It's also hard to believe that they pick the best development Toronto has ever seen to mount its biggest battle against.
Toronto...you can be a strange bird.
Oh well, at lest there will be plenty of fodder for for the third Unbuilt Toronto.
Agree. It's hard to wrap your head around sometimes. This is really about 2 camps in Toronto who have quite different ambitions/aspirations for their city. I'll just leave it at that. Unbuilt Toronto 3? I was thinking the exact same thing. At the rate we're going it will be full of spectacular buildings.
Planning staff are reviewing the height/density of the plan, not the design. The purpose of the renders and designs are to try to demonstrate that the increased zoning provisions can work on the site and potential issues such as heritage and traffic arising from the increased provisions can be addressed. The purpose of the City's renders was to demonstrate a reduced scale and less heritage impact that would better meet City policy, not to design the project for them. Once approvals are given Kirkor, G&C, or any other firm could design the project, or propose something on a nearby site and use this as "context."
But herein lies the problem - architecture should not be considered a second fiddle to height/density/traffic/heritage matters (beyond the fact that economics of high quality architecture and materials often do require additional concessions to what are more traditionally considered as areas of planning concerns) - the very fact that once approval is given one can default to Kirkor, G&C and others speaks volumes about the ill this artificial and inflexible divide can create. There is something seriously wrong with the city when it can justify projects like Aura and not MG.
^ That's one of the big issues here isn't?
The location of these towers too. Three massive towers in a very filled out and well-developed part of the city, full of fabric buildings and on a transit line that is over capacity. On the contrary 1 Yonge is down in the vacant southeast end of downtown that has a lot more empty lots and growth potential.
I know it's not as easy as picking any old lot in the city and building, in addition Mirvish already owns the land, but why not make this project the premiere centrepiece of the East Bayfront or Donlands redevelopment? Am I blue-skying too much? There are appropriate places for three 800' + towers crammed together and inappropriate places; King West fits in to the latter.
I disagree, King West fits the former.
Three 85 story lowers into East Bayfront? Wouldn't the immediate objection be this is no place for tall towers?
Simply because an objection gets raised constantly doesn't make it true. For example, the University subway is under capacity. In addition when the downtown relief line gets built (as it will) huge amounts of new subway capacity will come on stream underneath King Street. But that's really academic since M+G residents will be walking or travelling against the flow, which is good. One more point - residential is much less dense than commercial. As the G&M infrastructure article said today building dense residential beside dense commercial is good for obvious reasons. Of course all these rebuttals have been articulated 1,000 times on this thread.
Fair points, although I don't have much faith in the city getting their act together on the DRL in the next 20 years even. Perhaps I'm just being prejudiced though, as I'm simply not impressed with the design. It looks like a monument of Mirvish dick-waving with scaled-up Gehry retreads. Clunky and inelegant describes these 3 towers best.