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

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Then all the better!

It's hugely misleading to talk about a single development in terms of weather it "creates" pressure on infrastructure. Buildings don't have babies, they can't create people.

It is also hugely misleading to believe that a single project will not have impact on the future developments in the area, along the forementioned lines. Buildings don't create people - they house people - and if you think density has no impact on infrastructure needs, just visit the subway during rush.

AoD

 

[Big Daddy]

Are you sure? Other world class cities such as NYC and London (not to mention Paris, Tokyo, etc.) have far more notorious fights over zoning and heights than we do. Design is one aspect of concern - not the only one. Pray tell - what would you do when the next proponent comes along and ask for a building the same height without the high quality design and benefits offered by this project - what would you do, as a planner?

AoD

If we pause a moment to consider, exactly how many developers out there are lining up to build 80+ story buildings? We have many examples of buildings under construction or proposed on sites that are zoned to permit even taller buildings – but they don’t.

We don’t have a plethora of risk takers in this city / country willing or able to build towers of this magnitude.

Look at all the 30 storey office buildings planned or under construction – could not one of them have proposed a 60 or 80 storey tower? Even the condo towers, with a few exceptions, have remained pretty tame.
There is considerable risk to a developer to build this big. I think it speaks to his confidence and passion for this city that he would propose something this grand and personally risky.

Just how big a threat do we really think this is? They already said 60 something stories is Okay - how does 60 more floors constitute doom for this area? Getting people to live downtown in close proximity to mass transit is a key goal for the city, yet we seem to actually fear it.

Are we so stuck in a small building para dime we cant consider anything else?

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

If we pause a moment to consider, exactly how many developers out there are lining up to build 80+ story buildings? We have many examples of buildings under construction or proposed on sites that are zoned to permit even taller buildings – but they don’t.

We don’t have a plethora of risk takers in this city / country willing or able to build towers of this magnitude.

Look at all the 30 storey office buildings planned or under construction – could not one of them have proposed a 60 or 80 storey tower? Even the condo towers, with a few exceptions, have remained pretty tame.
There is considerable risk to a developer to build this big. I think it speaks to his confidence and passion for this city that he would propose something this grand and personally risky.

Just how big a threat do we really think this is? They already said 60 something stories is Okay - how does 60 more floors constitute doom for this area? Getting people to live downtown in close proximity to mass transit is a key goal for the city, yet we seem to actually fear it.

Are we so stuck in a small building para dime we cant consider anything else?

Just because I don't have any issue with height doesn't mean the very real planning questions shouldn't be looked at - passion has nothing to do with it, outcomes, on the other hand, does. As much as I like the proposal, let's not for a moment think that the project is about satisfying the planning need for intensification. It's a side effect, and a good one, but not the raison d'etre.

AoD

 

[Big Daddy]

Just because I don't have any issue with height doesn't mean the very real planning questions shouldn't be looked at - passion has nothing to do with it, outcomes, on the other hand, does. As much as I like the proposal, let's not for a moment think that the project is about satisfying the planning need for intensification. It's a side effect, and a good one, but not the raison d'etre.

AoD

But I reiterate, how does 60 more floors constitute doom for this area?

What if they built three 60 storey towers and just across the street some else builds 60 a storey tower. We would be in exactly the same place, yet there would be no concerns raised.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I didn't say this project constitute doom - your words, not mine. What I am saying is what happens if this project create a precedent where every site strives to increase their floor area by say 20%. The impact of that scenario wouldn't be as negligible as you paint it. You haven't told me how city staff will be able to defend against projects seeking that level of increase without commensurate architectural elan and community benefits.

Just because I love this project doesn't mean that one need to willfully blind themselves of plausible trouble down the road - to do that would be of disservice to the city.

AoD

 

[Lenser]

It's so silly to attach public transit to any one development, though. Of any development anywhere in the city, M-G residents are the least likely to drive or take transit to work.

I understand the current issues with the King car and Yonge subway, amongst other lines, but most of these riders are originating from outside the core city area.

Building or not building M-G will have absolutely no impact on the number of people who want to work and live in downtown Toronto.

But you see, I am not attaching transit infrastructure to one development; you are the one drawing that false conclusion. I'm merely pointing out that every new residential tower adds to the existing, strained load. The city leadership seems to be far more interested in indulging in pitched turf wars over new transit initiatives than actually providing them. Hence my concern. It can't go on indefinitely but there's no end game in sight - various levels of government have yet to decide how to pay for all of the stuff the GTA needs to grow coherently, the province is faltering and the feds are leaving the city to its own devices; it's a serious problem. Where's the money and political will to do all this stuff? I don't see it. Instead, we've been dithering for years on end.

