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

[Stupidandshallow]

I wonder if any of these buildings will be rental... I was surprised to discover that 8 Spruce in New York is a rental building!

Also, it's interesting that 8 spruce has the shape of a quintessential art deco building and these have the shape of a Toronto box hah!

 

[Benito]

Not sure this is a red tape issue at this point. Sales as of this fall.

42

Now that is exciting. I can't wait to see what the layouts are like....the prices might be shocking.

 

[MetroMan]

MetroMan - The west side is part of the plan and the rezoning application, including the "free to the public" gallery. The rumour makes no sense at all.

According to a senior architect at a large Toronto firm: "The Mirvish gallery is not being pursued at this moment." That strongly supports the rumour that the west end of the site is being reserved for future development. Note that future development could be far in the future, after the current plan is fully built.

By not building the 3rd tower, Mirvish would be leaving a lot of money on the table. He could have gone to the OMB and likely be granted permission to build given all the precedents in the area. Instead, he gave the city planning department a "win" in exchange for their full support for two super tall towers, while leaving the west end of the site untouched and available for future development. It's an ingenious move.

The area is densifying quickly and it'll be much easier to make an argument in a decade when the CBD has gone far passed University and up to Spadina.

 

[freshcutgrass]

There really is little of historic value about the Princess of Wales building itself. It was the loss of the land use as a theatre that the city objected to.

That part never made any sense to me. It amounts to dictating what the type of business people must maintain by abusing bylaws intended to preserve built forms.

Landowner to City: I have four sausage factories downtown. Sausage sales over recent decades have shrunk to the point where I only require 3 factories to supply the needed sausages. Since the surplus sausage factory is a built form suited only to making sausages and cannot be repurposed for any other business, I would like to demolish it and replace it with a building suited to a new business, that will net both myself and the City with added value.

City to landowner: No. I think we like the idea that sausages are being manufactured in this building, and would prefer that sausages continue to be made there. Therefore we will designate this building as a sausage factory for all eternity.

 

[Strange Advance]

Not sure this is a red tape issue at this point. Sales as of this fall.

42

Good. Thanks for that.

 

[88drums]

That part never made any sense to me. It amounts to dictating what the type of business people must maintain by abusing bylaws intended to preserve built forms.

Landowner to City: I have four sausage factories downtown. Sausage sales over recent decades have shrunk to the point where I only require 3 factories to supply the needed sausages. Since the surplus sausage factory is a built form suited only to making sausages and cannot be repurposed for any other business, I would like to demolish it and replace it with a building suited to a new business, that will net both myself and the City with added value.

City to landowner: No. I think we like the idea that sausages are being manufactured in this building, and would prefer that sausages continue to be made there. Therefore we will designate this building as a sausage factory for all eternity.

Because the art and influence of theatre is best compared to street meat... That's the Toronto we should strive for.

 

[Tewder]

Because the art and influence of theatre is best compared to street meat... That's the Toronto we should strive for.

Yes, and cities zone for usage all the time, whether commercial, residential, industrial etc. This is the 'entertainment district' after all, not the sausage factory district.

According to a senior architect at a large Toronto firm: "The Mirvish gallery is not being pursued at this moment." That strongly supports the rumour that the west end of the site is being reserved for future development. Note that future development could be far in the future, after the current plan is fully built.

By not building the 3rd tower, Mirvish would be leaving a lot of money on the table. He could have gone to the OMB and likely be granted permission to build given all the precedents in the area. Instead, he gave the city planning department a "win" in exchange for their full support for two super tall towers, while leaving the west end of the site untouched and available for future development. It's an ingenious move.

The area is densifying quickly and it'll be much easier to make an argument in a decade when the CBD has gone far passed University and up to Spadina.

Is it possible that Mirvish is pursuing a more appropriate off-site location for an even more extensive gallery, given the funds that were freed up by not going with the third tower? Is it possible he compromised with the city regarding the POW and in turn they are working with him in developing some other location such as Hearn? It's fun to think about.

