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

Toronto already has landmarks, notably the CN Tower. It makes me sad that it's thought that for some reason we should build this because we need to "be like NYC and Chicago!!!"

No one is saying we need to be like other cities. Toronto is a city where mediocre "developers" have far too much power. Gehry is one of the few architects that can get imaginative and thought provoking designs built and thus raise the profile of architecture and architects in the city. We finally get a project that's going to break our glass skyline and people are already complaining, unbelievable.
 
No one is saying we need to be like other cities. Toronto is a city where mediocre "developers" have far too much power. Gehry is one of the few architects that can get imaginative and thought provoking designs built and thus raise the profile of architecture and architects in the city. We finally get a project that's going to break our glass skyline and people are already complaining, unbelievable.

Because city-building is not just about skylines and creating purpose-built icons. That's not sustainable. You don't build three massive residential towers because you want to make a statement. If a development is reasonable and makes sense, its design evolves and develops and hopefully becomes something that the city can be proud of. But there's nothing sustainable or reasonable about building something like this because you want a purpose-built landmark. This building is not being designed from the ground up. It's being conceptualized from the top-down, with Mirvish going "I want to build a massive unmistakable ICON!" and going from there, filling in the rest of the details afterwards. It's unsustainable and it's not an appropriate development as it's been proposed, by any stretch of the imagination. The fact that the rest of the city is filled with forgetable/mediocre glass towers is a separate issue altogether and doesn't justify this development.

It blows my mind that so many of you guys look at these developments and evaluate them from the point of view of "It's not all glass or boxy" or "It's an icon on the skyline!" when there are so many real issues at stake in the world, and in the world of architecture. You ignore so many of the important issues because you want architectural glamour, height, shock value, etc... which is NOT how you build a good city or create quality architecture 99% of the time.
 
To be sure Vaughan had some nice things to say about the proposal but the last quote is the most telling. Vaughan is "confident that heritage and height concerns could be addressed". What concerns? Does Vaughan think the towers are too high? Does Vaughan think the heritage buildings should not be torn down as currently proposed? Does he support the project as proposed? Yes or no?

Unfortunately the way things work in this city - individual Councillors have way too much power when it comes to approving projects. The egotistical Adam Vaughan must be in his glory being in a position to dictate his demands and personal preferences to the great Frank Gehry.

So we can conclude from your comments that, since you are happy with the proposal, any concerns or even opposition is then wrong - even if there would possibly be some from the elected city councillor for the ward - which doesn't seem evident at this point (in a ward, might I remind you, containing neighbourhoods under incredible development pressures no less).

A blinkered view, to say the least.

As ward councillor, Vaughan will go looking to hear what local residents have to say (you know, people who live in the immediate area or have businesses there). That is how he works. That's how the process works. It isn't all about you.

It's fairly evident that Vaughan has been in discussions with Mirvish for quite a while - a strange thing to do for someone who would supposedly be opposed to the project. Also, Vaughan doesn't have absolute power as you somehow suggest. There have been many instances where projects opposed by ward councillors, residents, heritage and city planning have gone ahead because the developers ran off to the OMB to whine, and got what they wanted from an unelected provincial demi-tribunal that is concerned with little more than envelope and precedent.
 
As ward councillor, Vaughan will go looking to hear what local residents have to say (you know, people who live in the immediate area or have businesses there). That is how he works. That's how the process works. It isn't all about you.

It's fairly evident that Vaughan has been in discussions with Mirvish for quite a while - a strange thing to do for someone who would supposedly be opposed to the project. Also, Vaughan doesn't have absolute power as you somehow suggest. There have been many instances where projects opposed by ward councillors, residents, heritage and city planning have gone ahead because the developers ran off to the OMB to whine, and got what they wanted from an unelected provincial demi-tribunal that is concerned with little more than envelope and precedent.

Thank God for this post. You make numerous good points. It is deeply disturbing to me that so few people care about sustainability and the actual thinking and design behind proposals and the people affected by these developments on the long term.
 
