers bigger than anything else in the city and that city council would approve it, unable to voice a single legitimate concern."

What exactly are these "legitimate" concerns?????

They're all outlined in the staff report. We designated heritage buildings for a reason. We set height/density limits etc. in an OP and zoning by-law for a reason. There are reasons to go beyond, change or even ditch these things, but you (and Hume) are effectively suggesting we shouldn't even be thinking about them at all in this case. Our whole legislative regime is illegitimate.

"They will be pretty to look at for most of us but I know I won't be able to afford living in them, probably won't visit Mirvish's gallery or attend OCAD. I won't be able to go to shows at the Princess of Wales anymore or admire the warehouses. They will be, in short, of no practical use to me or most Torotonians...."

Ahh, now we're getting to the heart of it...you can't appeciate something unless its yours?

No. I can't appreciate it (or at leas agree it should be approved) unless it has something to offer "us" and sheer physical spectacle is insufficient. Again, that's why we have a zoning regime and things like Section 37. Indeed, that's the entire reason we have a government oversee planning instead of just opening the city to real estate builders and letting them build whatever they want wherever they want. But I thought that kind o went without saying.

 

[gabe]

What exactly are these "legitimate" concerns?????

Keesmaat says..... It’s too dense, too tall and architecturally “trite" She has also said inappropriate things about Mr Mirvish. She has worked in small cities before coming to Toronto so it's no surprise she is against a large project such as this. People like her at city hall only care about saving heritage buildings when two big names are involved.

 

[buildup]

"No. I can't appreciate it (or at leas agree it should be approved) unless it has something to offer "us" and sheer physical spectacle is insufficient. Again, that's why we have a zoning regime and things like Section 37. Indeed, that's the entire reason we have a government oversee planning instead of just opening the city to real estate builders and letting them build whatever they want wherever they want. But I thought that kind o went without saying."

Your first sentence is ugly and revealing. But I suspect its behind the opposition. Why do you (in particular) need a payoff? Why do you discount the Art Gallery - must the art be donated to you? If someone builds a mansion on the Bridlepath do they need to offer you something aside from the taxes they pay to social programs? Did the builders of the CN Tower have to give you something? Why is sheer spectacle not sufficient? People love spectable its in our DNA, everywhere, in all times. And who is this "us"?

I'm sorry you raised the politics of envy because that, more than anything, will undermine greatness.

Im still trying to understand what condos are supposed to off this "us". What do you expect of inanimate matter, a hug?

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

"No. I can't appreciate it (or at leas agree it should be approved) unless it has something to offer "us" and sheer physical spectacle is insufficient. Again, that's why we have a zoning regime and things like Section 37. Indeed, that's the entire reason we have a government oversee planning instead of just opening the city to real estate builders and letting them build whatever they want wherever they want. But I thought that kind o went without saying."

Your first sentence that is profoundly ugly and revealing. But I suspect its behind the opposition. Why do you (in particular) need a payoff? If someone builds a mansion on the Bridlepath do they need to offer you something aside from the taxes they pay to social programs? Did the builders of the CN Tower have to give you something? Why is sheer spectacle not sufficient? People love spectable its in our DNA, everywhere, in all times. And who is this "us"?

I'm sorry you raised the politics of envy because that, more than anything, will undermine greatness.

Profoundly ugly. That's classy. I can see the most basic concepts of living in a society (or, say, posting on an open forum) elude you so I will merely focus on the absurd logic in response.

The land they have purchased is derived from the crown and is governed by laws in Ontario and Toronto. It's not unfettered land. You can't decide to tear down your house and turn it into an astronomical observatory or a zoo or even a condo tower just because it's yours. Not even if you get the Coolest Architect in the World to design it for you. not even if you have studied the works of Frank Lloyd Wright, Buckminister Fuller and Daniel Liebskind and somehow fused them into a new school of architecture that will surely dazzle your neighbours and generations to come.

The condo they are building will be on King Street (owned by the city) and its residents will use the city's water and fire trucks and police services and streetcars and on and on and on and on and on. So there's doesn't have to be a literal payoff for me, and that's not what I said. I'm not asking for a room I get to use once a year or even a park I can sit in to admire the buildings. That said, the provision of public amenities (however you want to define that) is a crucial part of the development process. Will he provide daycare facilities? Affordable housing units? What do you care - it looks great.

The CN Tower provided TV/radio service, as a rather superficial example, since you raised it. Yes, it gives me spectacle but it also didn't add 3,500 residents to the city and it was built on top of vacant rail yards, not hundred year old buildings and a theatre. These things are all entirely self-evident.

I am not saying I dislike the Gehry towers, nor that there is no place for them. I am saying there are reasons it should be properly evaluated and that private developers can't just raze heritage buildings that don't meet their aesthetic (or to use a totally different example, sign a contract to protect a 'heritage' sign and then complain it doesn't fit with the new building). The city's job is to make sure it fits, no matter what the specifics of the design are.