Contrary to your assertion, building M-G may have a not insignificant impact on the number of people who want to work and live in downtown Toronto. We just don't know yet. Toronto's growth of late has a great deal to do with its popularity as a safe and stable destination city and its burgeoning reputation as a happening place in the world; pretending it were otherwise is absurd. Part of what makes contemporary cities attractive is inspired, daring architectural projects - I'd have thought you'd agree to that in principle.

 

[Big Daddy]

I didn't say this project constitute doom - your words, not mine. What I am saying is what happens if this project create a precedent where every site strives to increase their floor area by say 20%. The impact of that scenario wouldn't be as negligible as you paint it. You haven't told me how city staff will be able to defend against projects seeking that level of increase without commensurate architectural elan and community benefits.

Just because I love this project doesn't mean that one need to willfully blind themselves of plausible trouble down the road - to do that would be of disservice to the city.

AoD

I didn’t say YOU said it would mean doom, but the planning staff seems to think it. It has also never been clarified as to the threat this development might actually bring. Show us the data, the reasons for the alarm - they have yet to demonstrate to anyone what catastrophe may befall us should this go forward.

When a planner simply states that it should be “more in line with the public objectives” – I don’t know what that means – one could easily argue that this project is in line with public objectives.

We should be sitting down with the developer and planning the size type and amount of municipal benefits the city would receive rather than hand wringing in fear.

 

[diminutive]

It is also hugely misleading to believe that a single project will not have impact on the future developments in the area, along the forementioned lines. Buildings don't create people - they house people - and if you think density has no impact on infrastructure needs, just visit the subway during rush.

All things being equal, if there was no densification in the entertainment district, the crush on those subways would be even worse since current residents would be redistributed to areas where they'd be much more transit and auto reliant.

The City's own data suggests that every person moving into the core reduces transit demand into the core by 0.8-0.9 trips; if you wanted to reduce pressure on transit the best thing would be to drastically increase the rate of residential construction within walking distances of the CBD.

Just to put things in perspective, compare M-G to the new RBC building on Harbour. MG is proposed to total 252 floors, over three buildings. RBC, OTOH, is just 30. Yet while MG will have 2,600 units, 4,000 people will work at RBC. What's more, the vast majority of those RBC workers will arrive and depart within peak hours. The overall contribution of residential buildings to peak congestion downtown is minor. Even the biggest residential projects have lower impacts than minor commercial projects.

I'm merely pointing out that every new residential tower adds to the existing, strained load.

Much as that's intuitive it's not necessarily true. Peak hour transit use and congestion is mostly a function of CBD employment. The density of jobs in and around the CBD definitely causes strains on transit infrastructure, the density of residential structures much less so. If each new resident in a given condo tower reduces trips into the core by close to 1, building more residential units in the core hardly overloads the system.

I wasn't being trite by saying buildings don't have kids. What we're talking about here isn't reducing or increasing demand on the system, it's simply rearranging it. If people don't live in the ED, they'll just live somewhere else and create even more strain.

Toronto's growth of late has a great deal to do with its popularity as a safe and stable destination city and its burgeoning reputation as a happening place in the world; pretending it were otherwise is absurd. Part of what makes contemporary cities attractive is inspired, daring architectural projects - I'd have thought you'd agree to that in principle.

You're right that I agree in principle to what you say. Another way M-G could encourage growth in Toronto would be, in so far as any new residential supply decreases prices, by lowering prices and inducing more demand. In both cases these effects would be totally swamped by the millions of other considerations people make in choosing where to live.

 

[Lenser]

Points taken but the strains I was talking about regarding a mega-project like M-G have more to do with energy and sewage infrastructure than transit infrastructure - I should have clarified that. I'm not worried about congestion concerns along that stretch of the downtown corridor - there are larger issues for mass transit. We should never have stopped building subways, but we did and that was a huge mistake. Now we are paying for it. We're faced with substantially pumping up credible public transportation options right across the city. Anyway, enough beating on that particular drum.

Back to the project itself. I'd like to see the height differentials between the three proposed towers be a little more dramatic. Perhaps one tall one and two flanking that are 10-20 stories shorter.... but keeping the overall proposed height right up there.

 

[adma]

Are we so stuck in a small building para dime we cant consider anything else?

The fact that you can't spell "paradigm" brings down your credibility a whole lot of notches.

