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

[freshcutgrass]

I think it is a pity that we have lowered the discourse of the conversation to pitting one gender against another. Shame on you.

Maggy Zeidler does great work, and it is misleading to drag her into the conversation, as she is more about cheap rent for artists and small business through adaptive reuse of under-utilized old buildings....not historical preservation per say. She's not at all into expensive renovations/restorations of historical buildings....quite the opposite. She's not a gentrifier...at least not on purpose ; )

We don't need to travel far to find the male counterpart....Mirvish himself. What do you call Mirvish Village and what the block in question has been doing...decades before Zeidler I might add.

But what is proposed for the Mirvish block is not in the realm of Zeidler's scope of work...Mirvish wants to create a large scale mixed-use project by demolishing existing structures.

Neither is "wrong", and we need both.

The Ryrie Building is irrelevant to the discussion, and simply cherry picked by adma for the argument he's having with himself. The late Paul Oberman would be a better counterpart to pitted against Zeidler, although he was about proper restoration and certainly not cheap rent motivated.

 

[mrezwayz]

wow, 44 pages on topic of Mirvish+Gehry... it is inevitable that Toronto would stay behind this global trend of using globally "branded" architects such as Frank Gehry to design and put their signatures to significant cultural and institutional buildings of our city. Even though it is exciting that we have so much public discourse in the city that these proposals have created, it is still strange to understand what motivates such projects. As future architects, I do not know how we can practice in any other realm than the one we have created for ourselves. It is difficult to see that it is quite real that monstrous structures will lead to disaster (overcrowded, long times waiting for elevators, traffic jam, etc...) instead to a more "prosperous and happy tomorrow". just an expression...

 

[freshcutgrass]

Maybe you're just too constipatedly straight for your own good. (Sort of in a 60s straights-vs-hippies/freaks/weirdos sense--and, hey; those early hippies were pioneers in embracing heritage/vintage/retro-type stuff. Right?)

Ha "Straight" is not something I would ever be accused of...in any sense of the word. And I don't know where you were in the 60's, but I can assure you hippies/freaks were not "vintage" or "retro"....that's what you would call the twenty-something's today pretending to be hippies/freaks.

What kind of rock have you been living under? Thanks to this project among others paving the way, and as affirmed by stuff like this, all I can say is--don't let the door hit you on the way out

.

Except the program to highlight local area businesses has nothing to do with my point.

When they are fighting to stop proper "avenues" style development from replacing strip malls (with parking lots between sidewalk and one-story commercial front) on the bases that the design has reached a certain elapsed time and therefore "heritage" protected...give me a call.

For your "strip malls in Scarborough", one can substitute "commie blocks" or "brutalist bunkers"

No you may not.

If it were about your trumped-up "in contrast with the general context", then your condemnation of this frontage might as well telescope to the similar-vintage stuff on the other side of the Royal Alex, or Front W of University, or, for that matter, retroactively re the Pretzel Bell. And then you'd really rile up the heritage community.

Besides the fatal mistake of labelling me as some kind of anti-heritage type (somehow...tarot cards I presume, as you don't have enough evidence to gleen anything...A-N-Y-THING about me)...no you may not transfer my opinion to anything other than what I have given my opinion about...the Mirvish buildings. I am very pro heritage...but I'm not a heritage fundamentalist, and I think there is a very big difference.

The building to the east of Royal Alex (Theatre Park) is a rather unsympathetic frontage renovation. I don't mind it, but I would not call it a proper restoration of a heritage building, and I doubt anyone concerned about proper heritage restoration would suggest such a treatment for the Mirvish buildings to make them more animated in terms of meeting the street.

Besides, the "fails to attract interesting tenants" may be more a failure of landlordship (sorry, Mirvish), combined with a touch of tourist-district-itis (sorry again, Mirvish--if a little more reflexively, in a "Mirvish you ho this is all your fault" way), than a failure of building stock.

Is he not attempting to alleviate that?

First of all...how utterly comical that you (easy to do when you are a lowly anonymous internet chat forum toady) can call Mirvish a "failure". This block has seen decades of success (forget about any pioneering effort it may have had), but is now in need of re-inventing. This is what Mirvish proposes.

