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

Meh. That first paragraph is meaningless and opinionated in a specific context. "Bulk" can mean many things and is pretty damn vague. And "tall, thin" can mean 30 stories, not 85.

The second paragraph doesn't really explain much and more or less points out the obvious that people will naturally be opposed to things like: height, unconformity, scale, etc. But again, the Brooklyn site is turning nothing (other than the historic landmarks) into something. This contrasts significantly with M+G's something for something.
 
yyzer said:
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 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?
Click to expand...

Honestly, what I see is a worrying trend of erasing history and ignoring context for the sake of profit.

If Gehry's project went ahead with the warehouses' facades moved somewhere close by (to replace buildings which were demolished for parking, etc) and tactfully incorporated into a mid-rise building - with perhaps the Anderson building's facade staying on site and incorporated within Gehry's design, that would be much easier to swallow.

As I said before, if Calatrava was able to accommodate a heritage facade, so can Gehry. I for one really hope to see 3 beautiful towers designed by Gehry on King St. once it's all said and done, with at least some heritage components preserved for posterity.

In many ways I think that the 'Toronto has no history' tag is a lot more hurtful to the city than the 'Toronto's architecture is lame' tag. Most visitors I get are horrified about how little left of Toronto's historical city is left. We are now even having to mobilise to protect many of our modernist landmarks.
 
Last edited:
Strange Advance said:
I know it's an unpopular view, but I love the never-realized Eaton's proposal seen above.
Click to expand...

Well, you have a point there--if one were to factor out what would have been sacrificed in whole or in part for said proposal, it would have been an impressive feat of c1970 SOM-iana, and probably cherished (or the inevitable subsequent alterations lamented) by today's "Concrete Toronto" retro-modernists. So in and of itself, it might not be as "unpopular" a view as you think--keeping in mind, of course, that "loving" and "retroactively advocating" are two different things.
 
jaycola said:
While some of you want to preserve these banal warehouses rather than allow something unusual and unique to replace them, I think by far the majority want us to replace them with something new and exciting.
Click to expand...

"By far the majority" of whom? Forum-posting skyscraper-and-new-architecture-geeks?

Look: if we're speaking of the public in general, "it's complicated". A plurality might, in fact, be indifferent fence-straddlers on the issue. But even if we factor that out, the main tripping point in your claim is the "to replace them with" part. Maybe "by far the majority" is willing to accept and embrace the "unusual and unique/new and exciting". But once we stick in "to replace them with", even if you still have a majority, you've automatically broke a big chunk of that off. Sort of like going from 75-to-25 to 55-to-45, which certainly isn't a "by far the" level of majority.

And just because you conveniently label the warehouses as bluntly, expendably "banal" (stowing aside for the moment the "as compared to Gehry" part), doesn't make it so simple as that. Because if it weren't for this present proposal, we wouldn't (aside from the DtTO-type lunatic fringe) likely be describing them in such dismissive terms. It's not to say we'd hail them as masterpieces; but, even if "banal", it's "good banal", like a great deal of happy-go-lucky everyday Toronto. And, moreover, it's "existing conditions", with all the warm-and-fuzzy familiarity that entails--even if it's on behalf of Gehry, to frame it as a universally-agreed-upon urban boil that needs lancing a la, say, Hudson's Bay Centre or various crummy taxpayer strips or freestanding 7-Eleven outlets will not go over as well as you think. And especially if you matter-of-factly present to people the row proposed for replacement, while refraining from Ford-bashing-the-LRT-esque weasel epithets like "banal" or glossing over the fact that they presently have some form of heritage status.

So, now you can see how that "by far the majority" can melt away. However, I'm also not claiming that "by far the majority" will be opposed, either--all I'm stressing is, "it's complicated". (OTOH, if there is a "by far the majority" in the other direction, it's the matter of judging said warehouses expendable "on behalf of much less", to use freshcutgrass's approximate erstwhile words.)
 
adma said:
Well, you have a point there--if one were to factor out what would have been sacrificed in whole or in part for said proposal, it would have been an impressive feat of c1970 SOM-iana, and probably cherished (or the inevitable subsequent alterations lamented) by today's "Concrete Toronto" retro-modernists. So in and of itself, it might not be as "unpopular" a view as you think--keeping in mind, of course, that "loving" and "retroactively advocating" are two different things.
Click to expand...
No, I actually don't endorse the part of the plan that was to lead to the demolition of Old City Hall. I am just a fan of the '60s minimalism/brutalism on display in that complex, which is aesthetically in the same vein as CCW, FCP, and, dare I say it, Mies's TD, all of which I'm fond of as well. The Eaton's towers just look tall, brawny, and no-nonsense, which appeals to me reflexively. They seem to be saying, "Move over. Here we are. Don't like it? Too bad."
 
