I'm curious as to how much value the buildings in question have to the city when we consider the property tax implication of this project. Assuming they build 2100 residential units (though the number 2600 had been mentioned as well) at an average value of $500,000 that would be $1 Billion and 50 Million in residential property value. At a mill rate of .08%, that would be nearly $8.5 million annually in property tax alone.

Add to that a commercial component and you could be looking at $10 million in property tax revenue per year.

Would we be willing to sacrifice mundane industrial buildings for millions in tax revenues?
 
And you have to remember what precipitated this particular heritage-wise jog: gabe's statement a few pages back...

The ones complaining about these towers would be praising them if they were proposed in NYC, Chicago, Tokyo etc... as well they be would asking "why can't Toronto get world-class iconic designs like this??"
Click to expand...

So--this isn't about the "you", or the "we". This is about "the ones complaining".. And I'm only clarifying--it isn't so simple as if they'd praise them in NYC/Chicago/Tokyo. Particularly when you see (as I do) the central point of complaint here being the "heritage" or "existing conditions" element--that's why they're complaining. Otherwise, they might not be complaining.

Whether one likes it or not, there's a certain hardwired "internationalism" to these kinds of urban concerns--if they're not keen t/w easy starchitect panaceas at the cost of something "prized" to whatever degree locally, they wouldn't be keen to something like that elsewhere, either, even in these bigshot World Metropolii, particularly if the "prized locally" is drawn to their attention. Yet the way Gabe presents it, those doing the complaining here would be all out skyscraper-geeky "Oooh! Wow! The Shard! Awesome! Why can't Toronto do that!" upon visiting London...
 
67Cup said:
As I understand it, what we have seen so far is a series of conceptual drawings rather than renders. I would like to see actual renders before commenting one way or the other on the design. If I am wrong about the assumption, please let me know.
Click to expand...


Hopefully we will see those renders soon! The suspense is killing me! This discussion on what's heritage? What's worth saving? will be a touchy topic for years to come as parking lots and empty spaces are being swallowed up in the downtown.

I'm all for saving old buildings but... NYC does has some of the worst ensembles of new/old buildings i have seen anywhere!!

2hfq337.jpg
 
I love the towers designed by Gehry, but if he's a good enough architect, he should be able to figure out how to elegantly inlay the towers among the existing heritage designed buildings on site. Is that too much to ask?
 
You'd think Toronto was over-run by Starcitects from the grousing going on. In fact we have precious few planned, and fewer completed.
 
Though technically, you can say the same about NYC, Chicago, etc against the overall tableau of "new construction". It's just that the starchitecture gets the hype and the easy ooh-aah.

Besides, there's also past "starchitecture" to consider--and with that in mind, going back to Gabe's "the ones complaining" quote, it'd probably be better off directed at our own backyard, i.e. t/w people who adore Viljo Revell's New City Hall as a fait accompli yet go into "postwar Toronto had no respect for its heritage" mode when faced with a picture of the old Registry Office...
 
gristle said:
You should be sorry. Who is the "we" you are speaking on behalf of? And by the way, it's a forum, not a blog. There are exchanges going on. Don't let your desire to censor blind you from that.
Click to expand...

an exchange is great, I'm sure everyone can appreciate that, but it's different from thinking out loud on a public forum and writing in a boring and tiresome style. this isn't a lecture in existentialism and it does not take an essay length post to make a simple point.
 
rpeters said:
sorry adma but I think we're all tired of you maybe having a point, and possibly having an opinion. This isn't your own personal blog.
Click to expand...

I would ask that you speak for yourself thank you very much, this is a public forum to exchange ideas, opinions and thoughts. You cannot isolate one member simply because you do not agree with whatever he or she is saying, is yours the only opinion that matters? It would be awfully dull if everyone thought the exact same thing(s), don't discourage, just appreciate others thoughts as part of the social, not anti-social media :cool:
 
What depresses me is that this thing is still 1.5-2 years away from being "approved" by the city. The company hasn't even formally applied to the city for these buildings. And the scope of this project would take minimum 10 years to complete from start to finish. If we are lucky... this thing will be done for 2025. And that's IF the city doesn't spend 2-3 years declining and shrinking the project to where the developer just gives up and walks away. I don't like being negative but I just can't see Toronto city council approving this.
 
travis3000 said:
What depresses me is that this thing is still 1.5-2 years away from being "approved" by the city. The company hasn't even formally applied to the city for these buildings. And the scope of this project would take minimum 10 years to complete from start to finish. If we are lucky... this thing will be done for 2025. And that's IF the city doesn't spend 2-3 years declining and shrinking the project to where the developer just gives up and walks away. I don't like being negative but I just can't see Toronto city council approving this.
Click to expand...

Why let it "depress" you? I don't think that City Hall is out of line in applying due process. Face it, it is a major change and a major change shouldn't be rubber-stamped. I love this proposal, but we do need to think of the potential stress on all services: transit especially.

See, I don't care at all for Adam Vaughan, and all the while I don't like many of the other players either, but at least some individuals are contributing something to the process by raising the issues. Transit is already a disaster along King.

I will say it now: I don't think the height killers will win the day on this one. I think you'll see minimum of 80 storeys at the end of the day, but all parties have to acknowledge that a huge transit catch-up will be necessary, and we need to see leadership on that issue.

I love the Mervish-Gehry proposal. Net, it would result in an influx of yet more people actually residing in downtown Toronto, and the architecture is something that appeals to me, starchitect or not. Many benefits have been offered along with this proposal, including a rework of Pecaut Square. This section of Toronto may become a landmark lure and that will catch a lot of folks off guard.
 
travis3000 said:
I don't like being negative but I just can't see Toronto city council approving this.
Click to expand...

Lol, yeah let me guess.....this Gehry project, Oxford/Front Street, and 1 Yonge, will not get approvals from city planning
because of height, density, and poor nearby city infrastructure
Like i said before, it all boils down to height/density which scares many...Oxford also includes a Casino component that is giving many the heebie-jeebies,":D
 
Last edited:
travis3000 said:
What depresses me is that this thing is still 1.5-2 years away from being "approved" by the city. The company hasn't even formally applied to the city for these buildings. And the scope of this project would take minimum 10 years to complete from start to finish. If we are lucky... this thing will be done for 2025. And that's IF the city doesn't spend 2-3 years declining and shrinking the project to where the developer just gives up and walks away. I don't like being negative but I just can't see Toronto city council approving this.
Click to expand...


You honestly believe this is a realistic vision from a developer's standpoint? I can't see any valid residential developer touching a Gehry project of this magnitude with a ten foot pole. I don't think a single Gehry project has ever been delivered on budget. Each tower includes a massive amount of units for a slowing market. I don't think these can be priced cheaply either. There are limitations to the length of pre-built sales. They can't drag it on for multiple years.

I don't think you need to worry about city planners who are, unfortunately, enlightened to density and building a livable city. I think you need to worry more about who Mirvish passes this project to and how it will get value engineered into oblivion. King Blue part deax is a more likely scenario than this vision.
 
maestro said:
You honestly believe this is a realistic vision from a developer's standpoint? . Each tower includes a massive amount of units for a slowing market.
King Blue part deax is a more likely scenario than this vision.
Click to expand...

I cant wait to see the first tower in sales, it might actualy surprise you and a couple others that have been predicting the collapse of the market for years
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top