Spire:

Because city-building is not just about skylines and creating purpose-built icons. That's not sustainable. You don't build three massive residential towers because you want to make a statement. If a development is reasonable and makes sense, its design evolves and develops and hopefully becomes something that the city can be proud of. But there's nothing sustainable or reasonable about building something like this because you want a purpose-built landmark. This building is not being designed from the ground up. It's being conceptualized from the top-down, with Mirvish going "I want to build a massive unmistakable ICON!" and going from there, filling in the rest of the details afterwards. It's unsustainable and it's not an appropriate development as it's been proposed, by any stretch of the imagination. The fact that the rest of the city is filled with forgetable/mediocre glass towers is a separate issue altogether and doesn't justify this development.

Actually city building does not preclude starting off with wanting to build an icon - it is a historical practice that has its' place in the development of any city (just think what, Beijing, Rome, Washington DC, Barcelona, Berlin, etc.) - and we don't reject them as cities that are developed illegitimately, in spite of the fact that some of them are literally planned to the T with monumentality in mind.

It blows my mind that so many of you guys look at these developments and evaluate them from the point of view of "It's not all glass or boxy" or "It's an icon on the skyline!" when there are so many real issues at stake in the world, and in the world of architecture. You ignore so many of the important issues because you want architectural glamour, height, shock value, etc... which is NOT how you build a good city or create quality architecture 99% of the time.

You are right, but would you put Gehry's architectural abilities in the 99%? We aren't building an entire city through the perspective of icon-making - it is something that has its' place. The issue is one of balance.

AoD
 
Last edited:
Well, I support this project because it truly excites me, but I won't lie: I'd support it wholeheartedly if it didn't replace an entire block of well-proportioned, vibrant, functioning, historic and meaningful buildings that already contribute much, much more than average to the cultural landscape of this city.

It's the Toronto dilemma: we build our city by replacing the good with the good, the bad with the bad. Why must Gehry replace a row of theatres or Barton Myers? Why must Correa's Aga Khan replace Parkin's Bata building? Why must the L-tower protrude from the Hummingbird Centre? Conversely, why must a desolate wasteland of former railtracks be replaced with the desolate monotony of Southcore? Why are parking lots replaced with spandreled monsters that can barely support a dry cleaners? It reminds me of that line in the Wire: "the game never changes, only the players do."
 
Literally hundreds, if not thousands of mundane buildings get built every year in Toronto, but when one proposal comes forward to do something spectacular to the highest standard in the world, one hears so many people saying that a 'city of nothing but landmarks will look ugly', as if that's what's truly at stake. That fear hardly seems grounded in the reality of what gets built in the city. Let's do this thing for Toronto. It's not to be Chicago or New York, it's to show the world what we're capable of, to give the world another city to admire, and it's to represent our city and culture for a start. We don't have to do it this way, but here's an opportunity and we ought to take it.

Still, we should be most cautious about what we are prepared lose--a great theatre and heritage buildings are at stake. Many cities would love to have a theatre like the Princes of Wales bolstering the cultural and entertainment scene and heritage buildings like the warehouse where new businesses and culture flourish surrounded in a warm, historical atmosphere. How often do we see examples in the Toronto "Then and Now" thread of massive 1960s projects that demolished more than what was necessary, leaving an utterly trivial part of the complex where a great building once stood? The towers at King and Bay could have been built in other places in the city, not where the finest architecture of the city was already standing. Lots of cities would have loved to have those fine buildings preserved. To have both the ornate and monumental streetscapes of the 19th and early 20th centuries on King and Bay and the incredible skyscrapers of the present financial district would have made our city better. We shouldn't be destroying the good things we have even if the replacement will be great.
 
Last edited:
Since when did the motherhood term "sustainability" get attached to these discussions? What does it mean in this context? Are we referring to preserving an underused theatre? I'd suggest that wasting important urban real estate is non-sustainable. If people are moving to Toronto anyway, stacking many of them downtown on top of transit is very sustainable. Are we talking about sustaining pedestrian space on the sidewalks, vehicle room on the road, or capacity on public transit? If so, these are things cities do in response to existing or expected congestion. So lets get moving on infrastructure independently. These buildings are still 5-7 years away.
 
