Toronto The One | 328.4m | 91s | Mizrahi Developments | Foster + Partners

Edward Skira said:
People do complain to this day. Go to Wired New York to see the disdain they have for the fact 432 Park Avenue replaced an old hotel.
Click to expand...
And let's take a look at that hotel (what a beauty) and what we're discussing here...

drake-hotel-227x300.jpg


15323-48989.jpg


If this were up to me, I would've removed the historical facades from Yonge, and somehow incorporated them inside the development (maybe in an atrium?)
 
Filip said:
There's your problem - comparing this to Guelph. This is what I mean by small town mentality.

New York City continues knocking down drop dead gorgeous beaux arts and art deco towers to build the next generation of the city. Do people complain? Probably, crimes were made in the past, but sometimes the past has to make way for the future. If a 3 storey banal facade at the intersection of our two most important streets is too much to bear, then we cannot call ourselves a big city. We are a big village.
Click to expand...

Nobody is advocating a banal facade for the tower. Just taking issue with your assertion that the heritage building is the problem or that we should adopt the destructive 1970s block-busting approach to redevelopment and revitatlization. A great tower and heritage preservation are not mutually exclusive.
 
Filip said:
And let's take a look at that hotel (what a beauty) and what we're discussing here...
Click to expand...

Thanks for posting a picture. It's a great building. Let's not destroy the one piece of quality architecture on this site, in a mistaken belief that's the only way to get quality architecture on the rest of the site.

The fact that it's different from an unrelated and completely different building in NYC is neither here nor there.
 
Tuscani01 said:
Mizrahi went through the buildings department for a demolition permit. That allows them to by-pass planning and council, so its not her fault she didn't get wind of it before it happened. There was no way she would have under the process the applicant went through.
Click to expand...

Well, to be fair to Filip, he has a point about Wong-Tam. Yes, the process under the Building Code Act allowed them to pull demo permits without requiring Council approval. But let's be honest - it should have come as no surprise that the corner would at some point be subject to a redevelopment application. The City ought to have been proactive. Wong-Tam ought to have been proactive. The fact that the City was caught flat-footed is the City's fault. But, yeah, there was in fact nothing she could do to stop it. And I am not sure Mizrahi did himself any favours.
 
Last edited:
Skeezix said:
Nobody is advocating a banal facade for the tower. Just taking issue with your assertion that the heritage building is the problem or that we should adopt the destructive 1970s block-busting approach to redevelopment and revitatlization. A great tower and heritage preservation are not mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...
I'm taking issue with your lack of context. This isn't some mid-block on Queen/College/Spadina/(insert any old Toronto commercial drag) - this is the intersection of our two major streets, and our only two subway lines (the others don't count).

If there's anywhere to make a powerful statement both at ground level and above, it's here. The fact that we are compromising the ground level design language by forcefully gluing heritage facades (they always look glued unless you're building masonry above, which won't happen) then we are left with a Quasimodo building that's incoherent at the bottom in relation to the rest of the structure.

Agreed that heritage preservation and good architecture are not mutually exclusive - but this sloppy attempt at pleasing the city is weak.
 
Filip said:
I'm taking issue with your lack of context. This isn't some mid-block on Queen/College/Spadina/(insert any old Toronto commercial drag) - this is the intersection of our two major streets, and our only two subway lines (the others don't count).

If there's anywhere to make a powerful statement both at ground level and above, it's here. The fact that we are compromising the ground level design language by forcefully gluing heritage facades (they always look glued unless you're building masonry above, which won't happen) then we are left with a Quasimodo building that's incoherent at the bottom in relation to the rest of the structure.

Agreed that heritage preservation and good architecture are not mutually exclusive - but this sloppy attempt at pleasing the city is weak.
Click to expand...

I'm well aware of where this is located. And you're just repeating yourself at this point. You can't envision a compelling tower without first bulldozing the site. We get it.
 
Automation Gallery said:
We can go on and on talking about heritage, and what should have been saved and what should have not,

..if anything this has had more heritage recognition than anything else that has been discussed above
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/201...-on-guardian-list-of-50-global-buildings.html
Click to expand...
Agreed. Heritage shouldn't be about how decorative and full of masonry doodads a particular building is. But its ability to continue a particular urban language in a given context.

Hue's facade is no longer really applicable in the local context. It's an outlier therefore should not be considered as heavily as other structures that have unfortunately been demolished with full blessing from the city in the recent past. If a proposal to demolish a few queen street buildings like that - well then yes, I take offence. Its loss directly impacts the local context. It feels like a wound on the urban landscape. But this? This is an outlier situated in a very dense, urban area ripe for ultra densification. Given the additional starchitect theme, well the loss of that facade is really just a footnote.

I hope this explains my madness....
 
Skeezix said:
I'm well aware of where this is located. And you're just repeating yourself at this point. You can't envision a compelling tower without first bulldozing the site. We get it.
Click to expand...
And you keep repeating yourself hence the impasse. Preserving things for the sake of preserving them is counterproductive. You fail to take other factors into account.
 
hue's is being incorporated, and the new design is still very exciting, this will be iconic regardless. Personally I am not a fan of the big open glass atrium right at the corner. Hues is more interesting to me then a big open glass space. Also if Foster is so great... then we have nothing to worry about whether this involves hue's or an exoskeleton. Just be thrilled that its something new for Toronto, that it is not a cut and paste local job and that its not like everything around it. I can't wait.
 
Skeezix said:
Well, to be fair to Filip, he has a point about Wong-Tam. Yes, the process under the Building Code Act allowed them to pull demo permits without requiring Council approval. But let's be honest - it should have come as no surprise that the corner would at some point be subject to a redevelopment application. The City ought to have been proactive. Wong-Tam ought to have been proactive. The fact that the City was caught flat-footed is the City's fault. But, yeah, there was in fact nothing she could do to stop it. And I am not sure Mizrahi did himself any favours.
Click to expand...

The city is being proactive, but it's hands are tied behind its back. Heritage Preservation Services has a massive backlog. There's no fixing that without more money and more resources.
 
Filip said:
And you keep repeating yourself hence the impasse. Preserving things for the sake of preserving them is counterproductive. You fail to take other factors into account.
Click to expand...

That's not my position ("preserving things for the sake of preserving them"). And, no, I haven't failed to take other factors into account. You've spent this entire discussion making stuff up. If that's all you have to rely on, then fine. Good luck to you.
 
Tuscani01 said:
The city is being proactive, but it's hands are tied behind its back. Heritage Preservation Services has a massive backlog. There's no fixing that without more money and more resources.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Ironic that the City will routinely tell anyone that listens that it needs stronger legislation, when what it really needs are the resources to effectively use the tools it already has.

And while the City is trying to be proactive, it isn't always directing its energies in the wisest directions. This is an important corner. They knew something was coming. This ought to have been a priority. It wasn't, and so one has to take some (some, not all) of their complaints after the fact with a grain of salt.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top