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

[DtTO]

^ Well said!

 

[bmiller]

I concur.

 

[RC8]

The Anderson building is not just a warehouse.

Perhaps if we had not already wiped out 80% of Toronto's history and replaced it with soul-sucking wind-swept grey streets between skyscrapers, people would be a lot less sensitive to the loss of these warehouses.

Mies famously ordered the destruction of this when he built the Toronto Dominion Centre:

They were incompatible, he said. Today we know we could have had both.

 

[44 North]

I don't like suburban subdivisions because I think they exclude poor and young people, and I don't like 80-story residential buildings because they tend to exclude families and older people. (though I define tall as 40+ stories, which is quite generous of me)

Most people living in condos today are choosing to move out to the suburbs to raise their families, and I find that regrettable - since most would like to stay put if it were friendly and affordable to do so. I would like to see us guide Toronto's development to accommodate more of those who'd like to live here, rather than just one very specific transient demographic who can afford it. I am looking forward to higher densities in this area, and to the many new buildings that will undoubtedly make it a better place than it is today - one way or another.

Well said. What this city has been creating over the last couple of decades are subdivisions, of the vertical variety. Each floor being a cul de sac, with many of the cons of faceless sprawl being interchangeable. What's unfortunate is that these condos are significantly more focused in their target demographic (average or above income, NO KIDS) than the cookie cutter homes in suburbia. I know everyone will pounce on me and dissect the subdivision/condo reference, but it's what many see.

As for everyone saying the warehouses 'provide nothing', or stretching as far as to say they 'detract from the area'...that's somewhat preposterous. The amalgam of warehouses on King East and West, and their incorporation to mixed-use from industrial single-use has very much provided something. A tangible, financial return to the city for one. And the city allowing itself to embrace its mediocre, industrial, turn-of-the-century past. That's the history. TO was never great, grand, or important. Regardless, there has been no detraction from these former warehouses, and it's ridiculous to say otherwise. And the Jane Jacobs arguments of buildings of this sort have been used enough, so I won't go there.

And just to reinforce the obvious: this is six buildings, over a stretch almost 200m long.

 

[DtTO]

They were incompatible, he said. Today we know we could have had both.

The minimalism of TD Centre is perhaps one of its most impressive architectural features. The uniformity of everything (even down to the PATH signage) in the complex has a large impact on the cohesiveness of the towers. No, we don't know that we could've had both, and if you're telling me that you would've rather had that (banking hall?) over TD Centre, I suggest you speak for yourself.

 

[renvel]

warehouses

Well said. What this city has been creating over the last couple of decades are subdivisions, of the vertical variety. Each floor being a cul de sac, with many of the cons of faceless sprawl being interchangeable. What's unfortunate is that these condos are significantly more focused in their target demographic (average or above income, NO KIDS) than the cookie cutter homes in suburbia. I know everyone will pounce on me and dissect the subdivision/condo reference, but it's what many see.

As for everyone saying the warehouses 'provide nothing', or stretching as far as to say they 'detract from the area'...that's somewhat preposterous. The amalgam of warehouses on King East and West, and their incorporation to mixed-use from industrial single-use has very much provided something. A tangible, financial return to the city for one. And the city allowing itself to embrace its mediocre, industrial, turn-of-the-century past. That's the history. TO was never great, grand, or important. Regardless, there has been no detraction from these former warehouses, and it's ridiculous to say otherwise. And the Jane Jacobs arguments of buildings of this sort have been used enough, so I won't go there.

And just to reinforce the obvious: this is six buildings, over a stretch almost 200m long.

What I'm the most afraid of is so called compromise solution. Or you build the project as envisioned by it creator Or live the whole block (POW Theatre included) alone...

 

[sentinel]

I know this would be expensive, but would it be possible to save the facades, move them to an empty lot and rebuild the rest of the heritage building there?

 

[E.B.]

This is one of the best arguments made for M+G to go ahead.

http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2013/03/williamsburg-skyline-brooklyn-waterfront-redesign

"The architects at SHoP have realized what too few community groups are willing to admit, which is that bulk, not height, is what damages the skyline. Tall, thin buildings look elegant in a city; lower, bulkier ones, unless they are filling in a hole in a street wall, can look dull and clunky."

