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

Proposing that there should be staged approval process with legal strings attached at each marker certainly isn't "blind faith".

AoD
 
I too see no evidence of "bait and switch" and certainly no evidence of "blind faith". The arguments against this project seem to grasp at straws and straw men.

As I have said before, I am not quite sure where all these complainers were when better warehouses were knocked down for lesser developments. And I am not quite sure why this particular development is getting some so worked up. To paraphrase, if you refuse to see that what we are receiving is better than what is there now, then I give up.
 
alklay said:
I too see no evidence of "bait and switch" and certainly no evidence of "blind faith". The arguments against this project seem to grasp at straws and straw men.

As I have said before, I am not quite sure where all these complainers were when better warehouses were knocked down for lesser developments. And I am not quite sure why this particular development is getting some so worked up. To paraphrase, if you refuse to see that what we are receiving is better than what is there now, then I give up.
Click to expand...

Gehry's Experienced project in Seattle looks like garbage. I mean it literally looks like garbage. A lot of people here are starstruck but I frankly don't think Gehry is worth it, excuse the pun.
 
Last edited:
And don't be fooled - Mirvish needs the heritage buildings gone so he can build 5 acres of parking for the monstrous towers, that is the ONLY reason this gallery is even on the table.
 
That's your own personal opinion, which you are entitled to, but has nothing to do with the "worth" of the project - and certainly does not tell me anything about the supposed bait-and-switch scenario.

AoD
 
neubilder said:
And don't be fooled - Mirvish needs the heritage buildings gone so he can build 5 acres of parking for the monstrous towers, that is the ONLY reason this gallery is even on the table.
Click to expand...

So perhaps if people want to preserve deteriorating, non-fire rated buildings, they should get together and buy them from Mirvish. But then they would need a lot of cash to do that and then they have to be restored and constantly maintained.....so they'd need a pretty good income stream.......I guess you could force the city to take them over, they have an endless income stream from taxpayers - Besides, does the city really need all those proposed transit and infrastructure improvements? I mean, seriously, we're talking about some nice old buildings here. And if you think about it, why build something new here when there's already buildings on the property?

Tell Mirvish to take his beautiful condo towers, public art gallery, college addition and park and gobuild them in some other city that doesnt already have some nice old buildings!
 
Last edited:
adma said:
Uh, actually, not. Of all the downtown 60s70scrapers, FCP was the most loathed, not loved. 70 storeys of marble-clad Edward Durell Stone kitsch, etc.

And furthermore, the Star and everything else on the block were demolished right when Toronto's preservation movement started getting into high gear (the Inventory of Heritage Properties having started in 1973)--together with the net effect of the Crombie mayoralty and the incipient postmodern reaction, FCP couldn't have come out of it all looking more clashingly retrograde and needlessly destructive in context.

Trust me.
Click to expand...

Ok then (honest, I googled it and read several articles stating it was well loved, but you can't believe everything you read on the Internet). I suppose if this is untrue, then we are left with the conclusion that, right or wrong, it's part of the pain growth of a city. No matter what we say here, it's going to happen like it or not, just hurts sometimes! Had I'd been around when the Star tower was still standing, I'd be pissed! Have you seen the pics? It was a beautiful piece of architecture.
 
Big Daddy said:
So perhaps if people want to preserve deteriorating, non-fire rated buildings,
Click to expand...

This describes the majority of the building stock of every major European city as well as many US cities. Would you also say that European cities ought to be razed in order to update it's building stock?
 
Big Daddy said:
So perhaps if people want to preserve deteriorating, non-fire rated buildings, they should get together and buy them from Mirvish. But then they would need a lot of cash to do that and then they have to be restored and constantly maintained.....so they'd need a pretty good income stream.......I guess you could force the city to take them over, they have an endless income stream from taxpayers - Besides, does the city really need all those proposed transit and infrastructure improvements? I mean, seriously, we're talking about some nice old buildings here. And if you think about it, why build something new here when there's already buildings on the property?
Click to expand...

Allied properties built its business doing just this. Moreover Allied's efforts at restoring King Street was the catalyst for the resurgence of King West.

If anything Mirvish should be shamed -not rewarded - for neglecting his downtown real-estate holdings.
 
neubilder said:
This describes the majority of the building stock of every major European city as well as many US cities. Would you also say that European cities ought to be razed in order to update it's building stock?
Click to expand...

Absolutely not - but if someone comes forward with a project that offers to improve the usability and function of an area complete with public museum, space for higher education and parkland, why would we counter with preserving buildings that have a limited useable lifespan as a viable alternative?

I think we should learn from Europe and emulate those things that were successful, but I don't think that means preserving buildings at all cost. The Sprawl of London and Paris are a direct result of their refusal to rebuild. If sprawl is acceptable, then by all means we should preserve all buildings. If we want to limit sprawl and increase the city's useability and density and vibrancy, some older buildings must go.
 
Big Daddy said:
Absolutely not - but if someone comes forward with a project that offers to improve the usability and function of an area complete with public museum, space for higher education and parkland, why would we counter with preserving buildings that have a limited useable lifespan as a viable alternative?

I think we should learn from Europe and emulate those things that were successful, but I don't think that means preserving buildings at all cost. The Sprawl of London and Paris are a direct result of their refusal to rebuild. If sprawl is acceptable, then by all means we should preserve all buildings. If we want to limit sprawl and increase the city's useability and density and vibrancy, some older buildings must go.
Click to expand...

Toronto sprawls further than London at half the population. It's a a fallacy that high-rise is the only means to achieve density. But I'm not even objecting to towers, just the nature of this proposal.

What I would like to see on this site is one or maybe two towers - supertall if they must. If Mirvish wants to tear down his theatre and his families legacy - fine. But preserve the Anderson and the two bookend buildings and let Frank Gehry do his thing between these buildings. I think the possibilities of this are more exciting and more urban.
 
Big Daddy said:
why would we counter with preserving buildings that have a limited useable lifespan as a viable alternative?
Click to expand...

These historic buildings arguably have greater adaptability, longer lifespan, and are of greater quality in the urban sense than most new buildings going up today.
 
If anything Mirvish should be shamed -not rewarded - for neglecting his downtown real-estate holdings.
Click to expand...

Funny, his family probably prevented those buildings from being torn down and turned into parking lots back in the 60s (not to mention, the Royal Alex), and besides, I don't see anyone clamoring for stripping the paint off those buildings to rehab them before this proposal came to light, so it is somewhat disingenuous to claim that he is "neglecting" them when there is a collective blind eye towards what's been done to them prior. Letting a heritage building rot necessitating demolition by neglect is to be shamed - proposing that we replace the mere competent with superlative should be lauded.

These historic buildings arguably have greater adaptability, longer lifespan, and are of greater quality in the urban sense than most new buildings going up today.
Click to expand...

And I am sure the buildings they replaced (don't forget, they didn't exist in a tabula rasa) are equally so, and yet I don't see any lament or claims of grave injustices over those loses. With that kind of logic, Toronto would have remained a village.

AoD
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top