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

[skyrise]

Add me to the count: leave the Three Sisters as they are!

If Gehry gives his seal of approval, I will trust his judgement: this will be one of his highest profile projects in the world, his legacy to Toronto, the city in which he grew up. I have to believe that he won't bow to a simple money making scheme. If his aesthetic judgement is that the heights can be similar and complement each other, then so be it. I also think that people are underestimating just how many towers will surround these when they are finally built, which will certainly mitigate the impact of any perceived stiltedness in the tripartite design.

You make some very valid points agoraflaneur. Gehry is still working on the finer details such as cladding, which in his last interview, he indicated had not been decided on yet. I am hopeful that you are correct in your belief that this will be his masterpiece. Gehry has so many iconic structures throughout the world. When measuring his legacy up against this project as currently proposed, I'm not yet seeing this as his masterpiece. However, once the details are worked out and there are proper renders, I might change my mind. As far as the towers surrounding these towers, the highest will be approx. half as high with most in the 130m to 160m range. The area really needs some towers in the 180m to 220m range to balance out the ED skyline if these are built. With the current height outside of Mirvish row limited to 157m, Gehry's towers will literally dwarf everything in the area.

 

[buildup]

However, there's a point you're overlooking, which isn't about the towers themselves, but about what they're replacing. And I'm sorry to dredge that issue up again; but it's worth considering because a good number of those doing the complaining wouldn't, actually, have an objection to the towers themselves if it weren't for what's presently on-site. It's not about height or urban form, it's about heritage.

And that point you're overlooking is compounded by your invocation of NYC, Chicago, Tokyo, etc. Because you're offering an if they were proposed scenario, without considering a where they were proposed scenario. And I'll betcha that in any of those centres, if such a proposal threatened anything that could be construed as "heritage"--you'll find objection. And those concerned about the "heritage issue" in Toronto would be no less concerned if a similar issue arose in those cities. And vice versa--heritage-cognizant New Yorkers wouldn't blame their Torontonian counterparts for their concern. You talk about "world-class, iconic"; yet there's a reason why the label "world-class" is too often associated with airheaded rubes.

Sure, in raw terms, if such a scheme came to pass in Tokyo, a lot of us would be saying "oh, wow". But if the subtext was of such a scheme replacing this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakagin_Capsule_Tower
a lot of us would be saying "oh, dear"...

Whenever the term 'heritage' is invoked that referred to is elevated merely because is already there. I'm sorry, even by Toronto's standards that whole strip is currently unimpressive. It is not a special experience walking along that block in the way King West of Spadina is for example. In fact, I find the architecture to be quite unattractive currently.

 

[gristle]

I'm sorry, even by Toronto's standards that whole strip is currently unimpressive.

Unimpressive how? That you don't like the way it looks? That's the measure of heritage for you?

Relax, Mirvish is out to do his development. Because planning in this city is so crippled, he'll likely get to build some version of his three sticks.

 

[innsertnamehere]

The only historically significant building on the stretch I'd the one directly to the East of the princess of whales. And this strip is more than a worthy sacrifice for a development that will likely shape this city for years to come.

 

[blacktrojan3921]

Keep in mind though, the Princess of Wales theatre is not even that old, it was build in 1993.

 

[Bloor101]

Whenever the term 'heritage' is invoked that referred to is elevated merely because is already there. I'm sorry, even by Toronto's standards that whole strip is currently unimpressive. It is not a special experience walking along that block in the way King West of Spadina is for example. In fact, I find the architecture to be quite unattractive currently.

I don't think it is just about heritage...Why do we have to destroy an entire block of Restaurants, theatres, offices, bars, etc??? When do we rename the entertainment district to something more appropriate? In 10 years there will not be any entertainment there. What a joke...

 

[Tewder]

However, there's a point you're overlooking, which isn't about the towers themselves, but about what they're replacing. And I'm sorry to dredge that issue up again; but it's worth considering because a good number of those doing the complaining wouldn't, actually, have an objection to the towers themselves if it weren't for what's presently on-site. It's not about height or urban form, it's about heritage.

And that point you're overlooking is compounded by your invocation of NYC, Chicago, Tokyo, etc. Because you're offering an if they were proposed scenario, without considering a where they were proposed scenario. And I'll betcha that in any of those centres, if such a proposal threatened anything that could be construed as "heritage"--you'll find objection. And those concerned about the "heritage issue" in Toronto would be no less concerned if a similar issue arose in those cities. And vice versa--heritage-cognizant New Yorkers wouldn't blame their Torontonian counterparts for their concern. You talk about "world-class, iconic"; yet there's a reason why the label "world-class" is too often associated with airheaded rubes.

Sure, in raw terms, if such a scheme came to pass in Tokyo, a lot of us would be saying "oh, wow". But if the subtext was of such a scheme replacing this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakagin_Capsule_Tower
a lot of us would be saying "oh, dear"...