If people are moving to Toronto anyway, stacking many of them downtown on top of transit is very sustainable. Are we talking about sustaining pedestrian space on the sidewalks, vehicle room on the road, or capacity on public transit? If so, these are things cities do in response to existing or expected congestion. So lets get moving on infrastructure independently. These buildings are still 5-7 years away.

Yes, let's widen King Street along this stretch - and install a ROW streetcar for all the new residents! And let's widen the sidewalks, too.

All sounds so easy to do, but it isn't.
 
From Bloomberg News


Gehry Too-Tall Condo Towers Built for Bull Market: Mortgages
By Katia Dmitrieva and Sean B. Pasternak - Oct 5, 2012 10:51 AM ET


Architect Frank Gehry is designing three condo towers in Toronto that would be North America’s tallest residences. His latest contribution to his home town comes as the Canadian government is trying to cool the market after home prices surged 85 percent in the past decade.

The three sculpture-like towers, funded by theater promoter David Mirvish, will rise as high as 85 floors beside a century- old theater and near the Gehry-designed Art Gallery of Ontario. The skyscrapers, with a combined 2,600 residential units, will compete with hundreds of other projects in a city with more residential buildings under construction than anywhere else in North America.
Enlarge image Gehry's Tallest North American Towers Signal Canada Condo Peak


“We’ve definitely reached a peak and we’re on the way down,†Ben Myers, executive vice president of Urbanation Inc., a real estate research firm, said in a phone interview from Toronto. “We didn’t anticipate these kinds of super projects coming onto the market.â€

The building boom coincides with slowing property sales and prices after Canadian Finance Minister Jim Flaherty in June imposed tougher mortgage lending rules for the fourth time in as many years. Existing home sales fell 19 percent last month from a year earlier, based on data compiled by Bloomberg from six regional real estate boards. Sales in Toronto dropped 21 percent, even as prices rose 8.6 percent.

Toronto condo sales were down 29 percent in September over the same month last year, according to the city’s real estate board. Prices of units rose 8 percent to C$377,422 ($385,000). The average sale price for a home in Toronto surged to C$465,412 in 2011 from C$251,208 in 2001.
‘Condo Bubble’

“Of course the condo bubble in Toronto is on my mind, but we’re in the early beginnings of it,†Gehry said on Oct. 1, at a press conference about the project at the Art Gallery of Ontario. “The culture of the city and the condo boom has nothing to do with me. That’s your problem.â€

Even as the market is softening, a record 224 condo projects with 58,995 units are under construction in Toronto, according to the most recent data from RealNet Canada Inc., which tracks housing across the country. More than a quarter of these are in the same area as the planned Mirvish, Gehry project along King Street, west of the city’s financial core, according to RealNet.

Flaherty criticized “continuous building, without restriction†of condos as the central bank signaled record consumer debt and the chance of a sudden housing correction are major risks to the economy.
‘Economics Work’

The government shortened the maximum amortization period on mortgages the government insures to 25 years from 30 years, and lowered the maximum amount homeowners can borrow against the value of their homes to 80 percent from 85 percent. Canada also capped mortgage debt payments at 39 percent of income and limited government mortgage insurance to homes worth less than C$1 million.

Gehry, the 1989 winner of the Pritzker Architecture Prize, was born Ephraim Owen Goldberg on Feb. 28, 1929, in Toronto, where his grandparents, Polish Jews, had settled.

“You can make architecture comfortable, it can engage, and Old Toronto had that,†Gehry said at the press conference. “My buildings are on budget, on time, they deliver some kind of feeling, people like them, and they pay off somehow. The economics work.â€
Dancing Building

He became a pioneer in using computer software to turn whimsical designs into precise building plans, and turned little-known Bilbao, Spain, into an international travel destination after he bested two competitors for the job of designing the New York-based Guggenheim’s branch museum there. Gehry’s first foray into designing skyscrapers, the 76-story rental apartment building at 8 Spruce St. in Lower Manhattan, opened in 2011 as New York’s tallest residential building.