My strong advice to Toronto on this one.....this is not the time to decide you want to look a gift horse in the mouth.

And above all, you're not attacking Edwardian warehouses--you're attacking 70s kitsch

Again...the distinction needs to be made...I'm "attacking" THESE warehouses...and the status quo. And only because what is proposed is better than the status quo (heritage factored in).

And really: such is my point--your constipated perspective on heritage in general

And this is my point (for the umpteenth effing time you deaf git)....I have not given my opinion on heritage in general at all....I have only given my specific opinion on this project. The affirmative action comment (and other so-called "metaphors") is nothing more than a thinly disguised smear campaign.

the "I'd rip them down for much less" crowd is the sort that insults the whole argument

I suppose it's safe to assume this is the offending statement that has spawned your histrionics (I'm not officially claiming you have a personality disorder)?

While I will have to take responsibility for this statement, as it may appear to be cavalier, I can assure you...it isn't.

 

[Tewder]

wow, 44 pages on topic of Mirvish+Gehry... it is inevitable that Toronto would stay behind this global trend of using globally "branded" architects such as Frank Gehry to design and put their signatures to significant cultural and institutional buildings of our city. Even though it is exciting that we have so much public discourse in the city that these proposals have created, it is still strange to understand what motivates such projects. As future architects, I do not know how we can practice in any other realm than the one we have created for ourselves. It is difficult to see that it is quite real that monstrous structures will lead to disaster (overcrowded, long times waiting for elevators, traffic jam, etc...) instead to a more "prosperous and happy tomorrow". just an expression...

Yes, and why should Toronto be jumping on the bandwagon of other cities... and late to it, at that?! Why should our objective here be to look just like every other North American city, or Chicago or New York? This is not how Toronto becomes a 'great' city unto itself...

The thing is, with the Mirvish block Gehry will bend over backwards (so to speak) trying to define that iteration of his personal style that will somehow magically symbolise Toronto to him (or to somebody I suppose) but in the end it will just end up looking like another Gehry, no matter how exemplary a Gehry it may end up being (which is sort of redundant really because there are already exemplary Gehrys out there)... no, it is not the architect that will end up expressing this city so much as the imprint of the city's context on the architect that will shape the work... and in this sense this is exactly what we got at the AGO: a Gehry unlike any other because it was restrained - and not in a bad way - it was restrained through its dialogue with, and deference to, its surrounding city context, a context that itself is the very articulation of the city, frustrating or not.

By the looks of it we will no doubt be getting a pretty major Gehry here, and in fairness we haven't seen the final details yet, but how outstanding a 'Toronto' version of Gehry we might have got if, as with the AGO, he had been given the challenge of working with the existing context?... designing above it, around it and between it?? It may not have been a 'pure' Gehry (another redundant Gehry) but it would have been a unique Gehry and I would have been interested in seeing where this approach might have taken him.

In the end though, considering the exchange between Adma and Freshcutgrass, I sense there will be a coming together on this. We all sense that this is simply too big to not be worth it, no matter where we stand outside of this particular issue, i.e. pro-heritage, pro-development, masculine or feminine)... and in this sense I am no different. Still, there is a nagging feeling that there is a missed opportunity here, not to bust a block but to redefine it in a way that given the scale and people involved has the power to define this city going forward, or reaffirm it to be more precise, given what we're already seeing very successfully with Five condos, the Massey Condo, the Distillery District and so many other examples where enlightened developers are working with the challenges of low rise heritage in creative and interesting ways, ignoring bandwagons, and thereby creating a version of Toronto that - unlike in southcore for example - is starting to feel like a very unique and great city, to me at least.

 

[neubilder]

(401 Richmond) is more about cheap rent for artists and small business through adaptive reuse of under-utilized old buildings....not historical preservation per say.

Historic preservation is not just about preserving old building per se - it's also about preserving the kinds of functions that can only exist in spaces like these, and not in spanking new high-rent glass and concrete towers. With the demolition of good old buildings we lose the very things that made the neighbourhood interesting, and appealing to developers from a marketing perspective, in the first place.

 

[freshcutgrass]

Historic preservation is not just about preserving old building per se

Well, actually it is.

it's also about preserving the kinds of functions that can only exist in spaces like these, and not in spanking new high-rent glass and concrete towers.

