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

NBGtect

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 28, 2014
Messages
891
Reaction score
521
How can you not love this revised proposal? This is what we needed, not some gimmicky structures with zero context. These look like a family. Plus, they will really compliment my favourite new building Theatre Park rather than take away from its elegance.

I guess a lot of people didn't have fond memories of the PoW to have it torn down so easily. We are beyond happy it's staying. The whole project now just feels right and meant to be. Win, win, and win.
 

SLOCRO

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 30, 2008
Messages
100
Reaction score
38
To add to greenleaf's account - in answering the question about what materials are likely to be used, a representative for the developer said "glass and precast". Precast? I appreciated the honesty in his subsequent response/explanation in saying that Toronto is not New York or London and Toronto economics would most definitely have to be taken into consideration in any final design concept.





I found the Group of Seven explanation and the resulting "river" on the north facade to be... a bit too much. Even then, there was caution with how the ripple effect would be achieved and that this design is still a work in progress and by no means a final one. A question/concern regarding the precedent this development would set, especially at the OMB and the city having no means of preventing further developers from seeking such heights if this development were to be approved was raised. While a representative for the architect sold the idea of making Ed Mirvish Way a pedestrian friendly "outdoor theatre" between the two towers - this seemed implausible given the hundreds of cars that would need access to the underground garage on these narrow, laneway-like (especially Pearl) streets.
 

modernizt

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 8, 2014
Messages
1,474
Reaction score
996
I found the Group of Seven explanation and the resulting "river" on the north facade to be... a bit too much. Even then, there was caution with how the ripple effect would be achieved and that this design is still a work in progress and by no means a final one.
Sounds like the type of post-rationalization of design typical of starchitects and their firms.
 

scamander24

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
429
Reaction score
134
Assuming there are no other proposals till it is completed, this building (304m) would be the third tallest residential building in North America, after One57 (306m, completed) and 432 Park Ave (426m, 2015 completion), both in NYC. If this building was only 2 metres taller, it would be the second tallest residential in North America.
 

MetroMan

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
8,015
Reaction score
4,193
Location
Toronto
Assuming there are no other proposals till it is completed, this building (304m) would be the third tallest residential building in North America, after One57 (306m, completed) and 432 Park Ave (426m, 2015 completion), both in NYC. If this building was only 2 metres taller, it would be the second tallest residential in North America.
They haven't done the financial viability studies for these towers yet. The number of floors may very well fluctuate. Given that they lost 25% of the units, my guess is that the number of floors will go up modestly and Keesmaat has got to be happy enough for this win that she'll be in a generous mood with Mirvish.
 
Last edited:

Big Daddy

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
1,732
Reaction score
256
Location
El Toro
Sad. This new design appears forced - as if they were quickly trying to come up with something that could get approved. They've watered down something that could have been internationally iconic into a couple of tall apartment buildings. Those that are happy with one taller tower are missing the point. This design is nothing exciting or compelling - just another condo.
 

fedplanner

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 11, 2012
Messages
572
Reaction score
18
Location
NYC
I'm happy that some of the heritage buildings will be saved. I'm interested to hear adma's take. Also surprised to see PoW theater. stay. I thought that was a goner for sure. Are there other heritage buildings on the site that are worth saving by relocating one of the towers on top of PoW instead? I dislike the design of the new buildings, but overall this might be a better plan.

I really don't understand Keesmaat. What exactly is it that swayed her on the new propoal? From what I recall, her main concern was height. Now the buildings are taller, but she heights that they will be more slender and cast less of a shadow... Regardless, I must give credit where credit is due with the preservation of the heritage buildings and the taller tower. It was the right call at the end of the day. I hope the building stays below 1000 ft as it's really just a pissing match. The density, 2000 units plus OCAD plus the art gallery, sounds great. I'm looking forward to visiting M+G when occupied to experience this bold development and the infusion of people it will bring to the area.
 

TDotTeen

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 5, 2013
Messages
90
Reaction score
64
I'm feeling really conflicted by this proposal. I'm happy with the compromise in the sense that I think it is good for the street level and for the neighbourhood to keep those heritage buildings. In my opinion, the proportions of that kind of building make for a great streetscape. However the ground level of the actual towers is disappointing to say the least. It's just a glass wall and (from the looks of it) some columns perhaps forming a colonnade. It doesn't have the visual punch of the earlier design. The same can be said for the towers. I like them...definitely don't love them though. The fact that precast is likely to be used extensively makes me like them even less (I generally dislike the appearance of precast).

I'm also worried about the impact on the gallery. Obviously with less space in the new proposal the gallery will have to be downsized. This was in my eyes of one the best parts of the original proposal, so it is sad to see it reduced from what it could have been.

Overall I still like the proposal, and really hope it gets built, but I'm not entirely convinced on all of the details yet. I'm hoping they keep us up to date on the design process so we can see where this thing goes.
 

cassius

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
683
Reaction score
0
I think the way this meets the street is much more realistic than the previous incarnation, though a little muted. I'm glad they've decided to respect much of the existing structures. Ground level and the first dozen floors or so look good. Going by the images so far, the towers are a disaster. Simply terrible in my opinion. Hopefully further revision can improve on them significantly. Seems so far nobody minds them. I can't be alone on this.
 

MetroMan

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
8,015
Reaction score
4,193
Location
Toronto
One other aspect that has been lost in this new proposal is that the north sidewalk on King St. W will continue to be terribly crowded — and in fact it'll become worse with the added density. The sidewalks on the north side of King are much too narrow for the amount of pedestrian traffic and the retention of the warehouse, the PoW and the Anderson building will keep them narrow forever. Rebooting this block was an opportunity to rectify that problem.
 

Top