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

I haven't seen the shadow studies but, it has been brought up in the process as a major concern.
Click to expand...

By whom? Whether it's 10 floors or 80, it's going to cast a shadow. Who is in the shadow of the area of height dispute that is complaining?


Saying he has rich friends doesn't mean a thing. In fact, in my experience, friends are unlikely to be silent financial partners.
Click to expand...

I didn't mean personal friends....I think Mirvish has a higher credit rating than you seem to think. And he's the one who might be cautious, as it was he who financed 1 King remember.



The risk with Gehry's reputation for cost overruns will also be a serious detriment to project financing. His contributions to the arts are beside the point. This is a real estate development first and foremost and Mirvish has shown to only flip his real estate holdings. I don't really see anything different here.
Click to expand...

Yea...I guess you are right. With names like Gehry and Mirvish, this project has scam written all over it. What a couple of bastards...out of all the real estate developers and architects building condos in Toronto, let's centre these ones out and crucify them. That'll show'em.
 
RippedLikeStinson said:
Sorry, I meant to say, when will the meetings with Adam Vaughan's group wrap up?
Click to expand...

"9. City Council direct that the findings of the working group be reported by the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, to City Council through the Toronto and East York Community Council, no later than the March 20, 2014 meeting of Council with any recommendations or potential settlement proposals that may emerge from the process."

From here.
 
I just heard the most wonderful news out of New York City. In a speech to real estate development executives yesterday, Mayor Bill de Blasio started that it is necessary to use height and density "to the maximum extent feasible" to realize his goal of funding affordable housing.

Meanwhile in Toronto...

The sooner the city starts embracing its gift, a desire of people and businesses that want to locate here, instead of having concerns over every development regarding height and density...
 
fedplanner said:
The sooner the city starts embracing its gift, a desire of people and businesses that want to locate here, instead of having concerns over every development regarding height and density...
Click to expand...

Odd thing to say on a site dedicated to expressing concerns over every development.
 
Last edited:
flonicky said:
Odd thing to say on a site dedicated to expressing concerns over every development.
Click to expand...

Is that how you view Urban Toronto? A site dedicated to expressing concerns about every development.

I view this place as a wealth of knowledge and a fascinating exchange of ideas on all things urban in Toronto.
 
Gehry Technologies (the architect's formerly personal design software) should have been called "Gehry's Mod".

I felt I just had to get that out there, sorry.
 
This really struck me from that Hume/Mirvish conversation.

Mirvish:

“You can’t blame planning. What has happened is that the city doesn’t have the ability to say no and therefore they can’t say yes. And I’ll explain how that works.

I want to build a very tall building. TIFF built a tall building. TIFF gave a great benefit in the base. And then, they took what they needed in order to build it. They built the tallest building in the neighbourhood.

And the next person who came along and wanted to build something around that height was able to do it by going to the OMB and not giving the same benefit, saying the precedent for height sits there.

So now, Planning (dept) is faced with: how do they give us 80 stories, and not have five more 80 storey buildings follow us. And, it’s because they can’t say no to a building because someone can always go appeal at OMB, that they can’t say yes to a building without setting precedent.

And that’s the same problem with tearing a building down. It’s already designated – so, they’ve never allowed a designated building to be torn down because they don’t want to give that precedent to OMB. These are both real problems.”
 
Oliver Tweed said:
This really struck me from that Hume/Mirvish conversation.

Mirvish:

“You can’t blame planning. What has happened is that the city doesn’t have the ability to say no and therefore they can’t say yes. And I’ll explain how that works.

I want to build a very tall building. TIFF built a tall building. TIFF gave a great benefit in the base. And then, they took what they needed in order to build it. They built the tallest building in the neighbourhood.

And the next person who came along and wanted to build something around that height was able to do it by going to the OMB and not giving the same benefit, saying the precedent for height sits there.

So now, Planning (dept) is faced with: how do they give us 80 stories, and not have five more 80 storey buildings follow us. And, it’s because they can’t say no to a building because someone can always go appeal at OMB, that they can’t say yes to a building without setting precedent.

And that’s the same problem with tearing a building down. It’s already designated – so, they’ve never allowed a designated building to be torn down because they don’t want to give that precedent to OMB. These are both real problems.”
Click to expand...

Well as a Planner by profession it was to my understanding that we are to mitigate these planning loop-holes by coming up with creative solutions, not restricting development based on on the fear of setting a precedents. I think Planners should embrace change and find creative solutions to address are ever so evolving market, not a list of restrictive policies that do nothing to benefit the collective well being of our city.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top