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

^I sympathize with this opinion buildup but what is the alternative? To me most of our contemporary architecture is just terrible and inhuman at street level. In a way I see facadism as a necessary evil. Street presence is something I think most architecture from the modernist period onwards just doesn't get. It reacts against historic traditions and proportions, which is fine but it is utterly arrogant because the traditional building proportions and detailing are not just style they are shapes based on thousands of years of experimentation. These shapes, symbols, and proportions in my opinion are actually fundamental and encoded in our biological programming. Buildings such as this Gehry proposal pop out or contrast from this landscape adding visual interest and drama; however, an endless row of such projects in the absence of anything using more traditional proportions is a kind of visual pollution to me.
 
TrickyRicky said:
^I sympathize with this opinion buildup but what is the alternative? To me most of our contemporary architecture is just terrible and inhuman at street level. In a way I see facadism as a necessary evil. Street presence is something I think most architecture from the modernist period onwards just doesn't get. It reacts against historic traditions and proportions, which is fine but it is utterly arrogant because the traditional building proportions and detailing are not just style they are shapes based on thousands of years of experimentation. These shapes, symbols, and proportions in my opinion are actually fundamental and encoded in our biological programming. Buildings such as this Gehry proposal pop out or contrast from this landscape adding visual interest and drama; however, an endless row of such projects in the absence of anything using more traditional proportions is a kind of visual pollution to me.
Click to expand...

I hear you TR, I'm somewhat troubled by this too. It explains why people gravitate to Yonge Street. Naseem Taleb mentioned that people are used to fractal patterns, or at least endless details (forest, tree, branch, leaf, serrated edge of leaf...) There are certain places we admire, but avoid - they are places sheathed in modern materials that tend to be smooth or lacking in natural variation. And it needs to evolve organically, can't usually happen all at once.

One crazy idea might be to have the towers on some sort of elevated platform, with space below for smaller structures to come & go? So an organic street scape could evolve over time in a modular sense. Perhaps a business might insert itself taking out two 'lots' by building its own storefront / structure. Over time a natural commercial ecology would evolve, and continue to evolve? M+G would ensure the necessary plumbing & infrastructure was there. Some spots would be permanent such as access to the towers or courtyards or institutions
 
Last edited:
In a way I see facadism as a necessary evil. Street presence is something I think most architecture from the modernist period onwards just doesn't get.
Click to expand...

Except the major flaw in this reasoning is that the current warehouses have terrible street presence. and nothing short of altering them to the point of ignoring their original heritage appearance is going to help.
 
No one is arguing against "landmark" buildings. The argument is that a building should be historically or architecturally important or significant - and that does not apply to this warehouse.
 
buildup said:
Why would three 85 story buildings be out of place? The site has Metro Hall to the South, Festival Tower to the West, Theatre Condo to the East, and the 2nd Festival Tower to the North.
Click to expand...

Because it would be replacing what is there - which presently is the context.

Naseem Taleb mentioned that people are used to fractal patterns, or at least endless details (forest, tree, branch, leaf, serrated edge of leaf...)
Click to expand...

His teacher, Benoit Mandelbrot, said it first. Mandelbrot made reference to Beaux Arts architecture in his remarks.
 
Big Daddy said:
No one is arguing against "landmark" buildings. The argument is that a building should be historically or architecturally important or significant - and that does not apply to this warehouse.
Click to expand...

Relative to the proposed replacement, perhaps. However, in more general practice, your heritage judgment has been more akin to those who offer trumped-up "merit-based" arguments against affirmative action...
 
Because it would be replacing what is there - which presently is the context.
Click to expand...

The only context the area seems to have...is non-contextuality.


The argument is that a building should be historically or architecturally important or significant - and that does not apply to this warehouse.
Click to expand...

The argument has more to do with what we are gaining, than what we are losing. That is what determines the value of what is proposed to be replaced. Otherwise, what is the point of sacrifice? If they were demolishing these buildings to build a suburban big box outlet, i would not be in favour of it.
 
He has a vision. I'm not convinced it's actually sincere. I can say with absolute certainty he doesn't have the resources to pull this off. Getting them in line will be a monumental task of epic proportions. I.E. unlikely to happen

I love how people are obsessing about the heritage structures when the far larger issue pertaining to height (as 60 storeys won't do) is the large shadows the threesome casts.


junctionist said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
He has a vision. I'm not convinced it's actually sincere.
Click to expand...

So what is the ulterior motive then? If anyone has an impeccable record for 50 years as patron of the arts in Toronto, it's him. What more does the guy have to do to prove himself????? I can't imagine another person with as much wherewithal to pull off such a project )or even come up with it).



I can say with absolute certainty he doesn't have the resources to pull this off.
Click to expand...

Unless you are his personal financial advisor, I have no idea where you are coming from with such an outrageous statement.

I too question the viability of this project, as it is ambitious. But I've learned that the Toronto condo market is capable of some pretty impressive feats. The condos will get financed the same way all of them are...pre sales (or they won't...simple as that). The non-condo elements could be self-financed by Mirvish himself if he so wished. Although I assume he could finance quite easily. I'd bis assets and financing capabilities are enough to make the project viable financially. That $100 million he got from the old store site will come in handy. Don't forget besides massive real estate assets, he has an important art collection that could itself be worth a $billion.

And who says he's necessarily going to go it alone...it's not like he doesn't have a lot of wealthy friends in high places.


I love how people are obsessing about the heritage structures when the far larger issue pertaining to height (as 60 storeys won't do) is the large shadows the threesome casts.
Click to expand...

Shadows on what....the fire station??? Who is going to complain about shadows?
 
Last edited:
Shadows??

Well, you make a good point. My neighbours house is throwing shade over my vegetable garden in the summer. Ive applied to have his house torn down to fix this but was turned down. Im considering an application to city hall so houses can't be taller than one story. That'll fix it.
 
facepalm-bert.jpg
 

Attachments

  • facepalm-bert.jpg
    facepalm-bert.jpg
    34.3 KB · Views: 662
My goodness, it's a little late to be worrying about shadows in this part of downtown!
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top