But it would be incorrect to say that historic buildings are necessarily cheap rent. This is simply not the case...and especially in the case of historic preservation, where quite often the act of preservation entails enough extensive renovation to require it to charge "high rent". People love post & beam spaces, and are willing to pay high rents to be there. Why do you think the Flatiron Building recently sold for almost $800 per sqft, and charges rent you would pay at Scotia Plaza?

With the demolition of good old buildings we lose the very things that made the neighbourhood interesting, and appealing to developers from a marketing perspective, in the first place.

Which brings up another problem facing older buildings that are now in highly desirable locations (such as the entertainment district). Their value is too high to maintain cheap rents, which even if you don't spend any money upgrading your building, still means you have higher taxes based on the higher market value of the property, which needs to be recouped via rents.

So by preventing the demolition of said buildings, you still risk displacing the businesses that made the area "interesting" in the first place, when the spaces are now filled by Shoppers Drug Mart and Tim Hortons.

401 Richmond is the exception...not the rule. It takes someone special like Maggie Zeidler to make that sort of thing work. But even she can't escape the gentrification process....it could just as easily have been said...."Gladstone you Ho".

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Tewder:

By the looks of it we will no doubt be getting a pretty major Gehry here, and in fairness we haven't seen the final details yet, but how outstanding a 'Toronto' version of Gehry we might have got if, as with the AGO, he had been given the challenge of working with the existing context?... designing above it, around it and between it?? It may not have been a 'pure' Gehry (another redundant Gehry) but it would have been a unique Gehry and I would have been interested in seeing where this approach might have taken him.

I think it's best to leave Gehry to define himself instead of trying to define it for him (or attempt to use that to rationalize other more personal ends). He didn't suggest he'd rather work with the old buildings on the site, and if that's the route that he prefers, he would have made those pointers. He's the one who was hired to do the job, not the rest of us. We will of course cast judgement later on.

neubilder:

Historic preservation is not just about preserving old building per se - it's also about preserving the kinds of functions that can only exist in spaces like these, and not in spanking new high-rent glass and concrete towers. With the demolition of good old buildings we lose the very things that made the neighbourhood interesting, and appealing to developers from a marketing perspective, in the first place.

If so, then by default preservation for that strip would have failed already - the functions of those buildings are probably markedly different from what was.

AoD

 

[neubilder]

Well, actually it is.

No, actually it isn't.

 

[SP!RE]

I think it's best to leave Gehry to define himself instead of trying to define it for him

The job of an architect is to work with existing context and create a building specifically for its site; the job of an architect is to serve the public and/or users of their buildings, not foist a pre-conceived idea upon a city.

So, I completely disagree with your statement above. I also think architecture is not only better, but far more interesting when it responds to the specific challenges of its site; i.e., at the AGO, Gehry had to work with the building's history as well as knit together all the years of additions to the original gallery. This made for a much better end result than if he had been allowed to have free reign of the site and tear down whatever he wanted, among other possibly outcomes.

 

[neubilder]

Tewder:
neubilder:



If so, then by default preservation for that strip would have failed already - the functions of those buildings are probably markedly different from what was.

AoD

Yoiur statement would be true if these were intended as an historic interpretive site such as Fort York. Functioning historic buildings are able to and must evolve, and whenever possible carry the layers of history forward in their adaptive reuse. While historic preservation aims to preserve historic buildings, the emphasis isn't just on bricks and mortar but on the continuity historic buildings can bring to a city and a culture. If it were just about buildings then we could disassemble any building and reassemble them in a park somewhere in the suburbs. Of course this wouldn't be satisfactory because without the context and continuity historic buildings become all but meaningless.

 

[Tewder]

Tewder:

I think it's best to leave Gehry to define himself instead of trying to define it for him (or attempt to use that to rationalize other more personal ends). He didn't suggest he'd rather work with the old buildings on the site, and if that's the route that he prefers, he would have made those pointers. He's the one who was hired to do the job, not the rest of us. We will of course cast judgement later on.

