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

If imaginary conspiracy theories are the best the opponents have in their arguments against this proposal, Mirvish may have little to worry about.
 
fedplanner said:
Are you kidding me? If I understand the history of this area correctly, this part of town was undesirable before the elder Mirvish renovated the buildings and put them to productive use. Are you really suggesting that the younger Mirvish has intentionally devalued his own buildings in an attempt to blockbust the surrounding neighborhood to gain support from the public and city planners to redevelop this site? If that's the case you're being intellectually dishonest to prove a point. In my first post on this thread, I stated that "I'm not a fan of mega developers that will result in the destruction of a vibrant city block." This view is probably similar to the one you have now. However, after learning about the details - an art gallery, retail spaces, new campus for OCAD, and 2,600 new condos in three stunning new towers - I accepted that if this block is to be redeveloped, than this was a fair trade. I realize that "condos" has almost become synonymous with many four-letter words around here, but I view it as a positive: 2,600 new residences contributing to the vibrancy of a thriving downtown.

Ideally, I would like to see this development rise in one of the many other vacant lots in the city. In reality, Mirvish owns the land here and the economics of this development would not work on another site for him. This is still a very new proposal, and a formal application has yet to be submitted to the city. I look forward to reading the planning reports and issues that will come up with heritage designation of the buildings to be demolished. From what I've read thus far, it looks to be a net positive for the city of Toronto.

Please accept this as an unbiased opinion. I live stateside, but I've taken a keen interest in planning issues in Toronto. It's a fascinating city.
Click to expand...

Yes, prior to the 80's this area was run down and the Elder Mirvish played a key role in reinvigorating the area at that time, but this block has seen little investment since. Meanwhile the surrounding area has taken off. If Mirvish (Jr) had at any point in the last decade intended to preserve this block, any investment would have paid dividends. But he clearly had a different agenda, which has now come to light. Is this a conspiracy, or a business plan (Alkay)?

I'm opposed to the precedent that this sets, the loss of three of these buildings, and the loss of the opportunity to work with what is already there: "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 families theatre - 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."
 
neubilder said:
Yes, prior to the 80's this area was run down and the Elder Mirvish played a key role in reinvigorating the area at that time, but this block has seen little investment since. Meanwhile the surrounding area has taken off. If Mirvish (Jr) had at any point in the last decade intended to preserve this block, any investment would have paid dividends. But he clearly had a different agenda, which has now come to light. Is this a conspiracy, or a business plan (Alkay)?

I'm opposed to the precedent that this sets, the loss of three of these buildings, and the loss of the opportunity to work with what is already there: "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."
Click to expand...

Your first paragraph frustrates me, but I understand where you're coming from in the second. Is it possible for the footprint of this development to be reduced so one or two towers rise while preserving the heritage buildings? It's still very early in the process, and it will be interesting to see how the development evolves after the planning and public consultation process.
 
Neubilder, you simply don't know what you are talking about. Your whole argument is based upon a false premise. The buildings have been very well maintained and a lot of investment has been poured in during the last decade. They have high end/paying tenants (I know a few, excluding KPMB ) and he had some of the best warehouse space in the city. There has certainly been no devaluing of the buildings so I am not quite sure why you are even making this up (although I suggest, its to support your false premise).

How exactly has the Princess of Wales theatre been "devalued" over the last 10 years?
 
Last edited:
neubilder said:
KPMB are good tenants, but they are invisible to the public, so it's beside the point - it's the tenants with street presence that effect street life for the most part.
Click to expand...

Actually, as the successors to Barton Myers, KPMB were de facto "tenants" before Mirvish acquired Eclipse Whitewear.
 
interchange42 said:
Somehow the padding does make it all more palatable…

but it is time for all involved to step back a bit, and yes that includes the attempted dissection of another's personality based only on scraps of evidence. We're not here to do forensic reconstructions of other members: it's resulting in some pseudo-science being practiced here.

Debate the issues, not each other.

42
Click to expand...

Though for the record, the "one-liner" vs "meandering three paragraph" may help explain why I "gendered" the discussion. The old Apollonian vs Dionysian thing, I suppose...
 
Incidentally, a couple more things: first of all, re the "heritage worth" of what exists, let's keep in mind that it's definitely a sum-over-individual-parts circumstance, i.e. de facto, from John to Simcoe, this has long been Toronto's classic mythic "wall of warehouses". Highlighted by the fact that across from them was...space. An expanse of railyard facilities, or an expance of parking, or the expanse of Pecaut Square. And the fact that it was one continuous wall of them (at least until very recently, w/the condo rising next to the Royal Alex), *here*, across from "space", made for a powerful urban imprint. I'm just saying; you can discuss this amongst yourselves.

OTOH on behalf of Gehry, I'd stop short of the "for every Bilbao, there's an Experience Project" argument; esp. considering that come whatever possibly-sooner-rather-than-later moment the Experience Project faces some threat, it'll probably arouse some of the same emotions as, presently, the threat to the Princess of Wales Theatre...
 
fedplanner said:
Are you kidding me? If I understand the history of this area correctly, this part of town was undesirable before the elder Mirvish renovated the buildings and put them to productive use. Are you really suggesting that the younger Mirvish has intentionally devalued his own buildings in an attempt to blockbust the surrounding neighborhood to gain support from the public and city planners to redevelop this site? If that's the case you're being intellectually dishonest to prove a point.
Click to expand...

fedplanner said:
Your first paragraph frustrates me, but I understand where you're coming from in the second. Is it possible for the footprint of this development to be reduced so one or two towers rise while preserving the heritage buildings?
Click to expand...


