sub-URBAN
New Member
The city's skyline is not exactly at the top of their priority list. Besides with these towers, all right next to each other, and all around the same height? They would already look weird on the skyline.
Toronto Forma | 308m | 84s | Great Gulf | Gehry Partners
- Thread starter golodhendil
- Start date
adma
Superstar
I'll risk stepping into the lion's den... Adma, what is your opinion on City Planning's alternative development concept for M+G, specifically the approach to heritage preservation?
...hopefully I don't get mauled.
As depicted *here*, it's better than the more postage-stampy depictions I was led to believe were offered earlier--I feared something more offensive. But beyond that, it's only a hypothetical...
Edward
Senior Member
While I like the original proposal I can certainly see the value in the planning department's alternate proposal. A Distillery District type mixture of old and new that works great at the Distillery. Surely Gehry can do wonders with this.
geojesse
New Member
Long time lurker but I have to comment as city planning's recommendations have absolutely shocked me. I have lost a lot of respect for Keesmaat because of this.
A lack of public space? The development is across the street from a park. It also includes lecture and classroom space for OCADU and a museum. That is adding to space accessible to public!
The transportation issue, as others have pointed out is a red herring. Though it will have a marginal effect (as everything does) most people will be walking distance or will commute against the flow of traffic. More generally, I find them using that as a reason to reject this as disingenuous - congestion is a problem everywhere, yet I don't see them rejecting new office buildings in SouthCore or on Adelaide that would have a much more significant impact on traffic. Consistency in policy recommendations are key.
As to the embarrassing use of photoshop to shrink the towers down... A) good planning is all about how the building meets the street, to make this about height would be a mistake. B) the best thing about this development is the public space and museum it brings to the area. But when push comes to shove the private sector is not a charity and if they developers can't make money from a development it won't go ahead. Or, more likely, they will cut these benefits and we will be left with just another condo. This is somewhat ironic as this is what Keesmaat has fretted about publicly (the infamous bait and switch). Watch as city planning pushes them into it.
I know I am beating a dead horse, but can someone explain the transportation argument to me. This is a development that is less than a five minute walk from the subway! This is exactly what the city is pushing developers to do. People are going to move somewhere, would they rather they move by St. Andrew Station or up North on the Yonge line or somewhere in Liberty Village.
A lack of public space? The development is across the street from a park. It also includes lecture and classroom space for OCADU and a museum. That is adding to space accessible to public!
The transportation issue, as others have pointed out is a red herring. Though it will have a marginal effect (as everything does) most people will be walking distance or will commute against the flow of traffic. More generally, I find them using that as a reason to reject this as disingenuous - congestion is a problem everywhere, yet I don't see them rejecting new office buildings in SouthCore or on Adelaide that would have a much more significant impact on traffic. Consistency in policy recommendations are key.
As to the embarrassing use of photoshop to shrink the towers down... A) good planning is all about how the building meets the street, to make this about height would be a mistake. B) the best thing about this development is the public space and museum it brings to the area. But when push comes to shove the private sector is not a charity and if they developers can't make money from a development it won't go ahead. Or, more likely, they will cut these benefits and we will be left with just another condo. This is somewhat ironic as this is what Keesmaat has fretted about publicly (the infamous bait and switch). Watch as city planning pushes them into it.
I know I am beating a dead horse, but can someone explain the transportation argument to me. This is a development that is less than a five minute walk from the subway! This is exactly what the city is pushing developers to do. People are going to move somewhere, would they rather they move by St. Andrew Station or up North on the Yonge line or somewhere in Liberty Village.
Transit in the King West area is becoming a massive problem which these towers will make worse. As someone who uses the King streetcar often I can see the problem first hand. So fix the transit! A new much needed subway down here would help significantly.
fedplanner
Active Member
The PD photoshoped the towers rising above the heritage buildings and labeled it a concept. I'm skeptical if their concept, retaining much of heritage buildings and still building 50-storey skyscrapers above, is feasible from an engineering standpoint. The site is awfully constrained that the end result would have to be facadism. It's like they're trying to channel Five St. Joseph here, but it can't be done.
The again, if it can be done, maybe this could serve as a compromise for the base. It will no doubt bastardize Gehry's original vision but it would be acceptable to the historic preservationists??
Patrick Smyth
New Member
I really sense that we have major problems in the Toronto Planning Department. Midtown is being redeveloped at a fierce rate. Over the next 15 years there will be a $4b value, 60 towers, 23,000 new residents over a very small 78 hectares. The area has been open space-deficient since 1967 and it is nearly impossible to bring that level up to the Official Plan's lowest 0.46/1000 population percentile. The transit situation at YE is well-known to be almost intolerable and the Crosstown is barrelling-on. It's all likened to a freight train smashing through. Yet, the TO Planning Department is doing no planning but simply processing applications! And, in cases where proposals have a contentious proponent it refuses to take a position within the statutory time thereby sending the whole mess off to the OMB to decide. Then, the cries to abolish the OMB reignite, as if it's all the fault of the OMB!