 

[torontologist]

Is it possible he compromised with the city regarding the POW and in turn they are working with him in developing some other location such as Hearn? It's fun to think about.

My thoughts exactly. Waterfront TO is planning on having a "catalytic site" like a museum in the Portlands... Toronto's first legit modern art museum would be a good fit at the Hearn or the silos. A guy can dream, right?

 

[freshcutgrass]

Because the art and influence of theatre is best compared to street meat... That's the Toronto we should strive for.

Doesn't really matter what commodity you use in the example. Way to miss the point.

 

[freshcutgrass]

Yes, and cities zone for usage all the time, whether commercial, residential, industrial etc. This is the 'entertainment district' after all, not the sausage factory district.

Except there is no such zoning restrictions here (if there even were such a thing as zoned "live theatre"). Again...missing the point.

And why would you designate a structure, which clearly doesn't qualify, in an attempt to preserve what goes on in the building? It just seems that the City has acted in a schizophrenic manner at every detail of this proposal, and showing its lack of direction.

 

[88drums]

Doesn't really matter what commodity you use in the example. Way to miss the point.

No, I think you missed my point.

The POW plays a huge role in the vitality of the theatre district, which, let's not forget, is the third largest in the English-speaking world behind only London and NYC. There is precedent (indeed, very strong precedent) for our city to do what it can to nurture and enhance the arts in this neighbourhood. Maybe if this was a meat-packing district whose operations contributed significantly to the culture, character, economy and history of the neighbourhood, there would be precedent to save your sausage factory, too.

Show me plans for a bigger, better theatre in its place and you'll have my attention (but please, save the Stella murals!). However, justifying its demolition just because we have other theatres nearby, and because a fancy architect wants to put some residential there instead, completely misses the point. This would be a net loss for the city.

Besides, your analogy can be used to justify removing just about anything.

Landowner to City: Toronto's municipal affairs have outgrown their old home. I have a striking new city hall built by venerated architect Vilijo Revell. Since the old city hall is a built form suited only to municipal affairs, I would like to demolish it and replace it with a visionary new Eaton's centre, with breathtaking skyscrapers and public spaces, that will net both myself and the city with added value.

 

[freshcutgrass]

No, I think you missed my point.

The POW plays a huge role in the vitality of the theatre district, which, let's not forget, is the third largest in the English-speaking world behind only London and NYC. There is precedent (indeed, very strong precedent) for our city to do what it can to nurture and enhance the arts in this neighbourhood. Maybe if this was a meat-packing district whose operations contributed significantly to the culture, character, economy and history of the neighbourhood, there would be precedent to save your sausage factory, too.

Show me plans for a bigger, better theatre in its place and you'll have my attention (but please, save the Stella murals!). However, justifying its demolition just because we have other theatres nearby, and because a fancy architect wants to put some residential there instead, completely misses the point. This would be a net loss for the city.

Nope...you did miss the whole point of the analogy, which was that the remaining 3 theatres run by Mirvish can handle all the productions currently being produced in his 4 theatres. There is no net loss to the city's theatre business. POW was built to temporarily house long-running megamusicals that aren't as popular as they used to be, resulting in an empty POW a lot of the time...not good for business and not good for the district. Mirvish has already stated that if theatre business were to increase, he would simply build another theatre to house it.

The net loss for the city lies in the lost opportunity of the Cloud Podium and the Mirvish Gallery that would have been housed in it.

Besides, your analogy can be used to justify removing just about anything.

Landowner to City: Toronto's municipal affairs have outgrown their old home. I have a striking new city hall built by venerated architect Vilijo Revell. Since the old city hall is a built form suited only to municipal affairs, I would like to demolish it and replace it with a visionary new Eaton's centre, with breathtaking skyscrapers and public spaces, that will net both myself and the city with added value.