“contextualism is an opiate for the masses.†It was not what you would call a politically correct statement in this age of hyper-sensitivity to neighborhoods, landmarks, historic districts, and small scale, when everybody wants each new building to “fit in,†whatever that means, and buildings that look different from what has been built before are an automatic no-no to many community groups."

"the Domino plan suggests that developers in New York just might, at long last, be starting to shake themselves free of the mediocre and confining design models they have been using forever, and to create housing that is genuinely exciting for everyone to look at."

"The scheme, designed by the architect Rafael Vinoly for another developer, was strikingly ordinary as architecture but exactly the kind of thing that results from the combination of caution and desire to please community groups that so often affects planning in New York."

 

[RC8]

The minimalism of TD Centre is perhaps one of its most impressive architectural features. The uniformity of everything (even down to the PATH signage) in the complex has a large impact on the cohesiveness of the towers. No, we don't know that we could've had both, and if you're telling me that you would've rather had that (banking hall?) over TD Centre, I suggest you speak for yourself.

They could have easily coexisted side by side, much like Nathan Phillips Square's modernism is greatly enhanced by Old City Hall. Had it survived, it would be a favourite among many, and Mies' prophetic juxtaposition would be praised ad nauseam.

I know that you and others would have loved this proposal from way back when:

 

[junctionist]

The world may not even care so much about this project because Gehry already made a name for himself and isn't breaking any new ground. It's the same with the T-D Centre. Whenever people talk about Mies van der Rohe's signature building, they always mention the Seagram Building or the Barcelona Pavilion. Mies kept refining his style, but it's the earliest, strongest examples of an architect's work that live on as the most prominent in the world.

 

[Strange Advance]

I know it's an unpopular view, but I love the never-realized Eaton's proposal seen above.

 

[RC8]

Funnily enough, most of that proposal could have easily gone ahead without touching Old City Hall.

 

[44 North]

This is one of the best arguments made for M+G to go ahead.

http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2013/03/williamsburg-skyline-brooklyn-waterfront-redesign

Not really. The focus of the article is about a plan that actually incorporates the heritage buildings, instead of tearing them down. And what existed on the site is abandoned and closed to the public. M + G on the other hand is an otherwise active and working part of the city's downtown fabric, and their proposal completely obliterates all the buildings without attempting incorporation.

Another point about the proposal found in that article is that the units added are in line with the site's size, comparative to nearby Williamsburg neighbourhoods. You'd be hard pressed to find anywhere in TO with the kind of density proposed with M+G (~4,000 people housed in 0.25 of a block).

 

[E.B.]

Not really. The focus of the article is about a plan that actually incorporates the heritage buildings, instead of tearing them down. And what existed on the site is abandoned and closed to the public. M + G on the other hand is an otherwise active and working part of the city's downtown fabric, and their proposal completely obliterates all the buildings without attempting incorporation.

Another point about the proposal found in that article is that the units added are in line with the site's size, comparative to nearby Williamsburg neighbourhoods. You'd be hard pressed to find anywhere in TO with the kind of density proposed with M+G (~4,000 people housed in 0.25 of a block).

These are the take-away points from article.

"The architects at SHoP have realized what too few community groups are willing to admit, which is that bulk, not height, is what damages the skyline. Tall, thin buildings look elegant in a city; lower, bulkier ones, unless they are filling in a hole in a street wall, can look dull and clunky."

“contextualism is an opiate for the masses.†It was not what you would call a politically correct statement in this age of hyper-sensitivity to neighborhoods, landmarks, historic districts, and small scale, when everybody wants each new building to “fit in,†whatever that means, and buildings that look different from what has been built before are an automatic no-no to many community groups."

 

[yyzer]

Funnily enough, most of that proposal could have easily gone ahead without touching Old City Hall.

What you are implying, of course, is that M-G could go ahead in a way that doesn't touch the so-called heritage warehouses....the difference between the two scenarios is huge however...Old City Hall is a significant building with major heritage attributes, whereas the buildings along King are average at best - surely it's obvious that these are not in the same league....

Contextualism has its place, but occasionally you have to step outside, in order to lift the city up by a quantum leap....otherwise, we would never have gotten the TD Centre, would we?