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

AlvinofDiaspar said:
Indeed - PoW is the part of the strip that probably resonated most with the average person - be it due to their personal experience with the building or simply by its' namesake. We aren't talking about the architecture or heritage qualities here.

AoD
Click to expand...

Why not? Who can predict with 100% accuracy what future generations may have come to appreciate in the POW, as architecture? Good grief, when will we ever learn to stop tearing down buildings in this city just because we are too myopic to see their long term value?? Regardless, as mentioned in the article you posted, its loss will certainly be felt as a theatrical venue, and an excellent one at that, no matter what the current climate for theatre in Toronto might be (besides, just wait a while, it'll change again).

Otherwise, I find most of the points in the article to be silly and fairly self-serving. Aubrey Dan for instance, “David’s vision makes more economic sense, especially in his location. The value per acre of raw land is probably worth more than the building’s net value today.†Ok, fine, but does this really justify tearing down a theatre? Based on this probably all of the houses on Broadway should be knocked down too, or in the West End. I mean, is anybody in commercial theatre foolish enough to not understand that there are many better ways to make bigger bucks with the same investment dollars? Then again, this is what I've always suspected about Mirvish, that he cares more about his paintings than he does about theatre. Not a crime but why not just be honest about it?
 
Sure, but if you use this logic without care, one better be ready to apply it to every tin shack that comes along on the odd chance they'd be seen as Taj Mahal 500 years later. Now that's a far-sightedness in historicity I can't claim to have. We've been through this issue before in this very thread, surely we don't need to rehash it again, especially since my statement on PoW prior was merely an observation of the lens through which the average person connects with PoW.

As to the issue of self-serving - aren't we all, even when we claim otherwise? As much as I agree with preservationism, even thw most noble of desires for such (worth of history, leaving something behind for future generations, etc) is really about transmitting our ideals forward in time and making us feel better in that process.

AoD
 
Last edited:
AlvinofDiaspar said:
We aren't talking about the architecture or heritage qualities here.
Click to expand...

Though as per my earlier point, I'd counter-offer "but subliminally, that could also be a factor"--after all, going back 20 years, there was no argument about PoW being a thing of quality: Postmodern urbanism at its best, back before the PoMo label became terminally tied in with vulgar/reactionary retro-schlock (and which a bit of actual reflective/contextual "heritage element" for good measure, in how it related to and even incorporated its neighbours). And it's much because of that that it's always, to this day, resonated well, aesthetically, even, with the general public: the perfect compliment to the "middlebrow at its best" nature of Mirvish musicals (or, for that matter, its iconic namesake). You'll find few who'll harbour a grudge t/w its physical appearance--yet it's that happy-go-lucky middlebrowness that also, presently, happens to be the biggest decreed strike against it.

But technically, you're correct. Due in part to its comparative youth and all, architecture and "heritage qualities" *aren't* such an over-and-above factor here. Sentiment is.
 
Certainly the OCAD U and Gallery spaces will be counted as a significant Section 37 benefits.

42
 
BREAKING: MIRVISH+GEHRY REDUCED TO A FRACTION OF THE SIZE DUE TO TYPO

A mysterious decimal was placed on the revised development applications for all three structures. Instead of reading, 82, 84, and 86 storeys, City planning officials discovered the typo on the applications to read 8.2, 8.4, and 8.6 storeys. Rather than correcting the error, and fearing the locals who would oppose the original super-tall development, Council unanimously decided to grant full approval to the application as-is. Look for Phase 1 at 8.2 storeys to come to market later this year. Disappointing news for some. But Happy April 1st :p
 
Among other things, this gives us the exact heights of the initial design towers:

Tower 2 - 86 storeys
284.0m / 931.8 feet
289.8m / 950.8 feet to mechanical roof

Tower 3 - 84 storeys
278.1m / 912.4 feet
286m / 938.3 feet to mechanical roof

Tower 1 - 82 storeys
271.5m / 890.7 feet
278.6m / 914.0 feet to mechanical roof

edit -- it appears that these numbers were already known before the documents were released
 
Last edited:
Meaning we already have the rounded numbers in the dataBase? Yup! (I wish it would allow for decimal points, but it doesn't.)

42
 
kris said:
Missed for what? supertall? 300m= 984feet. 950.8m of the tallest tower is a 33 foot difference.
Click to expand...

Now your just rubbing salt on the poor fella's wounds by telling that we were so close to having an official supertall but missed the mark by a couple of dozen feet >: lol
 
blacktrojan3921 said:
Now your just rubbing salt on the poor fella's wounds by telling that we were so close to having an official supertall but missed the mark by a couple of dozen feet >: lol
Click to expand...

they could always add a pole like at the trump and make it over 300m to make it a supertall. :cool:
 
I think I've said before I'd really like this development if were replacing some bad urbanism or a brownfield on the waterfront, instead of some handsome heritage buildings that the owners agreed to designate.

At any rate, yesterday a link to the planning site was posted. I had a look at the architectural plans, the Rationale, and the Heritage Impact Assessment. Largely marketing documents, a whole lot of self-serving speciosity going on in there. Section 5.5 of the Rationale addresses the King-Spadina Secondary Plan, without so much as noting that it says:

2.5 Heritage buildings and other important buildings within the King-Spadina Area will be retained, restored and re-used.

and

4.1 Heritage buildings in the King-Spadina Area are essential elements of the physical character. In this regard, the City will seek the retention, conservation, rehabilitation, re-use and restoration of heritage buildigns by means of one or more appropriate legal agreements.

According the Heritage document, essentially, it's all right to tear down the old warehouses because their primary value is their association with the Mirvishes. So if the Mirvishes demolish them and put up shiny new buildings, the heritage value is retained.

I guess Pellatt's family could re-purchase Casa Loma and replace it with a parkade. What could some people named Gooderham or Eaton get up to?

Do you feel the ground sliding out from under you yet?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top