 

[CITY_LOVER]

The fact that you can't spell "paradigm" brings down your credibility a whole lot of notches.

Wow, really? That's so petty of you, Adma! Instead of looking at his points and his perspective, you look at an inconsequential spelling error. That's all you can think of saying? This is almost like invalidating someone's opinion/points of discussion if they communicated verbally and had a certain accent.

I can't understand why there are so many people who post negative comments trying to belittle someone...surely, it must make themselves feel better...so pathetic.

This also confirms that people who may have a lot of knowledge about many subject matters are not necessarily emotionally intelligent (like Adma).

 

[ThomasJ]

Wow, really? That's so petty of you, Adma! Instead of looking at his points and his perspective, you look at an inconsequential spelling error. That's all you can think of saying? This is almost like invalidating someone's opinion/points of discussion if they communicated verbally and had a certain accent.

I can't understand why there are so many people who post negative comments trying to belittle someone...surely, it must make themselves feel better...so pathetic.

This also confirms that people who may have a lot of knowledge about many subject matters are not necessarily emotionally intelligent (like Adma).

sadly, this sort of thing has been going on for years and will not stop any time soon

 

[Big Daddy]

Are you sure? Other world class cities such as NYC and London (not to mention Paris, Tokyo, etc.) have far more notorious fights over zoning and heights than we do. Design is one aspect of concern - not the only one. Pray tell - what would you do when the next proponent comes along and ask for a building the same height without the high quality design and benefits offered by this project - what would you do, as a planner?

AoD

But that is exactly the point. We are stuck - not able to approve projects for fear of setting precedent. We have to design a system that rewards developers for their municipal contributions. I’m not just talking about Section 37 or whatever it is called, we need to take it to another level.

Maybe design competitions are required instead of suggested, Maybe they need to make contributions to improving the water and sewer infrastructure if they want it to happen now instead of 15 years from now - or a contribution to the DRL if it is to be brought forward sooner rather than later. Mirvish already started the discussion by offering space for an art gallery and an educational institution - maybe it needs to go further. How much can Mirvish provide and still keep the project viable and improve the local area? Can we institute minimum requirements for materials and design? I don't know how you would structure that but that would be great for the city and it's future.

The next developer who wants to build 80 or 90 stories must do likewise - everyone wins. I don't think this would be easy, but it’s better than the stalemate we are currently facing where city planners can’t approve projects they might otherwise like to.

 

[Wrenkin]

Wow, really? That's so petty of you, Adma! Instead of looking at his points and his perspective, you look at an inconsequential spelling error. That's all you can think of saying? This is almost like invalidating someone's opinion/points of discussion if they communicated verbally and had a certain accent.

It is not "almost like" that. The accent thing invokes race, nationality, and class (and one's assuming certain people are uneducated). Spelling has more to do with actual education, and whether you are actually familiar with the concept you are invoking. I don't think adma's response was helpful (especially since it could have been auto-correct!) or even all that fair, but it's not "almost like" racism.

On topic, I'm still of the opinion that we need some formality in the process, and that it's not an indictment of the system that we don't bend over backwards for the latest starchitect. Ok, you like Gehry, but what happens when Rob Ford is reelected and decides that his friend, "Canada's best architect" (he's only friends with the best), should be given a 90 story canvas to work with. Who's to say the architect isn't the best? Subjectivity in this area is ripe for abuse.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

But that is exactly the point. We are stuck - not able to approve projects for fear of setting precedent. We have to design a system that rewards developers for their municipal contributions. I’m not just talking about Section 37 or whatever it is called, we need to take it to another level.

Maybe design competitions are required instead of suggested, Maybe they need to make contributions to improving the water and sewer infrastructure if they want it to happen now instead of 15 years from now - or a contribution to the DRL if it is to be brought forward sooner rather than later. Mirvish already started the discussion by offering space for an art gallery and an educational institution - maybe it needs to go further. How much can Mirvish provide and still keep the project viable and improve the local area? Can we institute minimum requirements for materials and design? I don't know how you would structure that but that would be great for the city and it's future.

The next developer who wants to build 80 or 90 stories must do likewise - everyone wins. I don't think this would be easy, but it’s better than the stalemate we are currently facing where city planners can’t approve projects they might otherwise like to.

That's all fine - and I would support implementing a more consistent system in support of granting extra density rights if the project demonstrates superior architecture and/or community benefits. That said, there are still limits to this approach (see NYC - up-zoning isn't a carte blanche), and there are questions as to whether the city has the authority to have architecture as a binding aspect of the approval process.

AoD