AoD

I don't disagree AoD. I'm merely trying to express this nagging frustration, when really I should be excited about this along with everybody else:

I understand that this Mirvish block is privately owned, and as such not completely analagous to the AGO, but I can't help but feel there is another option for achieving something truly spectacular here (including gallery space etc) while working with the existing context, albeit an enormously modified context that allows Gehry to superimpose himself into it. Not that we will ever know now though!

 

[neubilder]

And what if this project falls victim to a market downturn? This is an exciting proposal, but it's just a proposal and it's in the hands of private development interests and there is no guarantee of the outcome. The block could be leveled and another developer could take over if anything goes awry.

For all of the critics of these 'warehouses', they are no different from the celebrated 'warehouses' on King west of Spadina that Allied restored and converted. They too have the issue of entrances that are not at sidewalk level yet they have been made to engage with the street extremely well. These buildings were arguably the catalyst for the resurgence in popularity of King West as one of the most coveted districts in the city. These buildings were once ugly, drab white-painted eyesores that someone with less imagination might have torn down.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Spire:

The job of an architect is to work with existing context and create a building specifically for its site; the job of an architect is to serve the public and/or users of their buildings, not foist a pre-conceived idea upon a city.

Work with existing contexts, yes - but the site isn't necessarily "the context". It can be, but doesn't have to be. And the job of the architect is to fulfill the programmatic requirement, which is not diminished by the elimination of existing buildings on the site.

So, I completely disagree with your statement above. I also think architecture is not only better, but far more interesting when it responds to the specific challenges of its site; i.e., at the AGO, Gehry had to work with the building's history as well as knit together all the years of additions to the original gallery. This made for a much better end result than if he had been allowed to have free reign of the site and tear down whatever he wanted, among other possibly outcomes.

Those challenges doesn't have to be bound by what's on the site - but what's beyond it. I mean, would we have said that the new city hall/NPS is a "better" piece if it had responded to the context as you referred to it? It might be, but it might be not. Either way, in this case the carte blanche didn't preclude the creation of a great - dare I say timeless - work. Besides, you didn't know what Gehry would have created if given the free reign for the AGO (which he wasn't, per programmatic requirement by his client) either.

neubilder:

And what if this project falls victim to a market downturn? This is an exciting proposal, but it's just a proposal and it's in the hands of private development interests and there is no guarantee of the outcome. The block could be leveled and another developer could take over if anything goes awry.

Which is why there had better be some ironclad agreement with the city about that aspect - no demolition unless the speciic phase of the project requiring the site is confirmed to go ahead.

For all of the critics of these 'warehouses', they are no different from the celebrated 'warehouses' on King west of Spadina that Allied restored and converted. They too have the issue of entrances that are not at sidewalk level yet they have been made to engage with the street extremely well. These buildings were arguably the catalyst for the resurgence in popularity of King West as one of the most coveted districts in the city. These buildings were once ugly, drab white-painted eyesores that someone with less imagination might have torn down.

And those with lesser imagination would not have proposed to replace them with buildings by Gehry either. It's all relative.

AoD

 

[alklay]

+1 (and well said).

I attended a play at Princess of Wales yesterday and while its going to be a shame to lose the theatre (it really is a great space that works well inside and out), the warehouses on the strip are nothing to celebrate as compared to what we will get with Gehry. The warehouses are mostly unadorned, meet the street poorly and really inhibit, in their present form, the potential of the strip (and in addition, we are being promised wider sidewalks). Most of the strip is not even close in quality to the strip of Allied owned buildings on King (even if one removed the paint) and to suggest they are, is misleading.

 

[neubilder]

The warehouses are mostly unadorned, meet the street poorly and really inhibit, in their present form, the potential of the strip (and in addition, we are being promised wider sidewalks). Most of the strip is not even close in quality to the strip of Allied owned buildings on King (even if one removed the paint) and to suggest they are, is misleading.

At least three of these buildings have enourmous potential for restoration. ...and

are no different from the celebrated 'warehouses' on King west of Spadina that Allied restored and converted. They too have the issue of entrances that are not at sidewalk level yet they have been made to engage with the street extremely well. These buildings were arguably the catalyst for the resurgence in popularity of King West as one of the most coveted districts in the city. These buildings were once ugly, drab white-painted eyesores that someone with less imagination might have torn down.