Toronto Picasso Condos | 128.62m | 39s | Mattamy Homes | Teeple Architects

grey said:
Funny you chose to reference Manhattan, because I would consider the proliferation of mid-rise warehouse character in this neighbourhood to be the epitome of Manhattanization in this city.
Click to expand...

And for that matter, consider that if you were to endorse the so-called inevitable "Manhattanizing" of Manhattan zones like Greenwich Village or the Upper East Side by ripping down brownstones and townhouses on behalf of 40-50 storey affairs, you'd be asking to be lynched...
 
??

Aren't apples and oranges both worth preserving? Dried apples make for a yummy take-anywhere snack, whereas orange marmalade - especially blood orange marmalade: love both the depth of flavour and colour! - is best at high tea...

Ipso facto both Toronto's and New York's heritage structures are worth preserving. I'm sure that's what you meant to say.

42
 
interchange42 said:
??


Ipso facto both Toronto's and New York's heritage structures are worth preserving. I'm sure that's what you meant to say.

42
Click to expand...

Of course im all for saving most beautiful old buildings for a tall box in the sky,but again if you have read and seen the post on Citys Ugliest Heritage Buildings you would most likley agree there would be no love loss if half of them were demolished,just cause some heritage society is classifying these ordinary buildings as heritage does not necessary mean every individual has to agree and put up with the arguments from the Heritage heads.
 
Last edited:
just cause some heritage society is classifying these ordinary buildings as heritage does not necessary mean every individual has to agree and put up with the arguments
Click to expand...

Actually, the reason we have heritage designations is to have people who are knowledgeable in such matters decide what should be protected and for those decisions to be enforced.

Thank God "every individual" can't just decide, on a "hot-or-not" basis, what should go and what should stay.
 
Nice.

Last thought on the matter: your apparent view doesn't even make logical sense, since it implies the complete lack of protection or planning: if there is one person out of a million who thinks a certain building is fair game for demolition, how can others tell him what to do with it? Hence, everything is destroyed.

Based on your previous statements, however, I don't expect you to be impressed by logic, so I will stop here.
 
299 bloor call control. said:
City staff are far from idiots. They can't be put on record for approving a development with such major deviations from the existing zoning bylaw, or they'd be powerless to stop other developments.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Well said, 299. I'm certainly not enthusiastic about a tower of that mass in that location, and wouldn't want it as a precedent, but I think that the Gansevoort Hotel would be an asset to the neighbourhood. Combined with the interesting architecture, it makes the building a worthy exception that should be built.
 
Or is the issue simply that there isn't enough 'interesting' architecture being built elsewhere where it should be built, which is why we are so excited for Gansevoort despite the appropriateness or lack thereof of the design for the location? Maybe we're just tired of the classy box?
 
Thankfully some people who don't have a clue about planning, heritage, urban issues or the planning/political process aren't decision makers. Development in urban conditions such as Richmond Street is a just little more complicated than fanboys enjoying renderings of tall buildings - which is why the process is so complex involving many professionals and various political tensions between a vast array of stakeholders.

FYI - Adam Vaughan is very supportive of this proposal regardless of what some on the sidelines who likely haven't met the guy or been to a public meeting are posting in the forum. The planning department made the right decision based on the legislative framework that they are currently operating in to recommend a refusal of the application. A political decision may be very different from what the planning department has recommended and Adam Vaughan may support the application - typically the majority of council cast votes similar to the local councilor when development applications are brought to council. So there are a variety of potential scenarios:

a) applicant modifies the proposal based on some of the concerns outlined by the planning department and resubmits a modified proposal;
b) applicant hopes that the political decision will be different then the recommendations of the planning department (this happens all the time - although typically the reverse scenario where the planning department recommends approval and the local councilor votes against a proposal based on political pressure from ratepayers groups or an anti-development attitude)
c) applicant appeals to the OMB

TAS won't likely be in a rush with respect to this project given current market conditions, so there is plenty of time to work with Mr. Vaughan and the planning department to potentially make some compromises prior to resubmission or an OMB appeal.
 
Does anyone know if there is any precedent in Toronto (or elsewhere, for that matter!) where a developer and an architect took the basic, fundamental parts of a proposed building and moved it to a new location? I would be curious to know.

This question could be asked of the L Tower and perhaps Giraffe Condos as well.

I really like the architecture of this building and would be disappointed to see it not built.
 
Does anyone know if there is any precedent in Toronto (or elsewhere, for that matter!) where a developer and an architect took the basic, fundamental parts of a proposed building and moved it to a new location? I would be curious to know.
Click to expand...

There must be other cases of this, but one famous example is the Price Tower, which Frank Lloyd Wright designed for Manhattan but was eventually built in Bartlesville, Oklahoma.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_Tower

price-tower-08.jpg
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top