Mirvish+Gehry Toronto | 329m | 91s | Great Gulf | Gehry Partners

buildup

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
2,208
Reaction score
292
I can't address practicality because I haven't got a good understanding of the M/G street level plan.

Obviously Royal Alexander will be kept.

It would be interesting to see if two warehouses could be kept: N/E corner at John & N/W corner at Duncan (original brick restored, and possibly their depth could be reduced North of King).

This would be HUGELY contingent on M/G thoughts, I wouldn't want them to be unduly constrained and perhaps taking the corners away compromises their plans.

Everything else should go immediately, and possibly more.
 

adma

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
16,579
Reaction score
1,155
Adma, I'm with you here, I'm on the "preservationist" side (even though I still love Gehry's design), but please stop with the name calling, and it's pretty clear that people here have made up their mind about this issue, so I don't think there's any point in rehashing the same arguments over and over, it's getting tiresome.
Though, for the record (since this hasn't been posted yet), from the Torontoist, David Mirvish in the Villains list for 2013.

(Though with an asterisked "he could still fix this" tone--but, still. Of course, some of this thread diehards begging for "more info" might still think posting that is superfluous spam--even though it isn't.)
 

TJ O'Pootertoot

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 20, 2007
Messages
2,785
Reaction score
713
Thanks for posting that Adama. It's pretty succinct but a decent summary of what's been going on, IMHO.

I would like to better understand the diffent points of view from the preservationist side. What is the ideal outcome on this site?

Is the city's proposal acceptable?
It's personally hard for me to understand what exactly the city is proposing since the buildings were photoshopped in with the M+G towers. The city's concept is not an architectural or engineering plan. In reality the city is proposing facadism while preserving the most western building by reducing the footprint of the towers. I doubt that its structurally feasible to build a 60 story tower above a 100-year old warehouse without substantially destroying most of the building except for the facade.

....

The city's photoshop job wasn't really supposed to be a suggestion to Gehry of how they think he should design it; it was just saying, "Look, if you think about it there IS a way to fit the warehouses in.

I don't think the gaps are THAT huge. I think there are some people here who absolutely love the design and don't want it touched and don't want small-minded bureaucrats touching it with their dirty fingers. I haven't seen too many people outright opposed but I have seen people (like me) with reservations and concerns. Anyone who doesn't have any concerns about something of this scale (as it says in that Torontoist article, I think) is missing the entire point of having a planning department. We live in a democracy and working together is one of the things that come with that and I suspect the difference will get resolved in the fullness of time.

I don't work for the city or M+G so it's not for me to say what an ideal height is or what the street level should look like. It's M+G's job to do that in accordance with the rules of the city in which they're operating and I suspect they'll come up with something nice at the end of the day. The AGO was very constrained, for all sorts of reasons, and Gehry ended up changing his original vision quite a bit and still came up with something great. You're not giving anyone much credit if you don't think they can do the same here.


I can't address practicality because I haven't got a good understanding of the M/G street level plan.
In fairness, I don't think M+G do either. That's been very in flux. Their starting point was obviously ditching the warehouses entirely but I suspect, somewhere in the back of their minds,there is a Plan B.
 

greenleaf

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 16, 2007
Messages
2,524
Reaction score
1,067
Location
Downtown
I could dig these up but I'm lazy. Does anyone know roughly what the FSI (or FAR, or whatever we use here) is for the Lightbox, Cinema Tower, Pinnacle block? How does it compare to this site? I think I saw 19.1 FSI listed for this on a doc signed by the M-G lawyers.
 

buildup

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
2,208
Reaction score
292
Concerning the article Adma referred to, the writers never answered their own question which was:

"So how does that guy end up on a Villains list?"

I never heard of the rag, but its a tiresome practice to try and hook the reader with a "Controversial" lead.

Apparently Mirvish's first act of villain-ism was to sell his Bloor West properties. Let me get this right, he's not even allowed to sell his own property?

The next few paragraphs are highly complementary...

But then there is the statement (as a fact) that the towers are of a much different height that other buildings ("out of proportion") with no reason's as to why this is a problem rather than a benefit.

Politics of envy is thrown "those of us who can’t afford a suite on floor 75 of Gehrytown". News flash - not everyone will live in the penthouse!

Garbage rag, despite the fancy graphics, with an article slapped together in 5 minutes. Shoddiest piece yet, with no real thought.
 

Lenser

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 7, 2011
Messages
2,735
Reaction score
2,438
Location
Leslieville
Garbage rag, despite the fancy graphics, with an article slapped together in 5 minutes. Shoddiest piece yet, with no real thought.
Garbage rag, eh? No real thought, eh? Guess again. The Torontoist is one of the best things this city has going for it. It's had some of the most fine-grained and nuanced coverage of the ongoing Ford debacle you can find anywhere, with solid writing and editorial. You don't have to agree on its stance on Mervish, of course. But your glib dismissal of the whole operation is a joke - sadly, on you.

Happy new year!
 

