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

Wouldn't mind everything but the terracotta warehouse demo-ed. However, I also wouldn't mind if these buildings were kept and restored.

Frank Gehry has always been given a blank slate to work on for most of his projects. I think it'll be interesting and potentially reinvigorating to see how his firm deals with the integration of historical structures rather than wholesale demolition and replacement.
 
jje1000 said:
Wouldn't mind everything but the terracotta warehouse demo-ed. However, I also wouldn't mind if these buildings were kept and restored.
Click to expand...

Why is everyone singling out the terracotta? As I've said over and over, it's the end-block Eclipse Whitewear (i.e. the Tim Horton's building) which might in fact be the most "important" of the older elements--as well as the first one rehabilitated/restored (pioneeringly so, in 1970), and the first one historically listed.

I guess, to new-development geeks trying to grapple with understanding and beholding the old/pre-existing, it's all about superficial "looks". Like, just a buncha old brick buildings but for the one that's Ooh! Wow! Terracotta! (Well, look at it this way. Not to be anti-starchitect, but by the same measure it isn't healthy to behold urbanity from an Ooh! Wow! Gehry! standpoint. Like, I'm glad to have Toronto visitors who are open to Gehry's local lessers old and new being a validly beholdable part of the urbanscape as well.)
 
I think reducing the height of these towers will diminish any special impact they may have been able to create. If you reduce them you may as well not build them or just build simple apartments like most of the other developers have done. It's cheaper and easier to get approved.

Also at risk for the city if they don’t approve these towers, is they risk sending a message to the development community that mediocre is OK – don’t waste your time seeking internationally acclaimed designers, we know better. Same old is just fine.

As for the concern for the streetscape, I agree that what is being removed is regrettable, bur what will replace it could also be outstanding - it's in the hands of a pretty impressive architect so I’m not too concerned - but anxious.
 
Last edited:
Big Daddy said:
I think reducing the height of these towers will diminish any special impact they may have been able to create. If you reduce them you may as well not build them or just build simple apartments like most of the other developers have done. It's cheaper and easier to get approved.

Also at risk for the city if they don’t approve these towers, is they risk sending a message to the development community that mediocre is OK – don’t waste your time seeking internationally acclaimed designers, we know better. Same old is just fine.

As for the concern for the streetscape, I agree that what is being removed is regrettable, bur what will replace it could also be outstanding - it's in the hands of a pretty impressive architect so I’m not too concerned - but anxious.
Click to expand...

Yep. I always stand in awe at how some will vigorously defend what a great job our city planners do, while simultaneously whinging about the quality of architecture in this city. It seems to me that the city planners have done a lot over the years to push the blandification [sic].

Also, I can't count how many times I've seen an interesting render of a proposal that goes to the design review panel, and then comes back looking like a box.
 
fedplanner said:
As AG said, it will be a great show! I hope Urban Toronto members turn out in solidarity for the public consultation process. Regardless whether you support this development, please, please, please show up and let your voice be heard because the alternative is to leave it to the current crop of rotting BANANAs to provide their feedback, which is usually the case.
Click to expand...

Re rotting BANANAS: again, don't confuse "Mike Yen" oppositional types with heritage buffs.
 
adma said:
Re rotting BANANAS: again, don't confuse "Mike Yen" oppositional types with heritage buffs.
Click to expand...

No confusion at all. I was was speaking about the public consultation process in general and how it usually attracts an older population not representative of the overall community. It could be development on a parking lot and these folks would lament the loss of parking. It could be any reason really as the hidden motive is that they do not want change nor to see new residents moving into their neighborhood.
 
brockm said:
Yep. I always stand in awe at how some will vigorously defend what a great job our city planners do, while simultaneously whinging about the quality of architecture in this city. It seems to me that the city planners have done a lot over the years to push the blandification [sic].

Also, I can't count how many times I've seen an interesting render of a proposal that goes to the design review panel, and then comes back looking like a box.
Click to expand...

Anyone ever take the time to read the zoning code. Quality of architecture is not one of the considerations. Things like height and density are which is why we always hear about that in the planning reports. It's idiotic since the zoning bylaws that cover most of the city are from 1986. A lot has changed since then. However that is slowly changing. The design review panels is still in it's infancy but is introducing a healthy process.

