Just a question - when building designs are shrunk 30% to fit a tapering skyline, does everything else have to shrink proportionately like windows and toilet bowls? Would the planning dep't have a view. Did Jane Jacobs opine?
ok, my caffeine rush is abating, signing off. TJ O'Pooterboot, sorry if I offended. I just love this city, love architecture, and (in this rare instance) I'd trade these warehouses for a Gehry masterpiece. I have no illusions this project will solve things like the housing crisis.
Look, fair enough.
I don't hold Jane Jacobs up as the Knower of All Things.
I basically like the buildings and I basically respect their ambition.
I don't have tall poppy syndrome.
My point boils down to that affordable housing and all these other things (including heritage) are not Gehry/Mirvish's concern and they don't really have to be, except for that he owns heritage buildings and knows what comes with that.
BUT it is the city planning department's job to worry about those things and not to treat an individual project differently because the design is that much more stunning. (And even there, there are plenty of people who think the design is wanting, but that's not really a concern of mine. But it IS subjective.)
I don't expect this project to make (as an example) affordable housing worse by itself but I do expect people to respect that the city's job is to take a look at it and consider the broader impacts. Am I willing to lose the warehouses for a "masterpiece"? Well, I'd consider it but when Gehry blows into town and says that Osgoode and Old City Hall are the ONLY buildings in the 416 worth preserving, I don't believe he's given it any consideration at all. The fact is that while the warehouses are no kinds of masterpieces (though they're handsome enough) this city has destroyed so much of its old architecture that you get to the point where, of course, you're going to only have 2 worthy buildings left. If we'd kept more old buildings, we'd be better off and sometimes you have to draw a line and "masterpiece" isn't a trump card.
I'm not asking Mirvish to solve the social ills of Toronto but people who take shots at the planning department for worrying about those things should be fairer. The gallery IS a nice addition, as is OCAD. Whether it's sufficient public amenity is debatable, so we're debating it. We live in a city that's an amalgamation of millions of private interests but we still assume there is some sort of common good and it's the city's job to make sure this project, and every project works in that context. That's why we have a planning process in the first place.
I hope they don't cut it off at the knees but I assure the likes of Chris Hume that even Mirvish didn't think it was going to sail through council with no changes. That's how these things work. We should be able to get our masterpiece, such as it is, and do it right. This isn't the Emperor of Austria telling Mozart he has too many notes. This is a municipality telling a developer that his development must exist within a framework of rules and he knew that going in and that's why the proposal is so tall to start with; not out of some aesthetic perfection. IMHO.
