fedplanner
Active Member
Last edited:
Toronto Forma | 308m | 84s | Great Gulf | Gehry Partners
- Thread starter golodhendil
- Start date
japrologue
Active Member
too conservative and it doesnt look as good anymore
MafaldaBoy
Senior Member
From the doc:
Definitely a step backwards if the alternatives are put through.
Definitely a step backwards if the alternatives are put through.
Adjei
Senior Member
Good thing we have the OMB
fedplanner
Active Member
I'm not so sure the OMB will approve this one outright. It will give more than enough fodder to those trying to get Toronto exempt from its jurisdiction. I'm hoping Adam Vaughan and the other sane members on council reach a better outcome when they vote on it tomorrow. Fighting something this important at the OMB has the potential of resulting in an undesirable outcome for all parties involved. Remember folks, this planning report is merely a recommendation. (Thank God!) Here is to hoping that City Council does the right thing tomorrow, which is why its so important to let your views be know.
Last edited:
diminutive
Active Member
Let me preface this by saying that, in the grand scheme of Toronto, the outcome of any one project is more or less irrelevant. Basically, it doesn't really matter either way if M-G is cancelled outright, follows this 'modified' scheme or is built with no major alterations. Toronto will go on and no one will mourn for demolished warehouses or unbuilt starchitect towers.
Yet this is just stupid. It's just a tepid, lukewarm idea. Shortening the towers is stupid. What could have been powerful standout buildings in the all-in-all bland sea of condos that is the Entertainment District end up looking silly. The proposed towers simply look much better than the alternative concepts. Planning can hardly use the excessivedensity/notenoughcapacity argument since the alternative design would only have, what, 800 fewer units? That's trivial in the context of planned development in the area, let alone an urban region of millions.
The heritage preservation schemes look equally stupid. Granted, they're not architectural designs, but it should be obvious that the heritage "retention" schemes end up adding to way less than the sum of its parts. Obviously some architects have made good use of heritage retention but in this case doing so would really ruin the overall design. It ends up looking like the bad-guy from Jeepers Creepers.
Yet this is just stupid. It's just a tepid, lukewarm idea. Shortening the towers is stupid. What could have been powerful standout buildings in the all-in-all bland sea of condos that is the Entertainment District end up looking silly. The proposed towers simply look much better than the alternative concepts. Planning can hardly use the excessivedensity/notenoughcapacity argument since the alternative design would only have, what, 800 fewer units? That's trivial in the context of planned development in the area, let alone an urban region of millions.
The heritage preservation schemes look equally stupid. Granted, they're not architectural designs, but it should be obvious that the heritage "retention" schemes end up adding to way less than the sum of its parts. Obviously some architects have made good use of heritage retention but in this case doing so would really ruin the overall design. It ends up looking like the bad-guy from Jeepers Creepers.
fedplanner
Active Member
Adjei
Senior Member
So because transit in Toronto and on King sucks, this should not be built. Why doesn't she recommend that nothing gets built since transit in Toronto will always be inadequate. Choosing to reject developments based on transit is nonsense. It's not developers fault that Toronto's transit is garbage. The politicians and bureaucracy have sat on their behinds for 30 years and allowed our transit to rot away, don't try and shift the blame to developers.
canadaboy123
New Member
My last little off-topic bit - you are plain and simply just wrong. From up close or afar, Toronto's skyline and buildings are beautiful.
url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/grantd/9606728573/]
From the CN Tower by enedkl, on Flickr
Law & Order by Jack Landau, on Flickr
Home by cookedphotos, on Flickr
I could post an endless amount of photos, but unfortunately a closed-minded individual will never see the beauty in anything.
Anyways, back on topic. The changes proposed are ridiculous. Let's hope this one is further debated in favour. I'm tempted to email the city.
fedplanner
Active Member
It worked for Massey Tower. KWT no less brought forth a motion to overrule the planning department's recommendation for rejection. I believe strongly that the emails of support for the development from concerned citizens played a role in its approval.
Last edited:
yyzer
Senior Member
But didn't we know that the Planning Department had already rejected M-G? What's new is this hamfisted, "modified" counter proposal.......created by true cretins.....their motto: let's just draw a mustache on the Mona Lisa....