What you are saying (if I can do the same kind of logical extremism) is that we shouldn't even have zoning or city councils that review development applications. It's Mirvish's land, Frank Gehry is amazing and awesome, this will put our city on the map and be super cool to look at and anything else it gives to, or takes from the city is totally irrelevant. If you lived a block away and suddenly couldn't get on a streetcar or walk on the sidewalk or flush your toilet a total lack of oversight might perturb you. But at least you'd have the SPECTACLE and your DNA would be sated, I suppose.

 

[Mithras]

I’m sorry but you started with “ME” and quickly moved to “US” while not giving back the things you derided as not important to “YOU”. OCAD? Hundreds of students each and every ear will use it. That is a measurable “give back” to the greater community (otherwise known as “US” even if not “YOU”). Same goes for the arts space. “YOU” might get no enjoyment out of it but “US” many of “US” will. Beauty and/or architectural spectacle will benefit “US” as well. Not to forget (as you haven’t) that about 3,500 of “US” will have a new place to live within blocks of the financial core, within a block of the subway, in a space which will probably remove cars from the net amount needed/used in the city. And maybe help the restaurants etc. do better in the surrounding area. Should there be higher density in an area with high access to in-place transit? I would argue yes. And yes it is going to be built fronting onto a municipal street (wow, that’s unique!) and those 3500 people will pay property tax to help the city supply transit and police/fire/ambulance services etc. And those people and companies will pay for the water they use just like everyone else. I don’t get your whole “it’s not their land or their services!” shtick we all do a literal payoff each and every month when we pay our taxes!

As for the whole “doesn’t adhere to the zoning etc.” Many people have talked about this before and I fully agree that there should be an exceptional clause like in many stories in that where a proposal comes forward that is transformational and world leading, extra leeway is given to the project for the greater good. This would I think fall within that clause if it existed.

 

[skyrise]

The condo they are building will be on King Street (owned by the city) and its residents will use the city's water and fire trucks and police services and streetcars and on and on and on and on and on. So there's doesn't have to be a literal payoff for me, and that's not what I said. I'm not asking for a room I get to use once a year or even a park I can sit in to admire the buildings. That said, the provision of public amenities (however you want to define that) is a crucial part of the development process. Will he provide daycare facilities? Affordable housing units? What do you care - it looks great.

Why is it all of sudden on Mirvish to solve for horrible city planning? What about the other 27 developments in the neighborhood??? What have they contributed to the public realm, services, amenities? It is utterly ridiculous to hang the density and amenity card on Mirvish when the planning dept. failed miserably to address these issues when approving said 27 developments. My hope is this advisory board will spur changes to the official plan in this neighborhood.
The main criteria for the planning dept. was to ensure no projects exceeded the completely arbitrary 157m height limit and maintained heritage facades if applicable. That way they can avoid the OMB and rubber stamp projects and ignore all of the other important components of planning. They had their opportunity to amend planning but failed to do so. The ED is a disaster because of this. Ugly spandrel boxes with large floor plates on ugly podiums that fail miserably at the street level. The only exception being Theatre park which should have been the standard.
As for M&G, we already know that a museum, campus and retail are part of the proposal. Other than TIFF, this one offers up more than any other development in the area. As far as section 37 contributions go, those will be negotiated like all other developments. The warehouses will be worked into the design, that I am confident of. It will come down to height.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

Whatever. We're not going to convince each other of anything. I guess I'm an outlier on this thread (And I know I'm responding to like 3 people at once so I'm using the royal "you.")

It's not Mirvish's job to fix bad city planning but that doesn't mean it's the city's job to give a free pass to a development someone thinks is finally one of the good ones. I'm not going to parse individual developments and figure out what they did or didn't contribute to the public realm. The sheer scale of this one - the single biggest private condo development downtown (not counting something like cityplace) is worthy of extra scrutiny simply because it's that big. Whether other developments have terrible floorplates or poor designs is a mutually exclusive discussion.

I appreciate that Mirvish is trying to do something "better" and that Gehry is trying to do something special rather than the boilerplate crap we've seen to date. But their marquee value does not warrant a rubber stamp in the planning department whose job is to have bigger concerns. It's not Gehry's concern whether there is capacity on the local transit and it's not Mirvish's concern whether the residents will require a new school for their kids. That is the city's concern and that's what I talk about when I talk about "us."

Maybe the shadows aren't as big a concern as Keesmaat thinks. Even if the heights are just perfect, they're still well above everything else that's there. You decry ugly podiums on other developments and skip over the fact that the ground level of of this development isn't even properly realized yet.