Strange Advance said:
No, I actually don't endorse the part of the plan that was to lead to the demolition of Old City Hall. I am just a fan of the '60s minimalism/brutalism on display in that complex, which is aesthetically in the same vein as CCW, FCP, and, dare I say it, Mies's TD, all of which I'm fond of as well. The Eaton's towers just look tall, brawny, and no-nonsense, which appeals to me reflexively. They seem to be saying, "Move over. Here we are. Don't like it? Too bad."
Click to expand...

I think his point his point is that "We Run" to whatever is in vogue in the epoch. Blockbusting progressivism then, brick, post-and-beam conservatism now.
 
RC8 said:
20101121-eatoncentre.jpg
Click to expand...

God, I hate the Mad Men era.
 
Strange Advance said:
No, I actually don't endorse the part of the plan that was to lead to the demolition of Old City Hall. I am just a fan of the '60s minimalism/brutalism on display in that complex, which is aesthetically in the same vein as CCW, FCP, and, dare I say it, Mies's TD, all of which I'm fond of as well. The Eaton's towers just look tall, brawny, and no-nonsense, which appeals to me reflexively. They seem to be saying, "Move over. Here we are. Don't like it? Too bad."
Click to expand...

And I wasn't claiming that you would have endorsed any of that. In fact, dare I say, much the same and even more can be said about John Andrews' Metro Centre, proposed Union Station demolition notwithstanding...
 
I am often in favour of the heritage designations placed on important structures but this one block could be replaced with something of much greater value to the city. There are over 7000 buildings on the registry now. I don't think that forever preserving all of them can be the only option if we intend to build this city.

Maybe we can consider the economic contribution this project can make to the coffers of Toronto?

The entire development block is assessed at around $75 million. At the standard commercial tax rate, the Mirvishes are paying approximately $2.3 million annually for the right to hold these properties. To be honest, that is an astonishing amount of money considering the income potential.

What would the tax contribution of the Mirvish/Gehry proposal be if built?

2600 residential units are planned. At a conservative value of average $500,000 per unit, that would be a realty value of $1,300,000,000.
At the present mill rate of 0.7457653%, the realty tax contribution of the residential units could be about $9.7 million annually.

Also planned is 140,000 square feet of commercial space. AAA commercial space will be valued at at least $500 per square foot. That's a modest $70 Million for the commercial component. At the commercial tax rate of 3.0355262%, that would add an additional $2.12 million annually.

That's around $10 million in additional income annually to the city for allowing this project to be built.

Add to that development charges of $15,695 per unit (with likelihood of more in coming years) and $141 per square meter for commercial space and we get an additional $42.6 million for the development charges alone.

On top of that you get thousands of man years of employment, millions in materials and furnishings and new public galleries and space for learning.

When I weigh the potential long and short term benefits to the lost legacy of these warehouses, for me, this is a no brainer. How much are these buildings worth to you?
 
Last edited:
It's interesting to see how our M-G project compares to this 1,350 ft tall project in NYC: supporting heritage buildings and restoration helps smooth the process for a new landmark tower in NYC.

"JDS and PMG also backed a successful effort to make Steinway Hall an interior landmark (and will embark on a meticulous restoration), possibly in an attempt to curry favor with the Landmarks Preservation Commission, to whom they presented the plans for the tower this morning."

from http://ny.curbed.com/archives/2013/10/01/landmarks_wont_oppose_shops_west_57th_street_tower.php

It was just approved: http://gothamist.com/2013/10/16/this_tall_skinny_skyscraper_will_lo.php#photo-1

----

I spoke with David Mirvish last night at the Heritage Toronto Awards. I will say that he's an excellent salesman for this project.
 
Steinway Hall appears to be a building well worth preserving and I am confident, had this building been in Toronto, the tower, which will be preserving this building within it's base, would never be granted permission to do so..
About Steinway Hall

Located on West 57th Street in the heart of Midtown Manhattan, Steinway Hall is the legendary flagship store of Steinway & Sons. Since opening in 1925, it has been a landmark destination, imbued with a rich history and tradition, eagerly sought out by music enthusiasts, piano students and professionals throughout the world. Three floors of elegant, distinctive selection rooms are filled with more than 150 Steinway and Steinway-designed Boston and Essex instruments.

Built to the specifications of the Steinway family, and designed by the architects Warren & Wetmore (Grand Central Terminal, New York Yacht Club), Steinway Hall is a grand testament to the beaux arts tradition, a registered New York City historic landmark, and above all an environment rich with passion. The breathtaking two-story rotunda is the dramatic centerpiece of Steinway Hall. The spectacular 35-foot domed ceiling was handpainted by Paul Arndt, with allegorical scenes of lions, elephants, goddesses and nymphs depicting the influence of music on human relations. The walls are adorned with fluted white Italian marble columns alternating with green pilasters of highly polished Greek marble. Descending from the ceiling is a magnificent, glittering 19th century Viennese crystal chandelier.