+1 (sorry, couldn't resist)



... and let's not forget the loss of the POW and a sizeable strip of already successful urban fabric, heritage or otherwise. It makes no sense to tear up tracts of downtown that are already vibrant to create (what will likely be) dead zones of monolithic development... and hey I'm just going by precedent here. It's not a smart trade-off given that there are excellent alternatives being used elsewhere in the city, including keeping the existing fabric of buildings as podiums for new Gehry-designed towers. Amenities, art galleries and Gehry's touches could be incorporated. Everybody wins.

 

[buildup]

Unimpressive how? That you don't like the way it looks? That's the measure of heritage for you?

Relax, Mirvish is out to do his development. Because planning in this city is so crippled, he'll likely get to build some version of his three sticks.

Looks is obviously a big part of it. Why not?
Few of the buildings are old or distinctive.
The theatre to be demolished is ordinary and very new.
The whole areas has alredy been chopped.

Perhaps you can explain what heritage means to you?

 

[adma]

Looks is obviously a big part of it. Why not?
Few of the buildings are old or distinctive.
The theatre to be demolished is ordinary and very new.
The whole areas has alredy been chopped.

Perhaps you can explain what heritage means to you?

More latently, allowing-for expansive than yours, that's for sure.And you'd surely get dirty looks from this kind of crowd.

But you all have to realize that the reason I brought it up has nothing to do with my opinion, but rather with a realistic assessment of the broader context of discussion and concern here. And if you're going to voice opinions like buildup's above, you're only betraying your own remoteness from the overall realm of heritage (or just plain existing-urban-context) discussion.

Which, as I like to say, may be understandable if your formative landing within an Urban Toronto context was as a skyscraper/development/new-construction geek rather than what I may broadly paint as an "existing conditions" geek--because the former is, as a rule, not as "naturalized" t/w a heritage-centric perspective in beholding what surrounds us.

But, look: whatever your judgment is, the fact is that much of this block has already been (inconveniently or not) judged "heritage", all the way to the provincial-designation level, Yes, it's perhaps a can-of-worms situation, but...swallow it. It exists, whether you like it or not.

And because it exists...it's going to be made an issue. In fact, that, more than the density or condo-overload or existing-infrastructure-overload issue, is the central item in Mirvish/Gehry's way, much as the casino issue is re Foster at the Convention Centre. Heritage.

So what shocks me in the previous couple pages of comments re "if this were in New York or Chicago or Tokyo" is how the tone of discussion completely skirted that issue, both in terms of Toronto and in terms of NYC/Chicago/Tokyo hypotheticals.

It shouldn't skirt that issue. As I said, if a similar "heritage issue" arose in those burgs, there'd be controversy, too.

And as I also emphasized, there's plenty of people who actually wouldn't have a problem w/Mirvish/Gehry--even outright embrace it--if it weren't for what's already on-site. And BIG FREAKING DEAL if what's presently on-site is "less important"--you don't deny it or the "issues involved" altogether, whether you're in Toronto or in NYC or in Chicago or in Toronto...

 

[buildup]

More latently, allowing-for expansive than yours, that's for sure.And you'd surely get dirty looks from this kind of crowd.

But you all have to realize that the reason I brought it up has nothing to do with my opinion, but rather with a realistic assessment of the broader context of discussion and concern here. And if you're going to voice opinions like buildup's above, you're only betraying your own remoteness from the overall realm of heritage (or just plain existing-urban-context) discussion.

Which, as I like to say, may be understandable if your formative landing within an Urban Toronto context was as a skyscraper/development/new-construction geek rather than what I may broadly paint as an "existing conditions" geek--because the former is, as a rule, not as "naturalized" t/w a heritage-centric perspective in beholding what surrounds us.

But, look: whatever your judgment is, the fact is that much of this block has already been (inconveniently or not) judged "heritage", all the way to the provincial-designation level, Yes, it's perhaps a can-of-worms situation, but...swallow it. It exists, whether you like it or not.

And because it exists...it's going to be made an issue. In fact, that, more than the density or condo-overload or existing-infrastructure-overload issue, is the central item in Mirvish/Gehry's way, much as the casino issue is re Foster at the Convention Centre. Heritage.

So what shocks me in the previous couple pages of comments re "if this were in New York or Chicago or Tokyo" is how the tone of discussion completely skirted that issue, both in terms of Toronto and in terms of NYC/Chicago/Tokyo hypotheticals.

It shouldn't skirt that issue. As I said, if a similar "heritage issue" arose in those burgs, there'd be controversy, too.

And as I also emphasized, there's plenty of people who actually wouldn't have a problem w/Mirvish/Gehry--even outright embrace it--if it weren't for what's already on-site. And BIG FREAKING DEAL if what's presently on-site is "less important"--you don't deny it or the "issues involved" altogether, whether you're in Toronto or in NYC or in Chicago or in Toronto...