It's nice you're confident that the warehouses will be worked into the design. I hope you're right and I agree they probably will be. But right now, the design you want the city to approve (no legitimate concerns!) does not include them and Gehry made it quite clear they do not fit into his vision of the project and deserve to be wiped off the map. And that alone backs up my contention that whatever good things there are about this development (and clearly there are many) there are other concerns that need to be resolved before it is approved. Hence, I'm OK with staff/council's reticence to date and share their optimism that a working group will come to a consensus that will work for everyone.

 

[jje1000]

But their marquee value does not warrant a rubber stamp in the planning department whose job is to have bigger concerns.

It's nice you're confident that the warehouses will be worked into the design. I hope you're right and I agree they probably will be. But right now, the design you want the city to approve (no legitimate concerns!) does not include them and Gehry made it quite clear they do not fit into his vision of the project and deserve to be wiped off the map. And that alone backs up my contention that whatever good things there are about this development (and clearly there are many) there are other concerns that need to be resolved before it is approved. Hence, I'm OK with staff/council's reticence to date and share their optimism that a working group will come to a consensus that will work for everyone.

I 100% agree. This is a development that needs to be looked at more thoroughly. Remember how Walt Disney Hall in Los Angeles reflected light and heat onto surrounding buildings and sidewalks (nobody knew that polished parabolic shapes reflected light)? Let's try to get past the Gehry name and look at the potential issues and solve them.

Then we can apply the Gehry architectural magic that'll make it shine.

 

[maestro]

There is nothing "arbitrary" about height especially when you have high lot coverages such as in downtown Toronto. Perhaps it may be worthwhile to familarize yourself with city planning rather than bitching and dismissing because you can't understand why something may be deemed too tall by those who in the profession.

I also don't see why a Gehry at 60 rather than 85 storeys is worth so much less.

BTW, How many of those mega New York City proposals are in Manhattan? Oxford is one but, the rest all seem on the other side of the river. All are brownfield developments too.

 

[skyrise]

There is nothing "arbitrary" about height especially when you have high lot coverages such as in downtown Toronto. Perhaps it may be worthwhile to familarize yourself with city planning rather than bitching and dismissing because you can't understand why something may be deemed too tall by those who in the profession.

I also don't see why a Gehry at 60 rather than 85 storeys is worth so much less.

BTW, How many of those mega New York City proposals are in Manhattan? Oxford is one but, the rest all seem on the other side of the river. All are brownfield developments too.

On the contrary, it is you who should familiarize yourself with the official plan for the entertainment district. You will see that the majority of approved developments significantly exceed the recommended density and heights of 30 to 100 meters. The height limit is absolutely arbitrary as it was decided upon when TIFF Light Box was approved (and an exception made) which significantly exceeded and continues to exceed the current zoning and height restrictions in the area. The planning dept. has used this precedent as a bench mark for all other projects and have essentially approved 27 projects that do not conform with the current official plan.
So rather than update the official plan, the planning dept. has essentially approved everything that fits this precedent to avoid having to work too hard. Adam Vaughn has been calling for studies and updates on densities for years to no avail.
I stand by what I said as it is indeed factual. Read the refusal report, look at the current developments, read the official plan....I did, you clearly did not....

 

[Big Daddy]

^ Because at 60 storeys, they are no longer iconic - they would be just more of the same. They are trying to make something special for this city. What makes the CN tower special? it's height - If it were just another tower (Calgary tower) who would care? who would notice? Why can't we build something amazing and different - why do some people only want just more of the same?

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

^ Because at 60 storeys, they are no longer iconic - they would be just more of the same. They are trying to make something special for this city. What makes the CN tower special? it's height - If it were just another tower (Calgary tower) who would care? who would notice? Why can't we build something amazing and different - why do some people only want just more of the same?

That's all fine and good.
But it's not actually a planning argument, the making of which is the job of the planning department and the chief planner of the City of Toronto.

"Why can't we build something amazing and different?" carries zero weight at the OMB, for example. Nor does, "Mr. Chairperson, a 60 storey tower is not iconic but an 82 storey tower totally is!"

I'm all for iconic, big buildings. Again, that doesn't mean the concerns of the planning department are insubstantial, irrelevant or illegitimate. This isn't Mirvish donating the Mona Lisa to the AGO, it's a building that has many levels of impacts both literal (adding residents downtown) and more broadly (setting a precedent for other heights etc.).

I haven't heard anyone say, "This should be replaced with more the same! Let's make it more rectangular!" What they are saying is "Do they have to be quite so tall? Do we know what all those new residents are going to do to the local infrastructure? Do we have to destroy the warehouses?"

I don't see why it's such a bizarre concept that the city wouldn't just accept the Mirvish/Gehry proposal with no changes. When does that ever happen with a development? Why do people think this is so special? It's not like ghost of Leonardo da Vinci appeared and offered Toronto the most perfect building ever and they were too dumb to get what they were being offered. This will get modified and approved and life will go on.