As already commented, hopefully council will ignore this last attempt to derail the project.....
/notice they even included skyline tapering in their "plan".......meddlesome twits......
As already commented, hopefully council will ignore this last attempt to derail the project.....
/notice they even included skyline tapering in their "plan".......meddlesome twits......
Last edited:
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
Is the Relief Line being factored at all into the decision? It's scheduled to open sometime around 2025 and will be running right past M+G. IIRC M+G is to be built in three phases, so it's unlikely that buildings will be completed by time the Relief Line opens.
diminutive
Active Member
It's actually even stupider than that. Since future Mirvish-Gehry residents wont cease to exist if Mirvish-Gehry ceases to exist, transit demand would remain more or less unchanged if slightly redistributed. Since most of Toronto's downtown transit network is short on capacity, reducing the scale of Mirvish-Gehry would do nothing to reduce overall capacity shortages.
I assume that Keesmat imagines more development occurring on the 'Avenues', many of which eventually feed on to the Yonge subway south of Bloor to reach the CBD. Channeling more development there may well exacerbate a more serious capacity gap.
(one caveat: In a simple model, any new housing supply should lead to a higher quantity of housing being demanded. So, in that sense, it could be said that building M-G increases aggregate transit demand. But of course the relative shift in housing supply implied by M-G is negligible in the overall context of GTA housing or even downtown housing and hence the marginal impact on demand would be equally negligible.)
skyrise
Active Member
CLARIFICATION: This is just the City Planning Depts. recommendation not to approve this project as is and presenting a plan that conforms with the current precendent. No surprise here as this was already mentioned earlier in this thread. This still has to go before council for a vote. Note they also recommended not approving Massey and Eau du Soleil, both of which were approved; Massey with no changes and Soleil with a minor variation.
Rumor has it that council will approve this as is, or with some minor concessions.
Stay tuned folks...
Last edited:
buildup
Senior Member
ok, so I didn't need to post all of THIS?
How Canadian, a compromise!! We can have everything!! Too Tall? Cut them in half! Don't want to lose two warehouses, keep them as well!!
Keesmatt is small time, small town. She sees something that overwhelms her so she falls back on platitudes about public space. So all of a sudden we need a frickin park? Here?? Just improve the park directly across the street - its called David Pecaut square!
And transit, I am amazed our own chief planner has fallen for this red herring. Even I know it will in aggregate take cars OFF the streets, increase pedestrians (on the wider sidewalks M-G will create), or put people on TTC against the flow. Fix the transit Keesmat if you're so worried about it and stop droning on about bike lanes.
I know some people on this board HATE & DETEST famous architects but are more forgiving of innocuous ones. Only Hogtown would, after all the crap that's been built, decide to draw a red line at the most visually stunning proposal (quite possibly in the world, yes I said it) because we couldn't part ways with 2 warehouses. I am beyond words.
Adma, congratulations. Its academics like yourself working tirelessly to obstruct that we have to thank.
M-R should just withdraw. Seriously.
I think the warehouses would be an ideal site for a Comedy Central franchise.
How Canadian, a compromise!! We can have everything!! Too Tall? Cut them in half! Don't want to lose two warehouses, keep them as well!!
Keesmatt is small time, small town. She sees something that overwhelms her so she falls back on platitudes about public space. So all of a sudden we need a frickin park? Here?? Just improve the park directly across the street - its called David Pecaut square!
And transit, I am amazed our own chief planner has fallen for this red herring. Even I know it will in aggregate take cars OFF the streets, increase pedestrians (on the wider sidewalks M-G will create), or put people on TTC against the flow. Fix the transit Keesmat if you're so worried about it and stop droning on about bike lanes.
I know some people on this board HATE & DETEST famous architects but are more forgiving of innocuous ones. Only Hogtown would, after all the crap that's been built, decide to draw a red line at the most visually stunning proposal (quite possibly in the world, yes I said it) because we couldn't part ways with 2 warehouses. I am beyond words.
Adma, congratulations. Its academics like yourself working tirelessly to obstruct that we have to thank.
M-R should just withdraw. Seriously.
I think the warehouses would be an ideal site for a Comedy Central franchise.