Gehry’s Nationale-Nederlanden Building in Prague became known as the Dancing Building, or simply the Fred and Ginger, after dancers Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers, because of the way one tower appears to be embraced by the other.

Gehry’s Toronto towers are not the first ambitious project he’s embarked on as a market was reaching a peak. Construction of the architect’s 450,000-square-foot Guggenheim Abu Dhabi museum was halted in October 2011 by Tourism Development & Investment Co. as the emirate scaled back plans made before the financial crisis.
‘Risky Period’

The Toronto condo project “does seem a bit late,†said David Madani, an economist in Toronto with Capital Economics. “It’s definitely a more risky period to be thinking about building, particularly when inventories are very high and there’s already a backlog of work under construction.â€

The strongest sign that government efforts to damp the housing market came with the August home sales data, which showed sales falling the most in two years. That was the “first full glimpse†into Canadian housing after the mortgage rule changes, Sonya Gulati, senior economist at Toronto Dominion Bank (TD), said in a note to clients Sept. 17. The weakness in August home prices and sales was expected and the regulatory-induced cooling will continue for the next eight months, she said.

“The Canadian housing market has indeed ratcheted down its growth pace,†she said in the note. “In most local markets, it has reversed course with price and sales contractions becoming more the norm.â€

The Canadian housing industry fared better during the economic downturn than the U.S., said George Carras, president of RealNet. The main reason is that subprime mortgages made to people with poor credit history weren’t as prevalent. Banking regulators also required Canadian banks to have higher capital reserves, meaning none of the country’s lenders required government bailouts.
No Bubble

“I don’t think there is a bubble,†Flaherty told reporters yesterday. “I think there was the danger of a bubble in Toronto and Vancouver. I’m actually comfortable with the fact that we’ve seen some moderation in pressures.â€

Myers at Urbanation said there’s certainly potential for pricing to go down in the market. “But the unknown in the market is the fact that we have a high percentage of investors and if the market declines, we don’t know what their strategy will be,†he said.

“We are essentially in year 16 or 17 of an increasing market so it’s very hard for me to finally say ’yes, this is the time when we’re going to see major declines in the market.’â€
Right Pricing

The Mirvish, Gehry project has a better chance to succeed than most condos as long as “pricing is right†because it is a landmark project in the city and “investors are looking for Triple-A sites, which would have the better appreciation going forward,†he said.

The housing market in Toronto has “normalized,†James Ritchie, senior vice president at Toronto-based Tridel, said in a phone interview.

“There are opportunities for many more new developments over the next 10, 20 years in this city,†he said. Even with the growth, this year will “pale in comparison†to last year’s “velocity,†and the city will add about 16,500 new unit sales in 2012, he said. “By any standard on this continent, it’s still pretty darn good.â€

Mirvish says he’s not concerned about a housing bubble in Canada’s biggest city. “I can’t factor in a condo bubble,†he said at the unveiling of the building design this week. “Frank’s 83 and I’m 68. The bubble will take care of itself.â€
‘Mamma Mia’

The second-generation theater executive is the son of the late Ed Mirvish, best known for founding Toronto’s “Honest Ed’s†discount department store. Together, the father and son built Toronto’s Princess of Wales Theatre in 1993, which will be leveled for construction of the three towers. He also owns and operates the Royal Alexandra Theatre, which will remain operational beside the new development.

Theatrical productions Mirvish helped to bring to Toronto include “Mamma Mia,†“The Producers,†“The Lion King,†“Les Miserables†and “The Lord Of The Rings.â€

The buildings are “transformative,†and their mixed use is exactly what Toronto needs, Mirvish said.