Adma it seems you have as much trouble articulating heritage as I do - but at least I attempted. I will openly admit that this project appeals to me greatly. Bringing up the Hamilton analogy is silly, those low-rise derilict buildings in Hamilton are very attractive and should be restored. But with the south side of King already demolished for David Pecault Park, Roy Thompson Hall, and further South the Ritz I just cant see what some people are so obsessed about in this particular instance. Where is the heritage value? Why is this stretch of buildings Heritage?

 

[RC8]

Because it's everything that's left. Those buildings confer King W a human scale that has hugely contributed to its success as a destination. I don't mind the towers, but I would like to see some of the current buildings remain in one way or another.

 

[adma]

And another thing: not only was the south side was demolished eons ago, it was a different urban kettle of fish. What stood there into the mid-late 70s was rail yards bookended by a CP freight building (which *was* listed, and probably would be a more vocal heritage issue today) and a Victorian-era corner restaurant sort of thing (ramshackle albeit IIRC also listed). Whereas what we're dealing with here is something that's not only of greater unitary urban substance--and in strictly physical terms, even if one were to quibble with the "heritage worth" issue--but also something that, over the past approaching-on-half-a-century, has already been treated in de facto "heritage" terms. To offer this "south side already demolished" argument is asinine, because it's like saying that just because the other corner banks at Bay and King were demolished, Scotia Plaza's developers should have been free to demolish their corner building as well. (Yeah, well, they *could have*, but...)

Look, buildup. If you dredge back through all the pages in this thread, the links offered, etc. you'll have your answer re the "where is the heritage value" question--which, ultimately, is less about what *you* think, than about the context of heritage activism and discussion today, as opposed to 50, 40, or even 30 or 20 years ago. And if it *still* hasn't drilled itself into your head--well, again, times have changed. Keep in mind that the recent heritage-specific controversy over, say, the Reynolds Block or 81 Wellesley East has been a *lot* more electrifying than it might have been a generation ago--and in the case of 81 Wellesley, we're dealing w/something that (if I may play devil's advocate) is arguably at least as "unimportant", heritage-wise, as the Gehry/Mirvish block...

 

[buildup]

And another thing: not only was the south side was demolished eons ago, it was a different urban kettle of fish. What stood there into the mid-late 70s was rail yards bookended by a CP freight building (which *was* listed, and probably would be a more vocal heritage issue today) and a Victorian-era corner restaurant sort of thing (ramshackle albeit IIRC also listed). Whereas what we're dealing with here is something that's not only of greater unitary urban substance--and in strictly physical terms, even if one were to quibble with the "heritage worth" issue--but also something that, over the past approaching-on-half-a-century, has already been treated in de facto "heritage" terms. To offer this "south side already demolished" argument is asinine, because it's like saying that just because the other corner banks at Bay and King were demolished, Scotia Plaza's developers should have been free to demolish their corner building as well. (Yeah, well, they *could have*, but...)

Look, buildup. If you dredge back through all the pages in this thread, the links offered, etc. you'll have your answer re the "where is the heritage value" question--which, ultimately, is less about what *you* think, than about the context of heritage activism and discussion today, as opposed to 50, 40, or even 30 or 20 years ago. And if it *still* hasn't drilled itself into your head--well, again, times have changed. Keep in mind that the recent heritage-specific controversy over, say, the Reynolds Block or 81 Wellesley East has been a *lot* more electrifying than it might have been a generation ago--and in the case of 81 Wellesley, we're dealing w/something that (if I may play devil's advocate) is arguably at least as "unimportant", heritage-wise, as the Gehry/Mirvish block...

You are essentially saying you 'are not neccessarily against the Mirvish project, but are raising what amount to objections anyway because the arguments are relevant elsewhere?'

 

[adma]

You are essentially saying you 'are not neccessarily against the Mirvish project, but are raising what amount to objections anyway because the arguments are relevant elsewhere?'

Well, it's good to take a disinterested third party position, even if one knows darn well that the arguments are relevant here. And it's also akin to being, well, not against the TD Centre as a fait accompli, yet still lamenting the loss of Carrere & Hastings' Bank of Toronto.

And buildup: from your tone, maybe a different question would be: even if Gehry weren't a factor, would you question the heritage factor in this block, to the point where I have to "explain it to you, because you can't see it"? Because if that's the case, all I can answer is: Are. You. Out. Of. Your. Freaking. Head...,

 

[Oliver Tweed]

I don't see a lot of merit in some of the objections I've heard so far. I sounds like people are just afraid of change. Save the heritage buildings? I just don't see much here that history would judge as more important that what's being proposed. I'm generally in favour of protecting what's worth protecting, but I just don't buy that there's much here that's worth protecting. The end of the entertainment district? One theatre does not a district make. Plus you'd be adding arguably the most renowned development in the country, which would raise this district's profile, not lower it. Three tall buildings don't look nice together? Based on what? Grouping things in threes is generally very aesthetically pleasing. Three is a fundamental number in everything from literature to religion -- and particularly design. In my opinion the design is strengthened by the fact that there are three towers. They would be instantly recognizable on the skyline.