Once again, with this M+G application, the focus is on the metrics of height and density, but with an open space/infrastructure dimension such as is barely ever mentioned elsewhere in this city. The Toronto Planning Department has surely lost all credibility now? (And, it wants us to accept a Development Permit System!!)
Once again, with this M+G application, the focus is on the metrics of height and density, but with an open space/infrastructure dimension such as is barely ever mentioned elsewhere in this city. The Toronto Planning Department has surely lost all credibility now? (And, it wants us to accept a Development Permit System!!)
fedplanner
Active Member
You highlight a couple of the reasons why Toronto loses 99% of the time at OMB appeals.
ChesterCopperpot
Senior Member
Anyone have any idea when they will be voting on the project today?
DSC
Superstar
Member Bio
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2008
- Messages
- 19,985
- Reaction score
- 29,218
- Location
- St Lawrence Market Area
Though transit in King West is certainly bad it is now getting as bad on King East (partly due to the TTC short-turning streetcars at Church to help out on King West) but this deprives King East. They need more streetcars, FAR better (any?) route management and less street parking and left turns.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
I don't get why everyone is so worked up with the PD recommendations - they don't really have a choice to recommend anything but rejection/waterdowned version as discussed eons on this thread ago. This is a political decision, and I stand by the comment that it will likely go through council given how Adam Vaughan played it.
AoD
AoD
There are many held items ahead of it in the schedule, and it has not been made a timed item. At least, not yet.
42
Patrick Smyth
New Member
That's not accurate but it does lose a lot, for a number of reasons, all of which are largely poorly reported or discussed. This is a serious problem but height and density gets all the attention.
waterloowarrior
Senior Member
The City's record isn't that bad, but it's not the greatest when recommending refusal
http://www.munkschool.utoronto.ca/imfg/uploads/177/villain_or_scapegoat_moore_final.pdf
greenleaf
Senior Member
Lots of vitriol spewed here with no one bothering to read the document I assume. Classic message board.
The city addresses myriad issues of utmost importance inthe recent document. They have also laid out a potential plan to continue the conversation. This is a good thing. They are being clear that they understand the site will be developed but it also needs to be balanced contextually. They have to protect the interests of the city as a whole (the recent discussion of the King streetcar just shows the ripple effect of what buildings of this size can do to an entire system). This is a large and complex proposal that requires a large and complex show of care and management.
The treatment of the Designated heritage buildings in the city's plan pretty much shows the city's heritage planning service dept's expectations for what would be approved and considered appropriate. Toronto is starting to get this layered approach to its old and new buildings and can be a leader here. This shows what could be done and be exciting.
To those bemoaning the planning department, I believe they have been understaffed 15-20% (stop the gravy train and all that jazz; understaffing causes further issues down the line, such as dozens of projects going before the OMB instead of being handled by the city) throughout the past 5-6 years under which time as we all know the city has undergone an unprecedented boom. They seem to be doing their best under the resources they have. Fortunately next year's budget will allow the city to hire more planners.
From sources I have, there is still lots happening behind the scenes. An extraordinary project like like requires extraordinary thought and coordination between the developer and the city.
The city addresses myriad issues of utmost importance inthe recent document. They have also laid out a potential plan to continue the conversation. This is a good thing. They are being clear that they understand the site will be developed but it also needs to be balanced contextually. They have to protect the interests of the city as a whole (the recent discussion of the King streetcar just shows the ripple effect of what buildings of this size can do to an entire system). This is a large and complex proposal that requires a large and complex show of care and management.
The treatment of the Designated heritage buildings in the city's plan pretty much shows the city's heritage planning service dept's expectations for what would be approved and considered appropriate. Toronto is starting to get this layered approach to its old and new buildings and can be a leader here. This shows what could be done and be exciting.
To those bemoaning the planning department, I believe they have been understaffed 15-20% (stop the gravy train and all that jazz; understaffing causes further issues down the line, such as dozens of projects going before the OMB instead of being handled by the city) throughout the past 5-6 years under which time as we all know the city has undergone an unprecedented boom. They seem to be doing their best under the resources they have. Fortunately next year's budget will allow the city to hire more planners.
From sources I have, there is still lots happening behind the scenes. An extraordinary project like like requires extraordinary thought and coordination between the developer and the city.