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

I find it hard to agree with the attitude that city council should approve a very very ambitious plan developed by private, profit-seeking individuals.

Goes on all the time at Council. Developers have been calling the shots since the Lastman Days. Good planning, concerns about public realm or infrastructure don't get the same consideration as this application is getting.
 
Looks like M&G are going to hold out on height to a certain degree in order to fund the art gallery and college. I could see them incorporating a couple of the more significant warehouse facades as a trade off. How tall they will claim these need to be remains to be seen. The rest of the arguments put forth by the planning dept. and city are valid but they are using this project as scapegoat for poor planning. Quite laughable. With 27 towers built, under construction and approved ranging from 100 to 160 meters and 18,000 + residents set to move into the neighborhood in the next decade, M&G is but a drop bucket. These issues being discussed are 7 years too late and not sole responsibility of Mirvish to address.
Two valid arguments from an OMB stand point 1. Height- based on current precedent 2.heritage preservation. The rest of the refusal report reads more like a self damning of the poor state of planning in the city of Toronto and this neighborhood in particular.
My guess is it will come down to height as to whether or not this goes to the OMB.
 
Last edited:
...adolescent/arrested-adolescent skyscraper/starchitecture dweebs...

Is that how you characterize David Mirvish and Frank Gehry, as dweebs?

Whenever someone takes a position in support of a tall tower, invariably there are comments about adolescent (masturbatory?) origins. Curious.
 
yyzer, they voted against Adam Vaughan's motion. Their no vote was not an approval of M+G. Relax, I have a feeling this one is going to turn out just fine. :cool:

Exactly! A gigantic development like this should be closely examined and refined. While people say that this is a masterpiece that shouldn't be touched, I disagree. Artists go through iterations of rough studies just like architects. They may notice something and change the piece and composition later on as well- much like how a development project may change over time to take into account aspects that were overlooked.

It's time to stop looking at these pretty pictures as the final product but rather as one of the many steps towards what will ultimately be built.
 
Exactly! A gigantic development like this should be closely examined and refined. While people say that this is a masterpiece that shouldn't be touched, I disagree. Artists go through iterations of rough studies just like architects. They may notice something and change the piece and composition later on as well- much like how a development project may change over time to take into account aspects that were overlooked.

It's time to stop looking at these pretty pictures as the final product but rather as one of the many steps towards what will ultimately be built.

Well said. And of course they go through big changes even after approval (look at the original ROM and AGO concepts, for starters).

The problem is that in our current system, the developers know it's better to ask for something they know is too big so they have room to bargain down. It's the same thing that happened with Midtown Minto. It was a perfectly logical place to put big towers but they asked for very big towers, threatened to go to the OMB and then reached a "compromise." The same thing will happen here and while I like Gehry's stuff, I think it's awfully naive to think he drew a perfect artistic conception on paper and the proportions happened to work out to 84 storeys. The reality, masterpiece lovers, is that they did the math of how much it would cost, how much they want to make and what council and/or the OMB were likely to approve, and then set the heights. It will come down because it was always going to come down. The heritage issues are trickier but it would have been naive of Mirvish to assume either council or the OMB would simply let them raze those buildings in deference to this new, obviously "superior" structure.
 
So council really is corrupt?

Hard to say that without proof. What is corrupt to some might be culture to another. I cite the recent disclosures that Cllr Shiner received cheap rent from Greenwin and Mamolitti's cheap loans from developers. Note also how the Fords can call upon the highest in office to deal with Deco issues or those of any of their important label customers. Remember, a councillor, in conducting personal affairs, can use the position of their office and mislead Council, or one of its Committees, with impunity. The Integrity Commissioner can do nothing. IMO, there's a bad culture on Council and at City Hall.
 
Only 3 starchitecture fans on council?! And 2 of them are Fords?

The thing I dislike about Gee's take (and Hume's a while back) is how they just dismiss the planning concerns outright. Why do people need a park when the awesomeness of David Pecaut Square is RIGHT THERE?! And infrastructure? Why there are perfectly empty streetcars running right by the front door, day and night!

Is it "a work of art"? I dunno, maybe. I can see that at least in that it's very much in the eye of the beholder. But we're not in an art gallery, we're in a city. Several thousand (rich) people are going to be living in this piece of art and you have to take that into account. Far be it from me to suggest what the solution is but I find it hard to agree with the attitude that city council should approve a very very ambitious plan developed by private, profit-seeking individuals instead of acting as if they're turning down a bunch of Picassos someone bequeathed to them, no conditions attached. There's more to this than that and it's not the planning staff's job to make sure Toronto is pretty. Their job is to make sure it works and with something this big, that takes time and scrutiny.

Good planning is ignored all the time by Council. It seems there is a better chance of it downtown where the greatest power is exercised. However, you only need to look at "planning" in Midtown to agree with me.
 
Looks like M&G are going to hold out on height to a certain degree in order to fund the art gallery and college. I could see them incorporating a couple of the more significant warehouse facades as a trade off. How tall they will claim these need to be remains to be seen. The rest of the arguments put forth by the planning dept. and city are valid but they are using this project as scapegoat for poor planning. Quite laughable. With 27 towers built, under construction and approved ranging from 100 to 160 meters and 18,000 + residents set to move into the neighborhood in the next decade, M&G is but a drop bucket. These issues being discussed are 7 years too late and not sole responsibility of Mirvish to address.
Two valid arguments from an OMB stand point 1. Height- based on current precedent 2.heritage preservation. The rest of the refusal report reads more like a self damning of the poor state of planning in the city of Toronto and this neighborhood in particular.
My guess is it will come down to height as to whether or not this goes to the OMB.

"using this project as scapegoat for poor planning. " It's not often I see any kind of commentary on this forum that mentions good or bad planning. Too many in this city equate good planning with "beautiful" buildings.
 
Is that how you characterize David Mirvish and Frank Gehry, as dweebs?

Whenever someone takes a position in support of a tall tower, invariably there are comments about adolescent (masturbatory?) origins. Curious.

Well, in this case, it's less about Mirvish/Gehry per se, than about Marcus Gee's Roark reference. And once one open oneself to be framed in Roarkian terms...
 
Really love the revised plan. Looks better with this rendering
 

Attachments

  • 20131218-MirvishGehry-Staff-Alt.jpg
    20131218-MirvishGehry-Staff-Alt.jpg
    35.4 KB · Views: 321
Looks ridiculous with the old buildings. This project should be renamed The Three Dwarfs. If these buildings are going to scaled down, Ghery should back out and try to build these same buildings some where other than Toronto.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top