Steinway & Sons commissioned esteemed American artists to create paintings that would create a rich visual landscape throughout Steinway Hall. Original oil paintings depict great composers, such as Berlioz, Chopin, Handel, Mozart and Wagner, or legendary pianists, such as Franz Liszt. Ignaz Paderewski, Sergei Rachmaninoff and Anton Rubinstein. Many distinguished artists are represented, including Rockwell Kent, N.C . Wyeth and Charles Chambers, overall creating the effect of an opulent art museum where grand pianos are on display.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a great and historical building rich with the history of an esteemed family, preserving it worthy of the effort.

Let's contrast this with 284 King, The vaunted "Anderson Building".

City of Toronto
Statement of Cultural Heritage Value
The architectural significance of the Anderson Building comes from its application of terra cotta in
combination with an exuberant Edwardian Classical design. The Anderson Building is a rare
surviving example of a commercial warehouse with terra cotta cladding in Toronto where, because
of the fragility of the material, relatively few examples remain, as documented in the book
Terra Cotta: artful deceivers (1990, 94).

The design of the Anderson Building was executed by Scottish-born architect William Fraser, who
gained attention in Glasgow when he won a competition in 1896 for a memorial commemorating the
centenary of poet Robert Burns' death...
Historically, the property at 284 King Street West is also associated with Toronto entrepreneur
Edwin "Honest Ed" Mirvish (1914-2007), who revitalized King Street West with his restoration of
the Royal Alexandra Theatre in the early 1960s. Over the following decades, Ed Mirvish Enterprises
acquired many of the warehouses along the street, including the Anderson Building, converting them
to commercial uses that attracted theatre patrons.

Heritage Attributes
The heritage attributes of the property at 284 King Street West are:
• The five-storey warehouse.
• The scale, form and massing of the long rectangular plan.
• The glazed terra cotta, which is applied for the cladding and trim on the south façade.
• The organization of the principal (south) façade into three bays with corner pavilions that
extend above the flat roofline.
• The cornice with modillion blocks along part of the south roofline, as well as the dentilled
cornice above the first floor.
• In the first storey, the flat-headed openings, with three tall windows centered between
entrances with classically detailed surrounds, with a name band incorporated above the east
(right) entry.
• The symmetrical placement of the fenestration in the second through the fifth floors, with
flat-headed window openings, apart from a trio of round-arched openings in the centre of the
fourth storey.
• The decorative detailing, with the shaped spandrel panels, the keystones and imposts on the
round-arched window openings, the colonnettes separating the attic windows and, on the
corner pavilions, the triangular pediments and other classical embellishments.
Click to expand...

While I do feel there are a few attractive elements to the facade of this, the most attractive building on the block, the building is not unique, exceptional nor historical. The key statement in favour of granting it Heritage Status was the application of a exterior cladding material described as "fragile". The reason few examples likely survived was because the exteior materials chosen are not suited well to our climate.
 
The Anderson bldg. is no Steinway hall. 107 West 57th reminds me more of what is happening over at the Ernst & Young tower project. While I for one and all for new construction mixed with and preserving the old....I don't see it for this project.
To be honest I was quite shocked at the news that they proposed to tear down this block, especially the Pricess of Wales theatre. However, look back at projects like T-D,FCP & NPS. We lost some architectural gems in the construction of these projects, but look how they transformed Toronto in their day. They required vision and guts. This project is no different. It requires the same vision and guts to build it.
I think because we've lossed other far superior architectural gems in the past, we feel resigned to fight to save warehouses of less significance. 30 yrs ago they would have come down without the bat of an eye.
I actually find walking down this section of King very restrictive. What I do enjoy however, and would like retained is the number of restaurants and the vitality they bring. Perhaps a modern version of restaurant row....rather than more of the same old retail. Having the art gallery and perhaps retaining a theatre would be a benefit and offset the loss of the Pricess of Wales.
 
jaycola said:
Steinway Hall appears to be a building well worth preserving and I am confident, had this building been in Toronto, the tower, which will be preserving this building within it's base, would never be granted permission to do so..

Sounds like a great and historical building rich with the history of an esteemed family, preserving it worthy of the effort.

Let's contrast this with 284 King, The vaunted "Anderson Building".

City of Toronto


While I do feel there are a few attractive elements to the facade of this, the most attractive building on the block, the building is not unique, exceptional nor historical. The key statement in favour of granting it Heritage Status was the application of a exterior cladding material described as "fragile". The reason few examples likely survived was because the exteior materials chosen are not suited well to our climate.
Click to expand...

Your comparison is a bit of an apples to oranges one, but is somewhat fair. The fact remains that the Toronto buildings met the provincial criteria for heritage and were designated.

My main point was, had Mirvish gone ahead and had Gehry incorporate the existing heritage buildings into his project, he might have gained much favor with the city and greased the wheels a bit more to move this along.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top