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

innsertnamehere said:
The city actually encoded in the zoning bylaw that Gehry is to design the building. I'm not sure it would stand up in court as I don't believe the city really has the legal ability to enforce that, but it would at least force a court battle on it if it were to be designed differently.

And trust me on this one, they are moving quickly as possible on this behind the scenes and are keeping the Gehry design.
Click to expand...

I'm splitting hairs a bit, but the by-law actually ties the design of the building to the Gehry plans that formed the basis of the settlement between the City and Mirvish, rather than tying the building to Gehry himself.* As such, it likely is enforceable. Also, the heights and densities in the by-law are also tied to the requirements in the Section 37 Agreement and, according to the by-law schedule, that agreement also ties the building to the Gehry plans. So the plans are also secured by contract with the city.

ETA: * From a practical perspective, this may mean that Gehry's firm effectively needs to stay involved. I don't know that for sure.
 
It is a zoning by-law, which derives its authority from the Planning Act. The Planning act clearly sets out what zoning can and cannot regulate - and includes specific mechanisms to regulate it, such as the mechanisms under Section 37 of the act. The act does not clearly allow zoning to specifically tie development to a specific plan by a specific architect, like it does clearly indicate that height, density, etc. can be regulated. Specifically, that is through section 34 (1) 4., stating:

"For regulating the type of construction and the height, bulk, location, size, floor area, spacing, character and use of buildings or structures to be erected or located within the municipality or within any defined area or areas or upon land abutting on any defined highway or part of a highway, and the minimum frontage and depth of the parcel of land and the proportion of the area thereof that any building or structure may occupy."

That doesn't include the specific architecture or architectural firm that designed it. Thus my doubt that enforcing it is legally dubious.

Section 37 also doesn't allow them to necessarily exchange cash for specific architecture, simply increased height and density.

It doesn't matter anyways, since this is getting built with Gehry as the architect. I'm just saying that the city put something in a by-law that likely wouldn't stand up in court.
 
For the greater part of my childhood to teenage years (mid-90's to mid-2000's), 10 Dundas East was just memories of the bulky blue hoarding which felt like it would be stuck that way for eternity. Ah the memories lol.
 
innsertnamehere said:
It is a zoning by-law, which derives its authority from the Planning Act. The Planning act clearly sets out what zoning can and cannot regulate - and includes specific mechanisms to regulate it, such as the mechanisms under Section 37 of the act. The act does not clearly allow zoning to specifically tie development to a specific plan by a specific architect, like it does clearly indicate that height, density, etc. can be regulated. Specifically, that is through section 34 (1) 4., stating:

"For regulating the type of construction and the height, bulk, location, size, floor area, spacing, character and use of buildings or structures to be erected or located within the municipality or within any defined area or areas or upon land abutting on any defined highway or part of a highway, and the minimum frontage and depth of the parcel of land and the proportion of the area thereof that any building or structure may occupy."

That doesn't include the specific architecture or architectural firm that designed it. Thus my doubt that enforcing it is legally dubious.

Section 37 also doesn't allow them to necessarily exchange cash for specific architecture, simply increased height and density.

It doesn't matter anyways, since this is getting built with Gehry as the architect. I'm just saying that the city put something in a by-law that likely wouldn't stand up in court.
Click to expand...

That would all be relevant if the zoning by-law somehow tried to impose the Gehry plans as a performance standard under Section 34, and you'd arguably be correct in that case. But the by-law doesn't do that.

What it does do it is establish as an H removal requirement under Section 36 the execution of a site plan agreement securing plans which are consistent with the Gehry plans, and it imposes the same requirement as a Section 37 requirement (and the by-law makes the heights and densities conditional on compliance with the Section 37 requirements). This is not an unusual approach.
 
Last edited:
The start of TIFF would have been an ideal time launch sales of this project. Marketing to the international guests with tons of cash may not have driven huge sales but it would have added to the high-end image they need to project.

With the exception of the loosening earlier this year, we are approaching the 3rd decade of a bull housing market. Everyone understands it has to slow down especially builders like Great Gulf.

Great Gulf knows how to bring large projects to market. This has been slow and there must be a reason. I wonder what are the financial pressures keeping this from the market? If it were a money maker then it would be selling.
 
It's a big project. And I imagine just bringing Great Gulf in slowed the process up. New owner would probably take some time to make sure everything was done their way.
 
Project needs to go through a couple more spin-cycles to make sure to "wash out" any uniqueness left. Can't have anything but the "cleanest" cost-effective project for the investors!

Edward Skira said:
It's a big project. And I imagine just bringing Great Gulf in slowed the process up. New owner would probably take some time to make sure everything was done their way.
Click to expand...
 
Stefan said:
Project needs to go through a couple more spin-cycles to make sure to "wash out" any uniqueness left. Can't have anything but the "cleanest" cost-effective project for the investors!
Click to expand...

What's your basis for this post?
 
Concentrated OJ said:
Here is a side by side comparison of the model on the official Mirvish+Gehry Facebook page and the photo that Alex Bozikovic posted on the previous page. The latest design is definitely looking less intricate. The bulges seem to be mostly gone or barely there and the lines on the waterfall appear much flatter. I'm not liking what I am seeing. The taller tower's north face (minus the waterfall) is looking not that much different than The Selby.

mhyejc.jpg


Model video

Video source:
https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=790810224289261

Picture source: https://www.instagram.com/p/BjfO5D6HrTz/?taken-by=globeandmail
Click to expand...

To be fair, one model appears to be lit up, while the other is not.

There's definitely a difference, I just wonder if the project is less intricate or they just spent less time on the new model.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top