Well, your example doesn't work on a few levels. First off, Old City Hall does have historical and architectural significance on its side (designated a National Historic Site of Canada). Secondly, your claim that the building cannot be repurposed for anything other than municipal affairs is clearly incorrect. Thirdly, it doesn't sit empty...the City leases it out.

 

[88drums]

Nope...you did miss the whole point of the analogy, which was that the remaining 3 theatres run by Mirvish can handle all the productions currently being produced in his 4 theatres. There is no net loss to the city's theatre business. POW was built to temporarily house long-running megamusicals that aren't as popular as they used to be, resulting in an empty POW a lot of the time...not good for business and not good for the district. Mirvish has already stated that if theatre business were to increase, he would simply build another theatre to house it.

Are you aware of any data to support this? Theatre is often a tricky business, but it was my understanding that the POW is doing just fine. Through the remainder of 2015 alone, we'll see Mamma Mia!, Titanic the Musical and the Phantom of the Opera hit their stage, among others. Could theatres and dates be shuffled through the city to accommodate the same productions without the POW? I'm not saying it's impossible, but it would certainly serve to stifle the scene. And I certainly don't buy that the business and district are worse off for having the POW, just because shows don't always sell out.

The net loss for the city lies in the lost opportunity of the Cloud Podium and the Mirvish Gallery that would have been housed in it.

It sounds like the Mirvish Gallery is still going to be built, so I'm not sure where that factors into your loss calculation. As for the cloud podium, I'm genuinely surprised at your optimism that something even remotely resembling the cloud podium in early renders would ever have been built. And remind me what was so great about the cloud podium that is both lost in the revised proposal and justifies bulldozing the POW? Its aesthetic, again based off a render or two?

Well, your example doesn't work on a few levels. First off, Old City Hall does have historical and architectural significance on its side (designated a National Historic Site of Canada). Secondly, your claim that the building cannot be repurposed for anything other than municipal affairs is clearly incorrect. Thirdly, it doesn't sit empty...the City leases it out.

Provided it stays, I would be shocked if the POW didn't eventually end up with a similar designation. As for City Hall, don't forget the context of the time. Right now my assertions sound ridiculous. But Old City Hall wouldn't become a National Historic Site for another 20+ years after NPS was built. Modernism was at its peak in the city, and there was a strong and vocal population pushing for the Eaton's proposal because of its bold, daring design. Naysayers were nothing but preservationist luddites.

I'm not saying everything about this comparison is apt. Needless to say, Old City Hall's architecture is leagues ahead of the POW. But this should still sound awfully familiar to you.

 

[freshcutgrass]

Are you aware of any data to support this? Theatre is often a tricky business, but it was my understanding that the POW is doing just fine. Through the remainder of 2015 alone, we'll see Mamma Mia!, Titanic the Musical and the Phantom of the Opera hit their stage, among others. Could theatres and dates be shuffled through the city to accommodate the same productions without the POW? I'm not saying it's impossible, but it would certainly serve to stifle the scene. And I certainly don't buy that the business and district are worse off for having the POW, just because shows don't always sell out.

David Mirvish is on record pointing this out himself on several occasions. While it appears you seem to think you know more about his business empire than he does, I'm apt to side with Mirvish.

..........

Mr. Mirvish, said his venues are operating at between 50 and 60 per cent capacity. The city could easily absorb the loss of the 2,000 seat Princess Of Wales Theatre, he said, which opened in 1993 with a production of Miss Saigon.Mr. Mirvish said he has no intention of stepping back from the industry and could build another theatre in the future if there is demand.


“Having theatres that are not full all the time is not better than having art museums, a relationship with OCAD, a relationship with the city and an involvement of retailing and other amenities that will develop through this project,” he said. “These towers can become a symbol of what Toronto can be.”

“Nothing is going to happen quickly because the theatre is the final part, but I don’t believe that I need these seats and it will be healthier for the theatre community if we have fewer seats in the marketplace”

 

[urbandreamer]

I'd rather have theatre in the air than theatrics in the PoW battle.