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

For brief time I worked in construction for my brother-in law's company and what impressed me when I was on site was the dozens of trades and hundreds of workers that are employed by these big projects. They provide tens of thousands of well paid worker hours. This is a very important consideration with all these proposals, particularly in this economy.
 
Carjack said:
For brief time I worked in construction for my brother-in law's company and what impressed me when I was on site was the dozens of trades and hundreds of workers that are employed by these big projects. They provide tens of thousands of well paid worker hours. This is a very important consideration with all these proposals, particularly in this economy.
Click to expand...

This argument can be used to justify just about anything that requires labour - a casino, a walmart, oil rigs , wars....

It's faulty logic for all kinds of reasons, but in this case these towers will absorb demand from other projects that would have otherwise been supported by the market.

I don't think anyone would find fault with this proposal if a land swap with a more suitable site was made. (parking lot or some other genuinely underutilized site)
 
buildup said:
No has claimed there are no sacrifices here. We are merely acknowledging that in the real world you can't have it all, you must give up something to get another thing. In this case the "trade" is very, very favorable. Are you uncomfortable with making choices? Do yo actually prefer what is there to what is proposed??
Click to expand...

It's a large development site. I don't see why preserving heritage is being rejected out of hand. I might be willing to trade off the theatre (though losing that venue is significant), but why lose all the heritage buildings or have the facades awkwardly tacked on? It's possible that the classrooms and gallery could be accommodated in the heritage buildings.
 
junctionist:

If preserving them compromises the impact of the new buildings in question, then that's a pretty good argument for those buildings to go given the context. Just because something is old doesn't by default equate to worthiness for preservation.

AoD
 
I don't think anyone would find fault with this proposal if a land swap with a more suitable site was made.
Click to expand...

Wait...I thought the problem was "condo whoring", and underhanded tactics like using the best architects and including amazing galleries and expanding art schools to sell condos (when everybody else just builds boring condos without those things...which is better apparently).

What are you talking about "land swapping". Like that is an option. Perhaps Mirvish can post a Kijiji ad for that?

This is the best site for this project.


It's a large development site. I don't see why preserving heritage is being rejected out of hand.
Click to expand...

ASAIK, trying to incorporate these homely little white-washed brick warehouses into this kind of project in any fashion would be a farce. If it were Allied Reit doing what they normally do in the area, which is renovate them into loft style office space, then I would say sure...perfectly good context.
 
freshcutgrass said:
ASAIK, trying to incorporate these homely little white-washed brick warehouses into this kind of project in any fashion would be a farce. If it were Allied Reit doing what they normally do in the area, which is renovate them into loft style office space, then I would say sure...perfectly good context.
Click to expand...

But maybe what you're saying can be spun oppositely, i.e. as an argument against "this kind of project" on this kind of site at all, rather than an argument against the preexisting conditions simply because they'd compromise such a project. IOW an argument for "Allied Reit" urbanism over "Gehry/Mirvish" urbanism, at least when the latter threatens the former.

Come to think of it, given the hubbub over threatened recent past a la the Princess of Wales (and I guess, the Convention Centre/RBC array to the south), I'm even wondering whether the City might see fit to sell off Metro Hall for redevelopment, Pecaut Square and all--I mean, if anything is currently architecturally/urbanistically uncontroversially open to superstarchitecture redevelopment a la Gehry/Mirvish, it's *that*...
 
IOW an argument for "Allied Reit" urbanism over "Gehry/Mirvish" urbanism
Click to expand...

To be honest, we need both. And while the "Allied Reit" urbanism is and will continue to be plentiful in this old warehouse district, the "Gehry/Mirvish" urbanism is a much rarer commodity.

This project will add some serious "Lincoln Center" style moxy to the existing inventory of what constitutes this "Entertainment District". There will be plenty of condo towers and converted loft offices in this area, but you don't let a couple of lousy little whitewashed warehouses stand in the way of this kind of thing.
 
An amazing and game-changing proposal for downtown. The scope of the development introduces a new category for Toronto with the sheer size and features, and with a caveat of altering that unique stretch of King St. But, this project appears to be much in the visioning mode, and Frank Gehry is in his 80's. Surely Mr. Mirvish knows the mountain he must climb to get this baby off the ground. I just hope this shimmering spectre isn't the trial balloon, that leads to a watered down development that will satisfy no one. Gehry's other project in Toronto, the AGO, still reminds me of an add-on airport barn as seen from the street, and one can only wonder what the architect might have achieved with a bigger budget and new building. Maybe this time around the pieces really are in place, at least I hope so.
 
freshcutgrass said:
This project will add some serious "Lincoln Center" style moxy to the existing inventory of what constitutes this "Entertainment District". There will be plenty of condo towers and converted loft offices in this area, but you don't let a couple of lousy little whitewashed warehouses stand in the way of this kind of thing.
Click to expand...

But maybe the bigger question is (a) why do you find the existing warehouses "lousy", and (b) why are you so hot and horny over "this kind of thing".

Though re this kind of taste/architecture/heritage/priorities question, I'm still intrigued by how as of yet, I'm the only one who's brought Koolhaas, "Cronocaos", and the "Insignificant Universal Junk" concept re the existing warehouses, etc...
 
The odds of this or the casino proposal being built close to the designs are zero and next to none. The nimbys will want a watered down 40 story height restriction, the city will want monstrous concessions, and Mirvish and Gehry will tell them to stick it. He is 80 years old, and doesn't need to be told what to do. Toronto will squander another opportunity.
 
But maybe the bigger question is (a) why do you find the existing warehouses "lousy", and (b) why are you so hot and horny over "this kind of thing".
Click to expand...


First of all, this isn't the bigger question at all. And the answer to (a) & (b) should be self evident.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top