Fedplanner,

If you owned a heritage block that you intended to take down at some point in the future would you do a full-blown restoration to bring out it's best qualities? No, you wouldn't! You would continue to paint it institutional beige and do what you had to to ensure your tenants stayed on board. Are you suggesting that these buildings are looking their best? That all of their potential has been tapped and that Tim Horton's and Dunn's is the best that this block can do? Because I'm afraid that is how many are judging this block: a beige bland streetscape with boring tenants. (at street level).

My concern here is that if people could see how good this block, and in particular the three buildings I've mentioned before, could look if it was given the proper lovin', people would be amazed and might think twice before signing the demolition papers.


If that's a false premise Alkay then we aren't on the same page and keep your snide condescension to yourself.
 
But why would Mirvish work to get them designated if that was the intent all along? The buildings weren't "just" painted either, lest I remind you.
Sorry, even if you strip off all the paint, the buildings in question are merely competent, not superlative. They are working buildings for its' time and were designed as such, remember. No one even mentioned Tim Hortons and the like - so for you to suggest (no, impose) that "crappy" retail (which it isn't, but I digress) as a rationale for judging the building's worth when none of us have even done so is disingenuous to say the least. Most of us don't deny the worth of the buildings - we just think that it doesn't worth as much as having a Gehry designed complex. You don't agree with that, fine, but don't make it sound as if we are a bunch of heritage Philistines who can't see beyond painted bricks.

AoD
 
neubilder:

You don't know, and yet you seem to know enough to accuse someone of willfully neglecting heritage properties and inviting sub par tenants for the space (which has since been disproven). Like seriously, you are contradicting yourself left, right and centre hoping something will stick.

AoD
 
Last edited:
AlvinofDiaspar said:
neubilder:

You don't know, and yet you seem to know enough to accuse someone of willfully neglecting heritage properties and inviting sub par tenants for the space (which has since been disproven). Like seriously, you are condicting yourself left, right and centre hoping something will stick.

AoD
Click to expand...

I have not accused him of neglect! Or inviting sub-par tenants. These are your inferences.

What I have been saying repeatedly is that he is not compelled to restore these building as though he intends to keep them in perpetuity. If he knew he had to honour the heritage designation and keep them, these buildings would get the grand treatment. King west has changed a lot since these have been under his ownership but the buildings have not been upgraded (restored) to suit - since the initial renovation in the 80's, other than maintenance and interior tenant improvements to keep them serviceable.
 
Your words:

If Mirvish thought heritage preservation in Toronto had teeth and that his buildings had to stay he would have rejuvenated this block long ago and attracted the best tenants. Instead he maintained them sparingly and leased to marginal tenants like tourist traps that everyone would be happy to see go.
Click to expand...

KPMB aren't marginal tenants that would have been satisifed with "sparingly maintained" buildings, and others have also noted that. And lest I remind you, you are the one who intentionally misused the term blockbusting for it's negative impact, repeatedly.

King west has changed a lot since these have been under his ownership but the buildings have not been upgraded (restored) to suit.
Click to expand...

And yet I find it interesting that there was zero noise clamoring for upgrade prior to this proposal. Zilch. Nada. Certainly none from you. If restoring them to mint condition is of such a high priority from a heritage perspective, surely there would have been considerably more attention than the deathly silence? Or maybe, just maybe, that the whitewashed facades are perfectly adequate for these structures per their worth in the grand scheme of things? Competent, adequate, but ultimately not mattering enough to all but the most demanding of those interested in heritage buildings to warrant a stance that would advocate for complete restoration?

AoD
 
Last edited:
If you owned a heritage block that you intended to take down at some point in the future would you do a full-blown restoration to bring out it's best qualities? No, you wouldn't! You would continue to paint it institutional beige and do what you had to to ensure your tenants stayed on board.
Click to expand...

So why spend $25 million building a brand new theatre on said block you intend to demolish? You are inventing conspiracy theories where they do not exist.

Why don't you just admit you used the term "blockbusting" incorrectly, and let's move on. jeeeeezuz



let's keep in mind that it's definitely a sum-over-individual-parts circumstance, i.e. de facto, from John to Simcoe, this has long been Toronto's classic mythic "wall of warehouses".
Click to expand...

The only time this block held any cache, was when it was the black & white, blinking signage carnival Mirvish created to augment the Royal Alex. That dissipated rather organically over a long period of time (rather than part of some dark conspiracy). Otherwise, Spadina, Adelaide or Richmond were the classic warehouse streetwall locations.

And if it were anywhere else except this particular King frontage location, the context would make tearing the block down a much more serious blow to the districts continuity....regardless of what is replacing it.

As a general rule, I agree that the best course of action for this district is to keep the heritage buildings intact, and fill in all the holes (and there are lots of them) with...whatever.

In this particular case, I make an exception based on the specific location of King and the fact that this block's project will not ruin the continuity of this stretch of King (in fact it will enhance it), the lack of any major architectural or historical importance of the heritage buildings to be demolished, along with the gains to be had by the proposed replacement.
 
Ohferchrisake.

I'm the one that first pointed out that KPMB were the tenants of the easterly building. But it's beside the point because they have been tenants for YEARS. In fact KPMB evolved out of the firm that did the renovation in the 70's or 80's - who sold the damn building to Mirvish in the first place . Long before the prospect of redeveloping this block likely came about. And as I've already pointed out - it's the street presence that I'm talking about, not he top floor occupants.

I don't know when Mirvish decided he was going to redevelop that block but I'd bet it was many years after he had the buildings designated and after he built the theatre. I have not said he actively degraded his buildings, just that the buildings have not been restored in step with the improvement of the neighbourhood - which in the last 10 years has evolved into one that could sustain high-rent tenants and could justify a loving restoration - assuming they were to be kept.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top