TheTigerMaster

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 3, 2012
Messages
12,674
Reaction score
5,016
Location
Best Toronto
This article was a rather poor performance from Torontoist. The author failed to give any insight into the flaws of M+G or why Mr. Mirivish is now one of Toronto's "villains".

So how does that guy end up on a Villains list?

In July 2012, Mirvish announced he was selling his Bloor Street properties, including Honest Ed’s and the heritage buildings along Markham Street.
I can't believe the author is actually using this as an argument. Apparently selling your own property makes you some kind of villain in the eyes of Mr.Fleischer.

The design is still evolving, but they’re striking buildings that will likely have the single biggest impact on our skyline since the CN Tower. Municipal planning staff raised questions about their heights, though, about the loss of the warehouses and the insufficiency of the planned public amenities. The buildings are on the wrong scale, in short—out of proportion with their environment.
Author claims building are too tall. Of course he provides no justification for this.

Author then goes on to mention that planners are concerned about the loss of the warehouses and lack of public amenities. Well if those are the two biggest issues with the proposal then I suppose Mirvish can slap on a facade, add more public space and M+G will be construction ready. This is hardly anything worthy of the "villain" title.

The author also mentioned the similarities between M+G and the CN Tower. Odd since the CN Tower is also "on the wrong scale", yet has been hugely beneficial to the city.

Mirvish tried to soften the blow, touting a new art gallery and a OCAD campus as benefits that will serve the community more broadly—those of us who can’t afford a suite on floor 75 of Gehrytown.
Cringe worthy. I can't believe Mirvish actually wants to open an art galley and a school. [sarcasm]

Ever since, the divisive rhetoric has been flying between those (like columnists Christopher Hume and Marcus Gee) who think Mirvish has finally given Toronto its ticket to World Classville only to be confronted by small-minded provincialism, and those wondering if we oughtn’t to be at least a little concerned about the effects the biggest proposed residential towers we’ve yet seen will have on our infrastructure, local community, and heritage.
Okay? How exactly is this relevant to Mirvish's "villain" status?
 
Last edited:

buildup

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
2,208
Reaction score
292
Garbage rag, eh? No real thought, eh? Guess again. The Torontoist is one of the best things this city has going for it. It's had some of the most fine-grained and nuanced coverage of the ongoing Ford debacle you can find anywhere, with solid writing and editorial. You don't have to agree on its stance on Mervish, of course. But your glib dismissal of the whole operation is a joke - sadly, on you.

Happy new year!
Perhaps you're right, but that was one pathetic article which speaker poorly not just for the writer but for the editor.
 

TheTigerMaster

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 3, 2012
Messages
12,674
Reaction score
5,016
Location
Best Toronto
This article basically boils down to:

1. It's too big. Of course the author is unable or unwilling to justify this viewpoint.
2. The guy who wants to build it sold some other property
3. Someone who likes M+G said mean things about the opponents of the project
4. City planners think there needs to be more public space and heritage protection

I know Torontoist can do better than this. There are so many great arguments against this project and the author hit none of them.
 
Last edited:

Lenser

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 7, 2011
Messages
2,735
Reaction score
2,438
Location
Leslieville
Perhaps you're right, but that was one pathetic article which speaker poorly not just for the writer but for the editor.

Fair enough. But slam the whole entity as "garbage," when you've never even heard of it before? Come on, man. You only do a disservice to yourself.

Anyway, moving on, as hizzoner da mayor would say. Looking for a resolution to this massive project in 2014 - the sooner, the better.
 

adma

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
16,579
Reaction score
1,155
Somehow, there's an analogy btw/obliviousness to the contextual issues involved here and obliviousness to the existence of the Torontoist (or, if one should refer to it as "garbage", think of it as a garbage *blog* rather than a garbage *rag*)
 

TheTigerMaster

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 3, 2012
Messages
12,674
Reaction score
5,016
Location
Best Toronto
But then there is the statement (as a fact) that the towers are of a much different height that other buildings ("out of proportion") with no reason's as to why this is a problem rather than a benefit.
Not only that, but saying that M+G is out of proportion with the surrounding environment makes absolutely no sense. The tallest residential and commercial towers in the country are located in the surrounding blocks. If King/University isn't an appropriate location for M+G then nowhere in toronto is.

Personally I wouldn't have even bothered to bring up the height issue. It's always been a fairly weak argument against the project, which probably explains why he didn't even attempt to justify this viewpoint. He should have focused on the heritage aspect.
 
Last edited:

buildup

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
2,208
Reaction score
292
I agree TigerMaster the brazen or blatantly false objection often get the most traction.

This project evokes Tudor City in NY one my favorite projects, and the tallest residential complex in the world at the time. If M/G goes ahead it will be the 100th anniversary of Tudor City. M/G also promises to be the tallest residential complex in the world (if we define complex as 3 or more buildings). Its been about 30 years since Toronto did anything this bold, think of the CN Tower. Keep fighting the good fight M/G!!
 

Top