“I want to see the building accommodate the evolution of the city, and initially what there is in the city is demand for smaller units,†Mirvish said. “We’re drawing attention back to the center of the city; we’re giving it a sense of pride.â€

The project, under review by the city, would compete with other recent residential housing developments, including the Trump International Hotel and Tower, which opened this year, and the Holt Renfrew Tower, built on top of the luxury department store of the same name and due in 2017. The Mirvish towers will be up to 285 meters (935 feet) high, taller than both of these.
Art Collection

The towers will also include retail space and a public 60,000 square-foot museum to house artwork collected by Mirvish. The target market isn’t luxury condo dwellers but young people looking for smaller spaces, Mirvish said.

The first of the towers will need to be 70 percent sold to begin construction, estimated by the end of 2013, and the first tower should be completed in seven years, Peter Kofman, president of Projectcore Inc. and the project developer said.

“Regardless of what we see today, we have to be responsible, we have to be prudent,†Kofman said. “It could be one tower, two towers, three towers depending on where the market is.â€

In a crane-lined city with much condo competition, the project signals the tail end of the condo boom, Myers at Urbanation said.

“You have to stick out,†he said. “Just bringing on your regular tower may not do it anymore - unless the pricing is low.â€

To contact the reporters on this story: Katia Dmitrieva in Toronto at edmitrieva1@bloomberg.net; Sean B. Pasternak in Toronto at spasternak@bloomberg.net
 
A lot easier as well as sustainable to have them here as opposed to North York or Scarborough. Think about the car and transit requirements here as opposed to the suburbs. This project is a:

Win (for culture)
Win (for sustianability)
Win (for Toronto)
 
A lot easier as well as sustainable to have them here as opposed to North York or Scarborough. Think about the car and transit requirements here as opposed to the suburbs.

Exactly! It's better to see intensification here than 2600 housing units in Scarborough or the outer suburbs. I am a huge proponent of residential intensification in or near transit nodes and employment districts since it gives many people the option to live where the work and the ability to get around without the need of a car. It's a choice lacking in many American cities, especially in the south. According to a recent Toronto Planning Department study, 71.5 percent of downtown residents work in the downtown area. Even more astonishing is that 47 percent of downtown residents report that they walk to work or school. These are incredible numbers. It's a major success from an urban planning point of view and is a large part of the reason why Toronto has a thriving, 24-hour downtown.

The kicker is that these are high quality buildings designed by a world renowned architect. If these were three more glass condo boxes, 80-stories a piece, with no community or cultural benefits at the base, there would likely be little support for these buildings, especially from the local councilor. The Gehry + Mirvish proposal raises the bar for urban development in the city. Let's hope other developers aim higher and that city planners be given the tools to encourage a higher standard for development in the city. I'm sick of the focus on height and density. Spend more time on site plan review; how buildings meet the street. Encourage well designed buildings with some architectural diversity. The current crop of glass condo towers sitting on top of one or two story podiums clad in stucco or exposed precast is a wasted opportunity. I would have loved to see minimums of around six-stories for podiums, with commercial uses rather than just condo amenities, particularly in City Place.

One more thing.. as downtown continues to boom, at some point there will be political will (and pressure from the electorate) to fund expensive but vital transit improvements. It makes my blood boil as to why a subway to Vaughan or Fairview Mall receives priority over a DRL.
 
What this proposal does open up, however, is a discussion about who we are at this stage, where we are and what we value in this city, as it is now, and where we want it to go. Do we really care about liveability, heritage or the urban fabric, for example - an urban context that has developed over time into something we claim to very much appreciate about Toronto (even if we don't always appreciate its condition and state of repair) - or is it all up for grabs because we are so starved for quality, ambition, monumentality, and international status?

Yes, we do really care about all of those things you mentioned, but I don't see how this project would hurt Toronto's livability, there would be no significant heritage buildings being lost, and the urban fabric would most certainly be strengthened by this project. Greater density, world-renowned architecture, a new art gallery, an expansion of a university? I fail to see how these negatively affect our urban fabric. That notion seems preposterous to me. In fact, anyone that cares about Toronto's urban fabric should be begging for this thing to get built.

Having ambition is a good thing. So is demanding quality. And for me, having something exciting happen in my city makes me feel proud to live here. Does that make me starved for international status? I don't get it.
 

Back
Top