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

buildup said:
I dont accept this notion modern towers are ok providing they are tucked behind, obscured, or diluted by old structures at street level.
M+G should not accept having their project play second fiddle on their own site to a couple of warehouses.
There's something phony and apologetic about this approach. Slippery slope arguments...
Click to expand...

There's absolutely nothing wrong or apologetic about these towers accepting the existence of these warehouses, rather than insultingly reducing historical context to a vague architectural gesture.

In fact, there are many architectural projects out there that have been strengthened through the presence of older building on site. I refuse to accept the notion that architecture can only be great if it is "undiluted" or "pure", that anything that stands in the way should be swept aside for the new and shiny. I think that the quality of the architecture is dependent on the architect, and these buildings are not a detractor, but rather an aspect of the site that the architect can choose to acknowledge or ignore.
 
Last edited:
yyzer said:
I have to wonder why there is no similar fight to preserve restaurant row across the street - to me, a greater loss than the warehouses....
Click to expand...

The reason you wonder is that you don't know about it. The facades of restaurant row are deemed to be heritage, and will be preserved or reproduced during redevelopment of this block. The buildings themselves will be demolished as they have been altered inside considerably.
 
If only we could eliminate all those pesky people from the equation architecture would be able to ascend to it's true zenith ;)
 
interchange42 said:
Maybe the way out in this case is to require reconstitution of (at least some of) the buildings somewhere else.
Click to expand...

At the talk between David Mirvish and Christopher Hume, Mirvish talked about how this has been done for projects elsewhere, but then he quickly changed the subject. It gave me the impression they have considered this option but they don't want to address this publicly, not yet at least.
 
They wouldn't be talking about anything publicly that would be under discussion by the working group at the moment. Any comment would affect negotiations.
 
jje1000 said:
There's absolutely nothing wrong or apologetic about these towers accepting the existence of these warehouses, rather than insultingly reducing historical context to a vague architectural gesture.

In fact, there are many architectural projects out there that have been strengthened through the presence of older building on site. I refuse to accept the notion that architecture can only be great if it is "undiluted" or "pure", that anything that stands in the way should be swept aside for the new and shiny. I think that the quality of the architecture is dependent on the architect, and these buildings are not a detractor, but rather an aspect of the site that the architect can choose to acknowledge or ignore.
Click to expand...

We should preserve buildings of historical and/or architectural significance - not just any building. To do weakens the whole idea of historical preservation and can only lead to misuse, over-use and it's ultimate demise. That would be unfortunate as there are buildings that do deserve preservation.
 
Torre Verre (MOMA)
111 W57
225 W57
220 CPS (stern)

We better get started, its only M+G keeping is in the game. The beauties above are from NY
 
Big Daddy said:
We should preserve buildings of historical and/or architectural significance - not just any building. To do weakens the whole idea of historical preservation and can only lead to misuse, over-use and it's ultimate demise. That would be unfortunate as there are buildings that do deserve preservation.
Click to expand...

This is the reason why Historical Districts exist. If we choose to preserve only the significant, we'll end up with a gap-toothed, incongrous streetscape already present throughout most of Toronto.

For example, the classic bay-and-gable rowhouse. You can see forlorn examples of those scattered around the downtown core, battered survivors being picked off one by one. But in Cabbagetown, those rowhouses form an excellent urban environment. It's not because they're all architecturally significant, but they provide a rhythm and consistent materiality that isn't present when you pick and choose who gets to be saved. Going by your route, we can potentially end up with a Confederation Life building example, where an entire streetcorner is allowed to be demolished to entice developers to save a single building.

And given how much of Toronto has already been demolished, I doubt there's ever going to be an overload of buildings historically designated.
 
buildup said:
Torre Verre (MOMA)
111 W57
225 W57
220 CPS (stern)

We better get started, its only M+G keeping is in the game. The beauties above are from NY
Click to expand...


Those are some great projects. I follow building proposals in Chicago, NYC and other cities. IMHO M&G is one of the best building proposals in North America, if not the world! This will be an iconic landmark and possibly Gehry's last big project.
 
I think they should cancel the 82 storey tower because it will be very difficult for Mirvish to sell all of these condos. for sure these will be expensive so it will be difficult to sell all 2600 units if they are expensive. by cancelling the 82 storey tower they can add 5 or 10 floors to remaining two of the buildings and one of the heritage can be preserved.
we happy because we get a supertall and a new tallest, city council happy because heritage preserved and less density and Mirvish happy because he will make some money.
in short everyone happy.:D :)
http://www.google.ca/imgres?sa=X&bi...hBwwBw&iact=rc&dur=893&page=1&start=0&ndsp=23
 
Last edited:
Good point. It's too bad city council didn't think to have only one tower built of Viljo Revell's city hall design. Could have saved the city thousands of dollars.
 
David Mirvish is proposing great things here. He has the ambition and resources to make this project a reality--one that will enhance the vitality of the downtown core and raise the city's architectural profile. I'd like to see it go ahead, but the heritage issues need to be addressed. These are heritage buildings that would be worth preserving in any city. If I saw the Anderson Building in a German or Dutch city, I'd still think it's a great building that's an asset to that city's stock of buildings. If the heritage issues are not addressed, then I could care less if the project fails. It's just a waste of everybody's time to try to ignore these issues. Mirvish wants to see how much he can get away with. It's important that the city keeps strong in its position for the sake of its laws and policies.
 
If we choose to preserve only the significant, we'll end up with a gap-toothed, incongrous streetscape already present throughout most of Toronto.
Click to expand...

What you are proposing, whether you realize it or not, is that once something is built, it can never be demolished and replaced. Which is a silly notion. A lot of our favorite heritage buildings replaced even older buildings.

And I only wish we preserved only the significant.
 
junctionist said:
...If I saw the Anderson Building in a German or Dutch city, I'd still think it's a great building that's an asset to that city's stock of buildings. If the heritage issues are not addressed, then I could care less if the project fails...
Click to expand...

That's like me saying that unless I can build one glass tower in the middle of cabbage town, then all of cabbage town should be razed 'for all I care'.

So - the Anderson Building stranded alone in the middle of 21st Century Masterpiece?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top