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

Hmm., skyline tapering and current zoning by-laws, just means there are very few places left to build a +250m structure
Click to expand...

So what? Why do we need a +250m structure?

The majority of the area is already spoken for with 27 towers approved. I am struggling to see where these additional towers would go.
Click to expand...

Joking right? There are warehouse buildings directly to the north of these two blocks for just one example. If you can tear these down then you can certainly do the same with them. And if you can remove historically designated buildings so easily what's to stop Mirvish from doing the same to the Royal Alex?
 
Edward Skira said:
Joking right? There are warehouse buildings directly to the north of these two blocks for just one example. If you can tear these down then you can certainly do the same with them. And if you can remove historically designated buildings so easily what's to stop Mirvish from doing the same to the Royal Alex?
Click to expand...

It's pretty clear that this project will not proceed unless the warehouses are retained in some form. The OMB will not approve this project based on the height or heritage concerns. So I am not concerned about a precedent regarding heritage. I may not agree with the heritage status of these buildings, but I understand what is at stake here.
The reality is that the pressure to build taller is happening as we speak due to demand, the rising cost of land, and the limited areas to build downtown. The city can continue to bury its head in the sand and continue to allow development to run amuck or embrace it and update planning to address this new reality.
The M&G advisory board is solid first step in that direction, as the city realizes what is at stake here with this development. If this means more 80 storey buildings so be it. Whether 80 storeys or 50, I would like to see better podiums that are engaging, better architecture, better materials. The city is so fixated on height, and has allowed so much mundane garbage to be built, they are, and have missed the big picture.
Height does not necessarily mean more density. By making trade offs for more height, the city can negotiate with developers to improve the public realm, create parks by eliminating twin tower proposal etc.
Like I said before having a fear of height is equally as irrational as wanting everything to be tall.
 
Meanwhile in NYC: http://gizmodo.com/the-billion-doll...source=gizmodo_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

ku-xlarge.jpg


ku-xlarge.png


ku-xlarge.jpg


ku-xlarge.jpg


ku-xlarge.jpg


ku-xlarge.jpg
 
Re Ryan_T:

That 1st pic with 3 towers is far uglier than the Gehry proposals in my opinion. The 4th one down is the only one I really like out of that batch.
 
This may come as a surprise but developments in Toronto often have a higher density (FSI) than New York. One thing New York does reasonably well is its density transfer system, which helps protect historic buildings as air rights are bought and transferred to other sites for developments. Also New York is seeing huge transit investments to help cope with the growing population. Hopefully Toronto one day will get its Downtown Relief Line underway to help relieve crowing on the Yonge line, King streetcar and elsewhere.

Finally, I will laugh hysterically if this panel ends up recommending buildings taller than what Mirvish currently proposes. Lets see what they have to say before we knock the process. I think it will be beneficial for M+G and the city.
 
ehlow said:
Re Ryan_T:

That 1st pic with 3 towers is far uglier than the Gehry proposals in my opinion. The 4th one down is the only one I really like out of that batch.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I'm not a fan of Hudson Yards at all. It brings new office space to the west side of Manhattab but I'm not fond of the design of buildings or how they interact with the street.
 
ehlow said:
Re Ryan_T:

That 1st pic with 3 towers is far uglier than the Gehry proposals in my opinion. The 4th one down is the only one I really like out of that batch.
Click to expand...

To me these towers are what Bay Adelaide Centre should have been. Gehry is a completely different league, but NYC has that too.

11456349954_27d9529a79_b.jpg
 
salsa said:
To me these towers are what Bay Adelaide Centre should have been. Gehry is a completely different league, but NYC has that too.
Click to expand...

I love that building, and I loved it the first time I saw it in person before I started learning/reading about architecture.
Not to mention the AGO, one of my favourite buildings in our city.

As I stated before, the one thing that really makes me want to see the proposed buildings is how great they look (which is not a logical argument I realize).
 
This has already been touched upon but I offer a better compromise. Council could approve three 120 storey buildings and M/G can retain one wall of the current buildings, preferably on Ed Mirvish Way.
 
1. I'm not at all confident that Ghery would want to design that
2. Does it make business sense for Project core to build nearly 360 stories? I doubt it. Selling three 80 story buildings will be hard enough
3. Jennifer Keesmat can't deal with 3 x 80 stories. You think she's going to want 3 x 120 stories?
 
Agree with his positions or not, you have to admit that Adam Vaughan is a rather brilliant politician. This advisory panel is going to be his example, so that he can say to Queen's Park "see, the city of Toronto can do its own planning, free us of the OMB". He's obviously been planning this for quite some time.

I was formerly an enthusiastic supporter of this proposal being built as-is, but these recent developments make it seem like compromise is the best approach. I think keeping at least the facades of the warehouses would send a message to developers re: heritage protection (that they can't just knock down whatever they please). Not that these warehouses are worth keeping; they're unremarkable, their facades have been destroyed by layers of paint, and they create really terrible streetwalls. If they are maintained, Mirvish would be forced to improve on their street presence to make the real estate appealing to commercial tenants. In that case, the warehouses would certainly be worth keeping.

The density arguments against Mirvish-Gehry have been thoroughly unconvincing. People claim that residents will overburden the TTC. Obviously these people aren't going to take the King streetcar to the Financial District, they're practically in it, they're going to walk. If they have to go to Mid- or Uptown, they're going to take the subway, and they'll be going in the opposite direction of rush hour traffic, so they're not really contributing to crowding there. It's TWO BLOCKS from the subway and downtown; if we're going to be building towers, it should be here, not at Kipling.

I think that the public amenities included in this proposal are great. OCAD(u) is a great influence on the city, and expanding their presence and capabilities is definitely a good thing. A new art gallery is also great (even if it exists just to stroke Mirvish's ego!). It's a shame to lose the Princess of Wales, but Toronto has reached theatre saturation, and besides, theatre isn't very accessible to most members of society. I won't wax poetic on how great Gehry's architecture is, but it is noteworthy that none of the green box condos have a public art gallery or university building in them.
 
Well, clearly the answer is to build this complex in a more forward thinking community - then Toronto can happily keep their old warehouses and say, Mississauga, can have these nasty sleek towers - complete with the college space and the art gallery - everyone is happy. I'm sure Mirvish would receive a warm welcome in Mississauga.
 
I don't care what city gets these towers. I'd like to see them built here but if they're built somehwere else I'd still be happy as long as they get built. They look REALLY good. They're public art that people can live inside.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top