The issue is not with the low-level planner at City Hall. It will be folks like Chief Planner Jennifer Keesmaat and her ability to change the department's culture. I think she has potential. She recognized the problem of few mid-rise buildings being built along the Avenues despite the fact that is exactly the type of development called for in the City's Official Plan. To rectify the situation, she has already taken steps to go about amending the zoning code to allow Avenue buildings to be built "as-of-right."

It's a sad reality that most public-sector planners that regulate land have little to no understanding of land economics. They then curse developers when they do not propose developments that are consistent with their vision for the community. I was pleased to see that Jennifer Keesmaat gets it as she cited cost as the primary reason why Avenue-style buildings were not being built, and is now taking steps to reduce the cost and other obstacles.
 
balenciaga said:
Shanghai and Beijing are not intentionally made to be that dense. The population is large, and you have to cope with that. It is silly to say those cities are not made for people as high density is not a design.

Plus, Shanghai is hardly as dense you think. The city has 23M people on a land of 6300kmsq, exactly 10 times the size of Toronto, with 8 times the population. Is it considered super dense? It is its core area that is congested.
Click to expand...

The problem with those cities is not the density, but rather that they are not built for people.

It is possible to build very pleasant walkable and cycling-friendly neighbourhoods at current Shanghai and Beijing densities - but these 2 cities have not done this as far as I can tell.

All newer areas are criss-crossed by what are essentially highways, buildings meet the street horribly, and the public realm is different shades of 'stressful'.

13427251.jpg


Wasted opportunities all over the place. These cities could be beautiful and functional, but a blatant disregard for human psychology made them as they are. Not unlike Mississauga.

With regards to this project here, what's really important is that we ensure that this area continues to enhance the lives of those who must pass through here regularly. If these towers hurt this block at street level, then they won't be worth it at all.

I would prefer to see these 3 towers pushed down to 40 stories and see the historical facades kept. Fund the museum through whatever means (and call it Princess of Wales gallery), increase the number of retail spaces available (ala Queen and Portland), and build bike lanes along Richmond and Peter (while funding some of the John St revitalisation).

That would be a coherent plan that would guarantee a truly world class strip. The impact on our skyline as seen from the Lake wouldn't be tremendous, but Torontonians don't live and work in the lake, we ought to prioritise our streets.
 
adma said:
Why is everyone singling out the terracotta?
Click to expand...


CapitalSeven said:
For the frustrating reason that, for many, heritage = pretty.
Click to expand...


Is there anything wrong with wanting to preserve an older building merely because it is pretty or charming or has a sort of panache that turns heads? We shouldn't get riled by the fact that people want to preserve the terracotta building, we should get riled by the fact that we aren't even able to preserve the more 'no-brainer' populist elements of this site, never mind the perhaps less obvious albeit 'deserving' elements of the site.
 
Isn't the story of Peter Pan about someone not realizing you need to give up one thing to get another. We can't have it all? Personally I would like to see what Mirvish and Gehry accomplish with a clean slate. Both are culturally sophisticated with deep roots in Toronto. It could be a great test case - and a worthwhile risk IMO. I am referring to the pedestrian experience at street level. Having an art college and a gallery certainly creates opportunities to avoid bland generic retail spaces.
 
Tewder said:
Is there anything wrong with wanting to preserve an older building merely because it is pretty or charming or has a sort of panache that turns heads? We shouldn't get riled by the fact that people want to preserve the terracotta building, we should get riled by the fact that we aren't even able to preserve the more 'no-brainer' populist elements of this site, never mind the perhaps less obvious albeit 'deserving' elements of the site.
Click to expand...

There's nothing wrong with it; it's just that there's an odd, paradoxical historical blindness to singling out "that, and that alone". It's a potboiler--under the circumstance, to suggest "yeah, you can tear everything else down but keep the terra cotta" really does amateur injustice to the idea of retention here. It's like suggesting that the single thing worth saving on Yonge btw/Dundas and Gerrard was the Sam's sign...
 
buildup said:
Isn't the story of Peter Pan about someone not realizing you need to give up one thing to get another. We can't have it all?
Click to expand...

Of course--but the counter-argument is, "not just any old thing". And this really goes beyond Mirvish/Gehry; in a nutshell. that the trite Peter Pan argument is so slippery, it could be used to advocate demolishing virtually *anything*. Even, let's say, Queen's Park Legislature on behalf of something by Zaha Hadid...
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top