ThomasJ
Active Member
yes she is. no need to provide quotations. what big daddy says is universally recognized.
Toronto Forma | 308m | 84s | Great Gulf | Gehry Partners
- Thread starter golodhendil
- Start date
yes she is. no need to provide quotations. what big daddy says is universally recognized.
greenleaf
Senior Member
RyeJay
New Member
The need to provide a quote is based on my request for it. A refusal would mean Big Daddy's assertion is not universally recognised, because I don't believe Olivia Chow is anti-highrise until I see evidence. That's common sense.
AHK
Senior Member
Aw shucks - how can one possibly disagree with all the instant experts on this site who make such grand pronunciations without any presenting any details or evidence to back up their comments......
buildup
Senior Member
Greenleaf you've always struck me as fair and rational. I just want to reconfirm - you have it on good authority that Olivia Chow is anti-high rise? If so, this is a very big deal!
adma
Superstar
Though keep in mind that it was Jack & Olivia that helped make Cityplace possible...
That's not what Greenleaf was referring to. He's was talking about the working roof.
42
fedplanner
Active Member
That makes me feel a little better: )
greenleaf
Senior Member
Heh. Good one buildup!
The anti-Chow fear mongerers are out in good force here with no evidence or reasoning for it besides prejudicial knee-jerk reaction. I don't think whoever is Mayor next will be setting the agenda as far as what kind of housing is being built in the city. Toronto is a high rise city. The mayor is but one vote on council, and, in case no one is paying attention, Keesmaat is looking at implementing the development permit system, which, as far as I can tell, could create much more change in the city (i.e. Mid-rise as of right on the avenues) than any Mayor could. The development industry has not yet raised one peep about it. I presume that means they are in favor.
greenleaf
Senior Member
And *gasp* it may be even better than the original proposal! Wait a sec....a working group made up of professionals in the architectural, planning and heritage fields and knowledgable community members could work with the developer and the city to find some kind of common ground? Crazy.
With that said, I haven't seen any of the actual detailed renders, nor do I know the city's feelings on the possible changes. As with any compromise, no one will be entirely happy. And what I heard is now a couple weeks old, so other things may have changed since then.
ushahid
Senior Member
in that video of Mirvish's interview with that other guy, Mirvish said that there will be 70 designs and one will be chosen from those 70 designs. so all these designs will be made before the public hearing or after the public hearing?
FNTS
Active Member
No, what he said was that in the process of arriving to the final design 70 models will have been made, but they are discarded as soon as a new one is made and the idea perfected. There is only one working model at each given moment, and only one design will be presented.
UrbanAffair
Senior Member
+1. And why would they. If anything, once legally permissible, that's the highest and best use for most sites on the avenues around town from a development standpoint.
ushahid
Senior Member
greenleaf
Senior Member
This has been working its way in and out of TPB and TEYCC committee meetings forever. Here is a case of a heritage listed building being razed for new development: http://www.thestar.com/business/201...house_is_yours_for_free_if_youll_move_it.html
" Despite concerted efforts of staff and architects of the new facility, it became clear that patient care could not be integrated on one floor, as needed, if both historic properties were included, said Karapita. The city has approved plans for the site, understanding that the coach house, which is listed as a heritage property, will likely have to be razed.
Staff started toying months ago with trying to save the heritage property by offering it up to a willing taker. Local councillor Kristyn Wong-Tam kickstarted the marketing effort Tuesday with an unusual tweet: https://twitter.com/kristynwongtam/status/450984550512865281"
edit: I posted this here and not in the 571 Jarvis thread because it is relevant to the discussion of the heritage buildings on the M-G site. It provides a blueprint for what M-G could have done - if they had preserved aspects of heritage from the beginning (such as completely retaining one of the buildings) they would have had an easier (although surely still difficult) time getting approvals. From the staff report for 571 Jarvis & 119 Isabella:
"Given the Residential Program requirements for the Casey House facility, it has been demonstrated that it would be very difficult to retain the Coach House in-situ within without affecting the rest of the project. While city staff have accepted this rationale for demolition, HPS has continued to emphasize that the loss of the coach house could only be supported if the William R. Johnston house ("the Grey Lady") was sensitively integrated into the new facility, including retention of the full building envelope, restoration of the full exterior and selected significant interior spaces and through careful attention to the design of the new building, both in mass and materiality.
The removal of a one storey addition on the east side of the building and the creation of new openings on the east exterior will not have a significant impact on the heritage value of the property."
" Despite concerted efforts of staff and architects of the new facility, it became clear that patient care could not be integrated on one floor, as needed, if both historic properties were included, said Karapita. The city has approved plans for the site, understanding that the coach house, which is listed as a heritage property, will likely have to be razed.
Staff started toying months ago with trying to save the heritage property by offering it up to a willing taker. Local councillor Kristyn Wong-Tam kickstarted the marketing effort Tuesday with an unusual tweet: https://twitter.com/kristynwongtam/status/450984550512865281"
edit: I posted this here and not in the 571 Jarvis thread because it is relevant to the discussion of the heritage buildings on the M-G site. It provides a blueprint for what M-G could have done - if they had preserved aspects of heritage from the beginning (such as completely retaining one of the buildings) they would have had an easier (although surely still difficult) time getting approvals. From the staff report for 571 Jarvis & 119 Isabella:
"Given the Residential Program requirements for the Casey House facility, it has been demonstrated that it would be very difficult to retain the Coach House in-situ within without affecting the rest of the project. While city staff have accepted this rationale for demolition, HPS has continued to emphasize that the loss of the coach house could only be supported if the William R. Johnston house ("the Grey Lady") was sensitively integrated into the new facility, including retention of the full building envelope, restoration of the full exterior and selected significant interior spaces and through careful attention to the design of the new building, both in mass and materiality.
The removal of a one storey addition on the east side of the building and the creation of new openings on the east exterior will not have a significant impact on the heritage value of the property."
Last edited: