I know there was talk for a building on the old planetarium site, but I heard on 680 news that they have applied for a 46 Storey building on that site. In their words (680) they said it would be "roughly" 1/3 the size of the CN Tower.

If this is old news, please disregard.

Here is the news from the Toronto Star today

$3M condos
Plans to demolish planetarium 46-storey project called ROM South



VANESSA LU
CITY HALL BUREAU CHIEF

The Royal Ontario Museum wants to demolish the defunct McLaughlin Planetarium and replace it with a 46-storey tower that will house multi-million-dollar condos.

An employee of Graywood Developments Ltd., which has partnered with the ROM to develop the property, told the Star the tower would have four condominium units per floor, each about 3,000 square feet.

The estimated asking price would be around $3 million, with the penthouse possibly costing as much as $50 million. Forty floors would be condos.

The proposal will likely be opposed by at least two residents' groups, who say it is too big.

But William Thorsell, director and CEO of the ROM, said it means the museum can pay for the next phase of its Renaissance ROM project, in which the museum is being renovated and expanded to give the public access to more of its collections.

"We're getting substantial revenue out of this," he said yesterday.

Earlier yesterday the ROM applied to have the property rezoned to permit the development. The area is now zoned institutional and the ROM has requested it be changed to institutional/residential.

According to the ROM's website, the first five floors of the building would provide offices, storage and a link to the museum's main building.

Located at 90 Queen's Park and called ROM South, the plan also calls for a public plaza and improved subway access on the site that now houses the planetarium, long used as a storage site by the museum. It will include a pedestrian overpass connecting Queen's Park and Philosopher's Walk.

"Hopefully we'll get a yes for this and it will be great," Thorsell said.

But Councillor Olivia Chow, who represents the area, said the tower faces major obstacles.

"It's about the same height as the Toronto-Dominion Centre. It is much higher than anything around it," Chow said yesterday.

Residents who viewed the proposal at a meeting this week "were quite taken aback by the size," said Chow (Ward 20, Trinity-Spadina).

Meanwhile, Councillor Kyle Rae, who represents the ward to the east, called the project "an interesting proposition."

"The ROM has shown they're taking leadership on urban design with their new expansion on the north," Rae said. "They've got a site to the south that's a perfect location for a high-end condo very similar to what the Museum of Modern Art has done in New York City, where there's a condo right beside it."

But ratepayers groups aren't so sure.

Sue Dexter of the Harbord Village Residents' Association said there is "a lot of opposition in the community."

"This is selling off assets to afford things we can't afford to do," Dexter said. Instead, the ROM should wait until it has the money, she said.

David Powell, president of the Huron-Sussex Residents' Organization, said it doesn't fit into the neighbourhood.

"It's just over the top, it's too big, it's so tall."

with files from paul moloney and Dana Brown

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1126216214681&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154&t=TS_Home

Here is the article from the Globe and Mail. Looks to be an interesting tower.

By JOHN BENTLEY MAYS

Friday, September 9, 2005 Page G1

Since William Thorsell became director and CEO of the venerable Royal Ontario Museum in 2000, the former editor-in-chief of this newspaper has been pulling surprising architectural rabbits out of his hat at the rate of almost one a year.

The most startling so far is architect Daniel Libeskind's hulking composition of sharp elbows and angles, commissioned in 2002 and scheduled to become the ROM's Bloor Street West entrance next autumn.

Mr. Thorsell's surprise for 2005, which the ROM unwrapped for reporters this week, is the final scheme for a 45-storey skyscraper destined to rise from the debris of the decommissioned McLaughlin Planetarium on Queen's Park, south of Bloor Street.

This structure is certainly not as strange or pugnacious as Mr. Libeskind's crystal but, to tell you the truth, I've never seen a tall building in Toronto quite like it.

Designed for the ROM by Brian Brisbin, principal in the Toronto-based international architectural office of Brisbin Brook Beynon, the tower is two distinct buildings: a 40-storey condominium block atop a five-storey, 35,000-square-foot annex to the museum.

I'll start my commentary with the five-storey building on the bottom, which promises to give a cold shoulder to a few things that Toronto architects (and right-thinking Torontonians) hold sacred.

For example, we are frequently told that the bases of tall buildings should be mindfully knit into the streetscape, providing a comfortable, inviting backdrop for the passing parade of human life. (This is something I believe to be true, as a general rule.)

There should be stores, daycare centres, coffee shops, that kind of thing -- links, in other words, between the large urban structure and the living city into which it has been inserted.

Mr. Brisbin is having none of it. His five-storey box of sheer glass folds smartly around the severe, opaque museum building within. At ground level, this austere inner building will be clad in grey limestone to match the fabric of the old museum, to which it is connected by pedestrian bridges at every level.

The lobby is forbiddingly spare. Its plain stone walls, punctuated by sharply cut, unadorned monumental doorways, has the y'all-come-in charm and hospitality of an Egyptian tomb.

The chief activation in the area around the base of the tower will be created by people coming and going through the gleaming new crystalline entrance to Museum Station next door, and the floating, spectral images (of such things as museum artifacts) projected on holographic film embedded in the glass walls of the lobby and the subway exit.

The 40-storey condominium tower, connected to its base by a dramatically slender waist, is an architectural counter play to the serious business down below. Great panels of translucent glass fabric, seemingly pinned to invisible points in the sky above the highest suites, sweep downward to the tower's hemline at a sharp angle, like the silk of a bias-cut ball gown from the Jazz Age.

Whatever their differences in artistic sense -- royal tomb and swank, respectively -- the monumental base and tall shaft of this composition share a common modernist aristocracy, a similar aloofness, and marked indifference to the proletarian bustle of the streets.

But why should they do anything else? The museum section of this project will house the facilities of an august and magnificent museum that has suffered quite enough from decades of PR-driven democratic showbiz.

It's surely time the ROM reminded the general public (as it does here) that it is, after all, the child of Victorian Toronto's taste for high style, for the rare and exquisite and imposing.

The condominium tower will feature just 100 large apartments, which may well be (as Mr. Thorsell has speculated) the most luxurious and expensive high-rise quarters in Toronto.

I see nothing at all wrong with having at least one Toronto skyscraper that looks as pricey as the people who live in it.

But is this the right location for a glamorous tower, in the generally low-rise neighbourhood of the University of Toronto? In an interview, Mr. Brisbin argued that his building will be an "icon," a powerful vertical symbol pulling attention down to the high-cultural ground it stands on, like the campanile in Venice's Piazza San Marco. (Near the ROM: the Gardiner Museum of Ceramic Art, the Royal Conservatory of Music, the Bata Shoe Museum, Victoria University, Trinity University, and other important Toronto institutions.)

I like the architect's idea for his tall building, and I like the broad-shouldered hauteur of the structure itself. I look forward to seeing how it works, when the images now available to us assume three-dimensional reality beside Toronto's greatest treasury of past beauties.

WOW. This thing would be very tall-- (223m / 731ft!!) as tall as the Toronto Dominion. If it will allow ROM to house some offices and if it meshes well with the crystal, it could be a good thing. I'm hopeful that this will be approved.


....If it doesn't look like the "mating seal" render ;)

ROM condo would tower over U of T

By JAMES ADAMS

Friday, September 9, 2005 Page A1

The Royal Ontario Museum has applied to the city's planning department for approval to erect a 44-storey, 197-metre-high condominium and office tower on the site of the defunct McLaughlin Planetarium at the museum's southern border.

The skyscraper -- which, if built, will be slightly more than one-third the height of the CN Tower -- is expected to generate considerable discussion and debate between now and its expected completion date in mid-2008. In part, this is because it's to be situated within the footprint of the University of Toronto in an area that so far has been predominantly institutional in nature, rather than residential.

The sheer presence and height of the proposed tower are "substantially in excess of what existing regulations allow," a city planner said yesterday.

"It's a significant application . . . and we will be examining it carefully with respect to existing policies for that district."

The layered-glass tower, a co-development with Toronto-based Graywood Developments Ltd., that will feature 39 floors of condominiums atop a five-storey, 3,150-square-metre podium of facilities for the ROM and other institutions, is expected to cost more than $1,000 a square foot. This in a city where $500 a square foot is considered luxurious.

The entire structure will likely contain no more than 90 units, the smallest being about 1,900 square feet, and the largest approximately 8,000 square feet.

"Certainly, it's going to be one of the most expensive buildings . . . that's ever been seen in Canada," said Brian Brisbin of Toronto's Brisbin Brook Beynon, principal architects for the project.

For William Thorsell, director and CEO of the ROM, the tower is "the last great gift to Toronto from" the $230-million Renaissance ROM project he initiated in 2001, and a "fitting bookend and balance" to the Daniel-Libeskind-designed crystalline structure currently being erected on the ROM's northern perimeter along Bloor Street W.

The metal-and-glass crystal renovation is scheduled to open to the public July 1 next year.

Mr. Thorsell was decidedly bullish yesterday about the prospects for the tower, which the ROM requires for both its administrative functions and the financing of programs and operations in its expanded quarters. With 27,000 square metres of new and renovated exhibition space coming on stream, the museum is hoping to increase its annual average attendance to 1.6 million from the current 900,000.

Besides, Toronto "needs a few expensive buildings," he said. "We've been building at $200 a square foot for years . . . Look at Nathan Phillips Square and vicinity: it's so degraded now you'd think you're in some mid-level Soviet city.''

The overall project, called ROM South, also involves a radically improved, highly accessible museum subway stop for the Toronto Transit Commission as well as landscaping and a reflecting pool along Queen's Park and an east-west extension of the north-south axis of bucolic Philosopher's Walk, to align roughly with Charles Street.

However, despite what Mr. Thorsell called "its obvious excellence" -- Mr. Brisbin likened the ROM tower to the campanile, or bell tower, in Venice's famous Plaza San Marco and Cesar Pelli's well-regarded residential tower on the site of New York's Museum of Modern Art -- it's clear some sort of fight with planners, city councillors, U of T officials or neighbouring residents is expected.

Graywood Developments recently hired Toronto lawyer Stephen Diamond to help shepherd the ROM tower through city hall and the appeals that likely will end up at the Ontario Municipal Board.

But even if it scores approval, will there be any buyers? Brad Martin, a prominent realtor in the Toronto condominium market, has his doubts. Yesterday he agreed the high-end route is the way to go for the McLaughlin site, but with the ROM residences likely to cost $2-million or more, the Graywood-ROM vision is perhaps too high-end and unrealistic in the city's competitive, condo-rich market.

http://www.rom.on.ca/about/graphics/south_fullview.jpg

I think this condo is way too pricey(3 to 50 million) for toronto and will not sell well at all if at all.

from ssp
the courtyard
http://www.rom.on.ca/about/graphics/south_court.jpg
http://www.rom.on.ca/about/graphics/south_court2.jpg

Trump
Shangri La
Ritz
Four Seasons
ROM

Just where are all these multi-millionare buyers supposed to come from. Toronto would be better positioned to build these if there were one or two on the market. With five I suspect that the market will be divided and there is a risk that most will not be built.

Looks ridiculous at this location. Bad idea.

It would look amazing..... the only problem is, can the market handle it? Probably not...

Tower looks nice...the glass wings seem to twist like the 1331 georgia building in Vancouver and the Al Durrah in Dubai. And I don't mind the location and how out of place it might seem.

But the pricing is rediculous. Starting at $3 million? I think Trump was starting from $500 K and I doubt anyone would buy the $50 million penthouse. :(

But the pricing is rediculous. Starting at $3 million? I think Trump was starting from $500 K and I doubt anyone would buy the $50 million penthouse.

This is a far better location than Trump. It's near Yorkville and the ROM (of course). It will likely have a direct connection to the subway line via the ROM (yes, the rich in Toronto regularly use the rail based public transit).

Graywood has plenty of experience and a good name. Perhaps they've figured out a way of having a %age of the purchase price be tax deductable as a donation to the ROM or some other secret?

If each family which contributed $250k or above (directly or via their company) for the current overhaul purchased a single unit, the building would be 30% sold.


I agree about the penthouse pricing being a little high, but they did say "up-to". The $50M penthouse would make it the second most expensive Condo in North America and likely within the top 10 most expensive homes on the continent.

Reality is - only a complete fool would pay $50mil for a condo in Toronto. That'll never fly.

I can't believe i'm saying this but I think it's too tall and just not appropriate. What's the focal point here? The ROM or the condo? By the sounds of it, the ROM is just pimping themselves out to pay for their expansion. Sad.

The base looks terribly uninviting and cold. Can't imagine that space in the winter. I do like the fins at the top though and the building in general but just not there.

Lastly, I highly doubt anyone who pays $3 million for a condo takes the TTC. So the fact that there's a subway at your door is rather irrelevant.
Rich people take cabs.

Just out of curiousity...why such high prices?

I understand that the location is second to none in Toronto with subway, downtown, Yorkville just steps away but is it because it shares the name "ROM" or does the ROM need that much money to help pay for the new Crystal addition?

I like the building myself. The use of glass will definatly complement the new ROM. The prices are crazy though. What I can't understand is that if this building is 46 stories, why is it 680ft? That's almost 15 ft per floor. A bit much for residentual. Then again, when your paying $3million+...

Lastly, I highly doubt anyone who pays $3 million for a condo takes the TTC. So the fact that there's a subway at your door is rather irrelevant.I can assure you many a VP and CXO with $2M+ condos and homes take the TTC on a regular basis. I've worked with a few myself, and run into others like members of the Thompson family.

The very top of the building seems to be just glass, no "real" building. Very unique :) :)

I see no problem unloading multi-million$ condos...the area is already full of them...and only 100 to sell...I don't see a problem. Especially as this one may be able to market itself as the absolute best of all of them. Trump is just a crass name in a bad location.

Selling multi-million$ units in buildings that have $149k units is hard, as the rich like to live in exclusive buildings, which is why those building tend to sell better.

$50 million is another story though...I guess you only need one buyer, but that's a chunk of change even in expensive cities. If they market this project right, it could appeal to a wider global market though...it has a lot of international cashe possibilities if done right.

And yes, many wealthy downtowners and midtowners love to take the subway....Toronto's Yonge line has never had an image problem with being "working class". The Bloor line is a different story.


Anyway, I hope the project goes through without being mangled to death in the process. I wouldn't say the area south of Bloor around there is "generally" a good spot for this size of tower, but this particular building and location seems like a rare exception to do it.



KGB

Anyway, I hope the project goes through without being mangled to death in the process. I wouldn't say the area south of Bloor around there is "generally" a good spot for this size of tower, but this particular building and location seems like a rare exception to do it.

KGB

If the building was completed it would also compliment the newly proposed Four Seasons Tower up the street very well if that building gets made too.

Sounds interesting. I wonder what it'd look like amongst the U of T buildings and next to Queen's Park.

With currtent escalating gas prices and the fact that most businessmen don't drive to work in the first place, the subway link would be an attraction for sure.

I think it would look fine at this location, stop being such pussies, build tall buildings whenever you can, where ever you can.

I'm your typical, garden variety NIMBY-urbanist when it comes to constructing 500ft + towers outside of the financial district. However, it's becoming more of a necessity to build skyscrapers and there's a limited amount of parking lots to fill up in town. We'll have to look beyond the entertainment district and the waterfront as areas to develop.

That being said, a luxury tower at that location is fine by me. It may be a stand alone tower at that location, but if they pour in the big bucks, we could have a real stand-alone beauty.

I wish they could incorporate the planetarium into the design. That's one cool looking building that could make an epcot-like "vision of the future" lobby for hoity-toity residents. Imagine, a Laser Zepplin Lobby for the Ladies who Lunch and the Bay Street Rollers.

The thing about building large skyscrapers at locations like this is that it spreads height around the city and with all those people moving in it will make it more of a hot spot, one more place to go to and sight-see. In the last 5 years that the NY Towers were built, millions of dollars have been poured into bayview village and turned it from a shitty little K-mart plaza to housing some of the classiest stores and restaurants in the city. I know its only a mall but it does show how the area caters to the potential money from new residents.

I disagree with the height and location of this project, within the confines of the U of T campus, but I don't want to rehash an old argument.

In the last 5 years that the NY Towers were built, millions of dollars have been poured into bayview village and turned it from a shitty little K-mart plaza to housing some of the classiest stores and restaurants in the city. I know its only a mall but it does show how the area caters to the potential money from new residents.

Bayview Village has always been ritzy. The Kmart closed because they sold all their stores, and that was almost 10 years ago, before the NY Towers. I don't think the NY Towers influenced Bayview Village.

I don't know if there's enough demand to substantiate all the new luxury project condos around Toronto though. I'd hate for them to tear down the Planetarium and then find out they can't lease the condos, and having a half-empty building with just office space.

I LOVE it! And a nice addition to have a tall condo in my neighbourhood. I read the
Globe article yesterday, and the only thing I dislike is Thorsell's habit of being like
Stinson and dissing everyone else's architecture, and claiming they are single-handedly
bringing the one nice building to town. That is a sort of unprofessional attitude, and
I wish he could rise about that habit.

I'm your typical, garden variety NIMBY-urbanist when it comes to constructing 500ft + towers outside of the financial district. However, it's becoming more of a necessity to build skyscrapers and there's a limited amount of parking lots to fill up in town. We'll have to look beyond the entertainment district and the waterfront as areas to develop.

That being said, a luxury tower at that location is fine by me. It may be a stand alone tower at that location, but if they pour in the big bucks, we could have a real stand-alone beauty.



But why at THIS location? Sure, we're running out of space...but there are plenty of spots for a massive tower than besides the ROM. In this case it's totally out of context in the UofT Campus.

Running out of space? - it will probably take 50 years to develop all the vacant property and parking lots in the downtown area (dupont, bathurst, lake, don valley) and waterfont not to mention the thousands of buildings left over to redevelop/expand upon. There really is no need to develop skyscrapers and considering the permenency of a building with 200 owners thinking small scale may be a good thing

I hate how people keep complaining about how it is totally out of context with the area, I on the other hand could think of no better, avenue road and Bloor. There are tons of highrises around the area, only a few steps away from mid-town T.O. As a student of U of T, I would rather look at this beautiful building rather then the Manulife building. This coupled with 1 Bloor East and this would give midtown a deadly duo of nice highrises.

I on the other hand could think of no better, avenue road and Bloor. There are tons of highrises around the area, only a few steps away from mid-town T.O.

It's not at Bloor and Avenue Road, it's south of that location. The building will be located right at the foot of quaint Charles Street. There are no highrises, let alone highrises of a comparable height to what this one will be, in the immediate vicinity. The closest highrise buildings are along the north side of Bloor, a quarter of a kilometre away. The entire area surrounding this site will remain lowrise for decades to come, unless someone starts building over Queen's Park or knocks down historic U. of T. buildings. A worse location for a 46 storey tower, which will be almost 4 times the height of Robarts, could not have been chosen.

There are tons of highrises around the area, only a few steps away from mid-town T.O.

This is not a 200-300 foot highrise

I would rather look at this beautiful building rather then the Manulife building.

In 30 years this 'beauty' may be the eyesore - the 'Tour Montparnasse' of the city

This coupled with 1 Bloor East and this would give midtown a deadly duo of nice highrises

1 Bloor East's (which is no where near this tower) design is already outdated

im not sure i like this building being built here...i love the idea of building it and i really do hate nimby's lol, but i would just like to see more skyscrapers built right downtown, i wish Toronto was more like chicago instead of having multiple skylines had only one massive one, and i think a huge building in the middle of lowrise buildings would look kind of sily

^theres more to architecture than just how the skyline looks. Besides, it wont be all by itself there is quite a bit of development going on in that area. Just a block east of it.

"It's not at Bloor and Avenue Road, it's south of that location. The building will be located right at the foot of quaint Charles Street. There are no highrises, let alone highrises of a comparable height to what this one will be, in the immediate vicinity."


What are you talking about???? Ok...it's not "right" on the corner...it's a couple hundred feet south of it. I can entertain an arguement talking about the possibility of highrises at ROM, but you're making out like they are going to demolish Convocation Hall and build it there or something...a tad over-reacting.

Here's a picture taken basically across the street from where the proposed tower will go...hardly the way-out-of-context scenario you have going there.





http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/1535/pict50852es.jpg (http://imageshack.us)






KGB

^^ agreed, the location is perfect in my mind, it's right on a subway station and at two major streets bloor and Avenue/University. I would rather have a beautiful tower here than downtown. If it was built downtown it would be lost in the jungle.

Thank you KGB for backing me up. What i'm realy trying to get at here is how everyone always bitches about how dense the cluster of skyscraper is in the CDB. Now we might finally have one that stands out in a good location, and what happens " Poster 1- Geez having a nice looking tall skyscraper run by a well established organization away from the main cluster just won't work"
"Poster 2- Wtf is this? Go dense or go home"
"Poster 3- The location is awful, overlooking a beautiful campus while having an amazing view of Queens Park and downtown just won't cut it, people won't by into it"

It sure doesn't hurt this skyscraper
http://www.arch.tu-dresden.de/ibad/Baugeschichte/bilder/new%20york/empire%20state%20bdg%20ansicht.jpg

But that isn't looking in the direction of the tower. I'll have to go down and check it out for myself.

What are you talking about???? Ok...it's not "right" on the corner...it's a couple hundred feet south of it.

About 700 feet, which makes one a hell of a difference. Just like building a 10 storey building along Bloor, or moving it several hundred feet into the Annex. That would make a big difference wouldn't it?


I can entertain an arguement talking about the possibility of highrises at ROM, but you're making out like they are going to demolish Convocation Hall and build it there or something...a tad over-reacting.


Here's a picture taken basically across the street from where the proposed tower will go...hardly the way-out-of-context scenario you have going there.


Nice work in taking the photo in such a way to make the area south of Bloor look as urban and tall as the buildings north of Bloor. (I dare you to post the view south from that exact same location.) Unfortunately for you, anyone familiar with the area knows that you're full of shit. The building to the right in the photo is only 3 storeys tall. On the other side of Avenue Road, the ROM is a similar height. Both buildings will be standing, not to be replaced by towers, for a long time.

Here's a satellite photo of the area and the approximate heights (in storeys) of the buildings surrounding the spot where the proposed building will go (circle B). Circle A is where you're photo was taken, facing north.
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y162/sk8rboiiii/Untitled-2.jpg


What i'm realy trying to get at here is how everyone always bitches about how dense the cluster of skyscraper is in the CDB. Now we might finally have one that stands out in a good location, and what happens

Find one post of mine where I'm "bitch[ing] about how dense the cluster of skyscraper is in the CDB". You won't find one. That's because I believe the CDB to be perfectly planned out. The taller towers are in context with each other, and the building heights increase gradually as you get closer to the core.

Who cares if there are some taller buildings at Bloor and Avenue Road? This isn't an empty lot...this is right beside the ROM and essentially part of the UofT campus. The north and south sides of that intersection are quite different...just because there are some highrises nearby doesn't mean it is appropriate to put at tower at THIS specific spot.

I just hope they build a new planetarium at the science centre.

I can assure you many a VP and CXO with $2M+ condos and homes take the TTC on a regular basis. I've worked with a few myself, and run into others like members of the Thompson family.

LOL! You think it's your typical "VP" that's buying $3mil+ condos? Do you have any idea how much income you need to support that? Just look at where Trump has to go to sell his units - and they're priced at half the cost of the ones proposed at the ROM. There just isn't enough of a market in Toronto to support that and I can assure you, those wealthy off-shore purchasers who can generally don't take public transit to get around.

Anyway, speculate all you want - these prices are outrageous and with interest rates slowly starting to climb again, not to mention all the other new high-end projects (and of course, public opposition), I don't think this will ever get off the ground.

"Just like building a 10 storey building along Bloor, or moving it several hundred feet into the Annex. That would make a big difference wouldn't it? "


Considering the Annex has plenty of highrises...no.








"Unfortunately for you, anyone familiar with the area knows that you're full of shit."


Well, the pics are not doctored...and that's what you see standing in front of the proposed tower. Are you suggesting people won't look north when entering/exiting the building?

I appreciate your passion on the subject, but I think you have taken the concept of "context" fairly, well...out of context. LOL

First of all, context is not necessarily about height at all...the city is full of streets that work quite nicely that are full of old victorians next to deco walk-ups, next to swing'n 60's apartment highrises, next to pomo condos. They still work because the context does not depend on height or usage...but set-backs and landscaping. The UofT campus itself is full of out-of-context examples...certainly in it's architecture.

So...your idea that this side of the street within this amount of feet are this height, therefore all buildings must conform to this simply does not work as a rule at all. (I especially love your "zero" storey for Queen's park...funny that one).

Not to mention that being out-of-context is not always a bad thing anyway...perhaps a well-designed tall focal point is not just what the doctor ordered to add some variation to the ivy-league surroundings?...that's just a matter of opinion...not whether being out-of-context is either good or bad. Juxtaposition is every bit as legit as being "in context".

If we never did anything out-of-context, we'd still be living in caves.






KGB

You think it's your typical "VP" that's buying $3mil+ condos? Do you have any idea how much income you need to support that?

With respect, yes I do, and I suppose it depends on how you define typical. SMEs might give out the titles but you really don't get the posision with it; more of a glorified directorship.

As to income to support a $3M home? Same percentages as regular home ownership really. If you love to spend of frivilous things, it probably wouldn't matter if that was your annual income you would lose it eventually. If you pay cash up front and otherwise conservative with your spending then two or three advisory board posisitons with small firms would cover it (about a 10 hour work week).

Anyway, this is very off topic. Do whatever you wish with the information I presented regarding TTC ridership, but even the TTC will tell you that ridership is primarily made up of choice riders.

I shall be watching this thread out of interest for this project. It's VERY fascinating, this ROM condo is

^theres more to architecture than just how the skyline looks. Besides, it wont be all by itself there is quite a bit of development going on in that area. Just a block east of it.

yes but its certianly a large part of architecture...
Now that im really thinking about it, there is obviously no moving this building so i support it 100%, either it gets built or it doesnt and if it does get built it will be built on the same proposed site. So im gunna stop complaining about the location. I would love it though if they put 3m on it to bring it up to 200m!

"Just like building a 10 storey building along Bloor, or moving it several hundred feet into the Annex. That would make a big difference wouldn't it? "


Considering the Annex has plenty of highrises...no.


Yup its, 2 storey house, 2 storey house, 46 storey building, two storey house, two storey house. Right? Uh-huh.




Well, the pics are not doctored...and that's what you see standing in front of the proposed tower. Are you suggesting people won't look north when entering/exiting the building?

The photos don't have to be doctored, it's only a matter of the perspective from which you took the photo. The view south would present a completely different argument, and that's why I don't expect you to post it. Are you suggesting people won't look south (towards the two to three storey cultural institutions) when they enter/exit the building?




I appreciate your passion on the subject, but I think you have taken the concept of "context" fairly, well...out of context. LOL

An urban 46 storey building among 2 and 3 storey buildings in a landscaped environment is a building out of context. This is not a different of 100 or even 200 feet, this is a different of 600-650 feet!


First of all, context is not necessarily about height at all...the city is full of streets that work quite nicely that are full of old victorians next to deco walk-ups, next to swing'n 60's apartment highrises, next to pomo condos. They still work because the context does not depend on height or usage...but set-backs and landscaping. The UofT campus itself is full of out-of-context examples...certainly in it's architecture.

So...your idea that this side of the street within this amount of feet are this height, therefore all buildings must conform to this simply does not work as a rule at all. (I especially love your "zero" storey for Queen's park...funny that one).

But this building is not a 12 storey apartment building.

The U of T campus and the ROM are supposed to be two of Canada's premier cultural and educational institutions. By putting in a building which will tower 700 feet over the ROM, a condo building which will be a dominating presence throughout more than half the St. George campus because of it's height, this building will be a physically imposing structure which will, simply because of it's size, become the dominating building in the landscape. When it should be the cultural and educational buildings that should be dominating the space.

(And yes, I did throw in that zero as a joke :) )

Not to mention that being out-of-context is not always a bad thing anyway...perhaps a well-designed tall focal point is not just what the doctor ordered to add some variation to the ivy-league surroundings?...that's just a matter of opinion...not whether being out-of-context is either good or bad. Juxtaposition is every bit as legit as being "in context".

And, classically, what kind of buildings have these been? Religious/cultural buildings and more recently corporate buildings, structures that symbolized the force that brought the community together, whether it be religion, or the company that provided work. It wasn't residential structures with multimillion dollar penthouses for the snooty and elite, (well, you have to look back to the days of monarchies and torture chambers for that). That is the image this building will portray, Richy Rich watching over our cultural and educational facilities.

The plan for the 'utopian' production city of Chaux in France had a centre building, which housed the director, that was one storey higher than any of the worker houses or production buildings to show who was the most powerful on the grounds. This condo represents the same idea to me, the elevation of elitism (the condo owners) as the beacon among our culture, instead of the actual institutions that are supposed to be open to the public.

I'm afraid I cannot explain my personal view and opinion any better.

"Yup its, 2 storey house, 2 storey house, 46 storey building, two storey house, two storey house. Right? Uh-huh."


Perhaps you're thinking of a different area...or need to look closer at the Annex.







"The photos don't have to be doctored, it's only a matter of the perspective from which you took the photo. The view south would present a completely different argument, and that's why I don't expect you to post it."


Well, it just happens I don't have that particular view on file...it's not part of some giant conspiracy. But most of us know excactly the area we are talking about...so it doesn't really matter.

What it shows, is that the building is located on a major busy urban street, that happens to have highrises. The "context" you speak of can go both ways...which is why I would consider this to be a very mixed-context area...obviously.







"The U of T campus and the ROM are supposed to be two of Canada's premier cultural and educational institutions. "

And they still will be..pretending this condo building will change that is just unfounded (I could think of a better description, but I'm feeling kind).







"It wasn't residential structures with multimillion dollar penthouses for the snooty and elite. That is the image this building will portray, Richy Rich watching over our cultural and educational facilities."


Besides just being a crass judgemental comment, it's also too absurd to be taken seriously. If it were cheaper condos, would it change your mind? No...so why use it as a lame excuse? People could throw the same elitist, snooty descriptions at the UofT.

Tone down the drama a bit, and there might be a discussion somewhere.









KGB

"LOL! You think it's your typical "VP" that's buying $3mil+ condos? Do you have any idea how much income you need to support that? Just look at where Trump has to go to sell his units - and they're priced at half the cost of the ones proposed at the ROM. There just isn't enough of a market in Toronto to support that "

The market is definitely there providing the location is good. (considering 100 Yorkville pretty much sold old in less than 24 hours) Trump, unfortunately, has a horrible location. Whether this tower is built or not will be completely up to the OMB settlement


http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/1535/pict50852es.jpg

nice picture but I don't quite understand what the purpose of posting it is - sure Avenue Road and Bloor has highrises with even one topping 300 feet (plus another approved) but neither cover half the height of the proposed tower

Byron, is your point that you are jealous of rich people in good looking buildings? Because that is what is seems, it's almost as if you are afraid that if this building is built, it will be so high that it will rip a hole in the space time continuum and destory all of man kind. Or the building will sprout legs and chase you down the street, but because there are only as you claim one and two storey buildings around you will get captured?

I'm sorry Byron but this isn't France in the "classical times", and rich people need to live somewhere. Shouldn't the elite live at the top, they(or most) have earned it. It seems to me that what you want is a communist society, where there are almost no elite, and everyone lives in the same context. As KGB said , sometimes its ok to be out of context, and why does this bother you?

It's not even designed by a world reknowned architect. It's from a local firm designing business parks for the 905

"As KGB said , sometimes its ok to be out of context, and why does this bother you?"

but not when the architect is used to designing business park for the 905 region

the location is perfect for this project, on top of a subway stop, near a major intersection, and their are plenty of highrises nearby. enough said.

the location is perfect for this project, on top of a subway stop, near a major intersection, and their are plenty of highrises nearby. enough said.

I don't see how "nearby" really applies in this respect. The north and south sides of Bloor have totally different uses and atmospheres...it might as well be miles away.

And, as it's been mentioned, this tower is more than twice the height of any "nearby" towers.

I just can't accept the ROM and UofT being an acceptable location for a 40+ storey condo tower.

"nice picture but I don't quite understand what the purpose of posting it is - sure Avenue Road and Bloor has highrises with even one topping 300 feet (plus another approved) but neither cover half the height of the proposed tower"



I posted the pic to show the context (one of them) in the immediate area, which is a very busy, urban, mixed-use highrise laden area....in other words...not particularily out of context for another tall building. I really don't see how this one being the tallest one in the area as mattering much as far as the conversation is concerned...I mean, is there some magic number where it all of a sudden becomes acceptable? Would it be better if it were more along the heights of buildings in the area? Maybe Would it actually be better to have a building make a statement from a skyline perspective? Maybe

The whole line of conversation regarding it's upscale nature is wacky if we are talking "context" here...it's Bloor-Yorkville for crying out loud...it would be out of context if it wasn't upscale.

As far as selling them...well, who knows. But there are certainly enough empty nesters looking for high-brow condos in the best locations....pretty much every house in Midtown is worth millions anyway...and that covers a lot of area and houses. If all they have is 100 units to sell, I don't see a problem...if this becomes the premier address in Yorkville (which it might if they play their cards right), then the rich will beat a path to it....look at the tons of other million$ + condos selling within a few blocks.








"It's not even designed by a world reknowned architect. It's from a local firm designing business parks for the 905 "


Well, that's a whole different ball game. If it's a shitty design, then all bets are off. But super-star architects are not necessary for good designs. But then again, it's all in the marketing...and that goes a long way.







KGB

I don't see how "nearby" really applies in this respect. The north and south sides of Bloor have totally different uses and atmospheres...it might as well be miles away.

And, as it's been mentioned, this tower is more than twice the height of any "nearby" towers.

I just can't accept the ROM and UofT being an acceptable location for a 40+ storey condo tower.

How exactly will it's height affect UofT and the ROM. The reason this tower has been proposed is to help finance the ROM's expansion plans. Would you rather have the ROM not expand?. A well designed tower is suitable for anywhere in the city IMHO no matter how tall it is.

Built it!!!

How exactly will it's height affect UofT and the ROM.

Well, in day-to-day life, probably not much...but I think the built form of the city is a little more complicated than just saying 'there are tall towers not to far away, it's right at a subway, so it's good'.

Built form matters...to say a tower of this magnitude and purpose will have no effect on the ROM or UofT really makes no sense at all. It's out of context in both scale and purpose. Being out of context can work in some situations, but this isn't one of them.


The reason this tower has been proposed is to help finance the ROM's expansion plans. Would you rather have the ROM not expand?.

There are other avenues to increased revenue than a condo tower. It's not as if no condo tower means an end to expansion. Besides, how will a massive tower affect future expansion? Is a posh, exclusive condo tower in keeping with the uses and spirit of the ROM?

A well designed tower is suitable for anywhere in the city IMHO no matter how tall it is.

Built it!!!


So a 60 storey tower is appropriate for the middle of Centre Island? High Park? The corner of Bloor and Brunswick? The Beach? The Necropolis? Sorry but I can't agree.

"Well, in day-to-day life, probably not much...but I think the built form of the city is a little more complicated than just saying 'there are tall towers not to far away, it's right at a subway, so it's good'. "


But nobody is suggesting it isn't complicated. Then again, being in a high density urban location of highrises, on a major artery and directly on top of a subway station aren't exactly "minor" points either. In fact, is that not the general idea behind the city's planning policy?








"Is a posh, exclusive condo tower in keeping with the uses and spirit of the ROM? "

It is keeping with being in the Bloor-Yorkville area though isn't it? Would it be better if it were your "normal" priced Toronto condos? I think one of the major pluses of the proposal, is that it brings residential to a rather institutional site.

But we are being to concerned with the use of the building right next door to it. Since when is that ever a factor in the overall area?? This is an area which mixes institutional with retail, office, entertainment, hotel, cultural, recreational and residential uses. Using your theory, what are we supposed to build next door to a church?








"So a 60 storey tower is appropriate for the middle of Centre Island? High Park? The corner of Bloor and Brunswick? The Beach? The Necropolis? Sorry but I can't agree. "


When those locations come up, we'll talk. But you couldn't apply the same arguements for those locations that you could to Bloor & Avenue Rd. Sorry, but I also can't agree. Are you seriously equating Bloor & Ave Rd to the Islands or a cemetary?







KGB

So a 60 storey tower is appropriate for the middle of Centre Island?

Does this 60 storey tower include the worlds tallest roller coster? I believe the current tallest is about 450feet. An indoor vertical amusement park inside a wacky shaped tower could be appropriate for centre island.

It can't be any worse than the wind farm that some are proposing for the Island Airport location.

Interesting debate so far.

I still like it, no matter what anyone says. It enters sacred U of T/Queens Park territory, yet it'll be located along a major thoroughfare, beside a downtown subway station that is reletively under-utilized. I'd have a huge problem with this project if it was built on a narrow residential side street in the middle of the campus.

That being said, this building has to be amazing (I like the rendering) in order to justify the location. If it is anything less than spectacular, it'll be an embaressment that we'll have to live with.

BTW, what is the least used subway station in the system? I've always thought Museum was.

For those that are against the tower will you be willing to pay 10X more to visit the ROM in order for them to finance their expansion?

Again the tower is in the perfect location, and in all honesty not many people that go to Uof T will notice it with all the tree cover around.

Honestly how will this tower effect your enjoy ment and experience at either UofT and the ROM. I don't see how one tower will have any effect. A wall of highrise i see having an effect, but not one tower no matter how tall it is.

Since the rich folk bellied up to the bar to help build the Renaissance ROM, I think it is only fair they are allowed to live near it (and help underwrite Phase 2 in the process).

The last thing I want to see is a bunch of wealthy homeless people hanging around the ROM.

I think it would be more of a shame to lose the Planetarium (doesn't anyone else remember going there in elementary school?) than worrying about how it will look near the U of T campus.

Let's keep things in perspective --- Toronto is the New York of Canada; it has an upper downtown skyline as well as a lower downtown skyline, just like New York. The Yonge/Bloor area is growing up and expanding out, and at Bloor and Avenue Road this project (in addition to 1BE, Four Seasons, the Uptown, and 30 Charles) is by no means out of place or out of line.

yup, i really hope this goes ahead, i love this building

Honestly how will this tower effect your enjoy ment and experience at either UofT and the ROM. I don't see how one tower will have any effect. A wall of highrise i see having an effect, but not one tower no matter how tall it is.

Dude, this tower will have a huge effect on the area. That's not a bad thing, necessarily. But a landmark building MUST be exceptional like the CN tower, City Hall, or the Swiss Re building in London. If it looks like a NYCC Condo, it'll kill the area!

http://freefilehosting.net/file/?id=rdr2ka3b

for those interested, the tower will be a about 100m from the yellow crane in the pic.

And i don't see how one tower will have a negative impact on the area, if anything it will make the intersection look better

Does the Toronto Preservation Board have anything to say about the destruction of the planetarium building? It is of a certain period and style - very few such examples still exist nation-wide - it is clearly part of the city's architectural heritage. If the ROM requires more office space, perhaps they could use the planetarium as is. If the planetarium is designated a heritage site, don't know how they'd build around it. Also, doesn't such a large structure spoil the philosopher's walk?

BTW, what is the least used subway station in the system? I've always thought Museum was.


From what I've seen, I'd say Castle Frank is definitely in the running...

^^ I dunno Chester is pretty unused.

BTW, what is the least used subway station in the system? I've always thought Museum was.

The least used subway stations hands down, are Leslie, Bayview, and Bessarion, all on the Sheppard Line. But Castle Frank would be my choice for the older stations.

Does the Toronto Preservation Board have anything to say about the destruction of the planetarium building? It is of a certain period and style - very few such examples still exist nation-wide - it is clearly part of the city's architectural heritage. If the ROM requires more office space, perhaps they could use the planetarium as is. If the planetarium is designated a heritage site, don't know how they'd build around it. Also, doesn't such a large structure spoil the philosopher's walk?

The ROM doesn't need more office, they just need more money to help pay for the new crystal addition. I wouldn't say that the Planetarium is worthy of keeping either, it's been unused for years now and is not seen as great architecture, IMHO.

^^ Have you ever been on sheppard during rush hour? It gets busy.

The least used subway stations hands down, are Leslie, Bayview, and Bessarion, all on the Sheppard Line. But Castle Frank would be my choice for the older stations.



The ROM doesn't need more office, they just need more money to help pay for the new crystal addition. I wouldn't say that the Planetarium is worthy of keeping either, it's been unused for years now and is not seen as great architecture, IMHO.

The ROM does need extra office space so if they cannot build the tower they will still detroy the planetarium to have a smaller kind of building in a couple of years but this time the provincial gvt will have to pay for it...

^^ Have you ever been on sheppard during rush hour? It gets busy.

Actually, the only stations that are mainly used on that line are Sheppard @ Yonge, and Don Mills which people use to access to Fairview mall or people continuing west on Sheppard Street. The platforms on Leslie, Bayview, and Bessarion are very empty.

The platforms on Leslie, Batview, and Bessarion are very empty.
Empty, but thankfully they are improving and not staying at their initial ridership levels. At least time is on our side.

Actually, the only stations that are mainly used on that line are Sheppard @ Yonge, and Don Mills which people use to access to Fairview mall or people continuing west on Sheppard Street. The platforms on Leslie, Batview, and Bessarion are very empty.

Bayview will probably become a very busy station as so many condos are being built there including the NY towers development as well as others.
Bessarion on the other hand might become a dud station much like the Summerhills and Castle Franks of other lines.

^^ Its saving grace may be the under-utilized Canadian Tire lands that are crying out for condos and highrises.

^^ Its saving grace may be the under-utilized Canadian Tire lands that are crying out for condos and highrises.

speaking of the canadian tire lands... has there been any movement or news about them recently??? i have heard absolute squat about them, i wouldn't have the foggiest idea why condo developers would just let that valuable piece of land lay vacant like that and not actually propose something while the market is hot.

print copy
University community invited to view planetarium plans
Public meeting is part of the rezoning application process for building site
Oct 21/05
by Mary Alice Thring (about) (email)

A public meeting will be held Tuesday, Nov. 1 to view the Royal Ontario Museum’s (ROM) planning application for the McLaughlin Planetarium site.
ALSO SEE:

* Earthquake victims remembered
* Soprano and U of T grad Isabel Bayrakdarian to perform benefit show
* other stories by Mary Alice Thring


The ROM has made application for a 46-storey mixed-use building overlooking Philosopher’s Walk and abutting Falconer Hall and the Edward Johnson Building. The plan calls for a 42-storey residential condominium atop a four-storey podium designated for museum use. The developers are also providing for underground parking for 160 cars with access off Queen’s Park.

The planetarium site is part of the wider precinct designated for institutional use in the City of Toronto’s Official Plan and the University of Toronto Part II Plan.
The public meeting is part of the rezoning application process required by municipal regulation.

Members of the U of T community are urged to attend the meeting which will provide an opportunity to view the plans, ask questions and provide input. The meeting begins at 7 p.m. in room 102 of the Mechanical Engineering Building, 5 King’s College Road.
----------------------------------------------
I might show, depends on how busy I am.

Castle Frank is probably the least used station and there should be no stop there anyways....Castle Frank is only a bridge across from Broadview....and just as close to sherbourne....Castle Frank area is all rich people

The buses that service Castle Frank are full of people I wouldn't consider rich


Chester & Bessarion would be my choices

BTW, what exactly does the empty Museum station have to do with a ~200 unit luxury condo tower

Isn't there some talk of the Science Centre building a Planetarium. I think this would be a better location economically and I feel it also better fits the theme of the institution.

The buses that service Castle Frank are full of people I wouldn't consider rich


Chester & Bessarion would be my choices

BTW, what exactly does the empty Museum station have to do with a ~200 unit luxury condo tower

In comparison to me, they are rich

A tall building out of context? Well, one could argue that the Liebeskind ROM addition is out of context with the older buildings. Personally, I like the contrast, and I don't think that a good looking tall building will damage the area.

A tall building out of context? Well, one could argue that the Liebeskind ROM addition is out of context with the older buildings. Personally, I like the contrast, and I don't think that a good looking tall building will damage the area.

Sure, but at least it's nicely scaled.

This new tower really doesn't have anything except height.

Sure, but at least it's nicely scaled.

This new tower really doesn't have anything except height.

Well it is nicely scaled...but you need to give it more credit than that...It's a nice tower

If was just iffy about the area at first

I dont mind a tall building there. Its not liek theyre building it right behind University College or the Parliament Buildings.

...
The ROM's faulty tower: a condo too far
...
By JOHN BARBER

Saturday, October 15, 2005 Page M2Key

* E-mail John Barber
* Read Bio
* Latest Columns

What price culture? Hmm . . .

Whatever the answer may be, at least we know where to look for it in Toronto today. It can be found in the purely quantitative financial "pro formas" that guide high-rolling speculators in the current condominium boom. The price of culture in Toronto, whatever it may be at any one time, varies directly with the wholesale price of a square foot on the 48th floor.

This strange alliance is as old as air rights, but it first took modern form with the National Ballet School's clever remake of its ancient Jarvis Street headquarters, financed partly by the inclusion of two sleek towers, 30 and 25 storeys, in the ensemble. The Canadian Opera Company contemplated, then rejected the same strategy to help finance its Four Seasons Centre, but it's working for the Toronto International Film Festival, soon to be subsumed into the bottom floors of a 46-storey King Street condominium.

Now the ever-desperate Hummingbird Centre is making the same scheme, publicizing its woefully underfinanced development program with a drawing commissioned from architect Daniel Libeskind. It shows a somewhat wild-looking tower looming balefully over the old venue in a style that can best be described as Libeskind Lite: as wild-looking as you can get without violating the sacred pro formas that rule all in the production of culture-by-condo.

Advertisements
Register

My pet poodle will receive the Order of Canada -- and huffily refuse it, as a slight to his dignity -- before that one ever gets built. But Mr. Libeskind is also indirectly responsible for the one new project whose existence proves beyond question that enough is enough: the 46-storey tower the Royal Ontario Museum wants to build at its south entrance, on the site of the decommissioned McLaughlin Planetarium.

Once again, one is forced to reflect on the wholesome modesty of the new Four Seasons Centre, now nearing completion on University Avenue, which is modest in part because the COC wasn't willing to pay the price of boldly reaching for the architectural stars, which would have been a monstrous spike of spec-built condo impaling the head of its new theatre.

The ROM pursued the exact opposite policy, building a stupendously expensive showpiece it cannot afford -- except by tacking an enormous tower onto the back end of our poor, worked-over museum, permanently blighting the city's most dignified precinct.

Thankfully, the proposal has aroused the furious opposition of every community group within shouting distance, as well as the University of Toronto and local Councillor Olivia Chow. Although the city's official response is still brewing, one planner summed up the current thinking well: "The city shouldn't have to put up with one eyesore just to help pay for another."

It's hard to imagine a less appropriate place for such a tower. Indeed, none exists. Among its local effects, it will cast a deep shadow over Philosopher's Walk every morning, adding to the Libeskind addition's unkind assault on that sacred space. Much further off, it will dominate and destroy the ceremonial view north up University Avenue, the grandest and most fully realized man-made view in Toronto, which is supposed to terminate with the Ontario Legislature. The ROM's faulty tower, off-centre but overpowering, will crush that great stone pile in northerly views from at least as far south as Dundas Street.

If zoning has any meaning anywhere in Toronto, surely it is here amid the greenery of Queen's Park and the University of Toronto. This is one of the very first places our civic ancestors set aside and ruled off-limits for commercial development, and it is one of the only such preserves that actually survived. For almost 200 years, including several decades before the actual establishment of the university it was set aside for, this parkland has been strictly preserved for institutional and educational uses.

And it remains parkland, its oldest denizens being the primeval oaks of Queen's Park behind the legislature, their highest branches overtopping the cornices of the traditional buildings on surrounding avenues, courtyards and walkways. To desecrate this precinct with a high-rise real-estate speculation would be a crime against the city's far-sighted ancestors as well as its own future.

Our cultural "industries" are not the only ones counting on the condo boom to make a buck: All four of the deluxe new hotels currently going up downtown -- or at least being promoted -- are essentially condo buildings with a twist. But those buildings are filling out-of-the-way parking lots that are crying out for development. They are demonstrable improvements. Besides, their developers are not asking the public to come along for the ride in a volatile real-estate market.

The ROM proposal has already aroused enough opposition to suggest that it will never be built. In the meantime, it has helpfully exposed the inadequacy of the city's defences against culture-by-condo, whereby influential elites demand their right to throw up towers on the most awkward sites in the least appropriate places. One general policy statement is all that protects the University Avenue view corridor. Philosopher's Walk is just another "open space" for developers to capture in their pro formas (to the extent that nearby "publicly accessible open space" always means extra storeys).

But now, at least, the need to draw a line is clear. For the sake of our culture, the ROM condo's gotta go.

jbarber@globeandmail.ca
...
* © Copyright 2005 Bell Globemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights Reserved.
....
Genius
(OK, by that I mean Barber) However, I do not agree with him. I'm a big fan of the taxpayer not paying, and an even bigger fan of 'user pays.' However, there is some good for society by having a good and affordable museum-- if condo purchasers choose to pick up some of the tab, then fine! If, in order to get a good museum, and as it would be hard to have the ROM 100% on the 'user pays' model (unlike the waterfront) therefore if we can get an alternative to taxes, such as a condo, then great!

Hey! If cultural institutions are so 'up shits creek' how come they can afford such glitzy, world- class redevelopment? If they are so up shits creek, why is the AGO tearing down a perfectly fine 10 year old building (instead of saving it and incorporating it in a new design?) Why? because they are not up shits creek- they simply ply have their hand out, and want the government to fund elitists institutions!

"Hey! If cultural institutions are so 'up shits creek' how come they can afford such glitzy, world- class redevelopment?"

Only way to survive

"they simply ply have their hand out, and want the government to fund elitists institutions!"

What a sad world when cultural equals elitist

"Hey! If cultural institutions are so 'up shits creek' how come they can afford such glitzy, world- class redevelopment?"

Only way to survive

"they simply ply have their hand out, and want the government to fund elitists institutions!"

What a sad world when cultural equals elitist
POINTZ:

1, The taxpayer was out a bundle on the 10 or less year- old barn built at the AGO-- why not save it? Build around it? Use as much of it as possible? If it were a private company, do you think they'd be tearing down a building every 10 years? I have no problem with the AGO expansion! I have a HUGE problem with tearing down what is built and paid for! The tearing down of a perfectly fine and new building at the AGO is a shining example of how elitist art institutions disregard the taxpayer!
2, Gee, I wonder what the demographics are for opera, etc. . vs. Leaf fans watching the game at a sports bar? To the Leafs credit, they did not get money for the ACC from the taxpayer. They may have had a tax break, but no cheque was written to the Leafs. POINT- let the Opera Company and the Ballet raise funds from a condo tower! A condo for and arts centre or for an endowment fund is a voluntary tax paid for by: 1, purchasers, & 2, a freebie for the city, but for some shadows and putting up with a tower (where's the problem?) Those who don't like towers are welcome to dig into their pockets so that the elitist art institutions don't have to build condo towers, and are equally invited to shut the frick up about the towers if they are unwilling to do so!

Since the rich folk bellied up to the bar to help build the Renaissance ROM, I think it is only fair they are allowed to live near it (and help underwrite Phase 2 in the process).

The last thing I want to see is a bunch of wealthy homeless people hanging around the ROM.
Haahaaaahahhaaaahaaa!!!! That one struck my funnybone!!!
Also, I have no problem whatsoever with a tall building there. Detractors
make is sound like it is in the middle of the U of T campus.
As for the AGO, I would not like to have seen the existing building destroyed,
but I would have liked for them to move to a new location and start afresh.
I guess it all had to do with the long lease, I don't know...

The tearing down of a perfectly fine and new building at the AGO is a shining example of how elitist art institutions disregard the taxpayer!

Are Be stop spouting garbage. They are not tearing down the AGO. They are redoing the facade and adding new space. They are also reconfiguring the internal layouts.

Yes, they ARE tearing down the barn bit! YES THEY ARE. Less than 10 years old, and it's GONE! That's why some of the AGO board was in a snit!
SAVE THE UGLY BARN! Build around it, change it, etc. BUT DO NOT TEAR IT DOWN! -
FACT - the AGO is tearing down a less -than 10- year- old expansion!


Let the arts get their funds from: 1, those who want to make a donation, 2, capital costs form a condo sale ( facilities in the lower floors of a condo) and 3, an endowment fund (from sales of condo units)

it may actually cost more to "build around" something than tear it down and build a new extension...
And most of the extension is not paid by taxpayer money but by fund-raising... the gvt capital grant is a very small % of it

The only elitest here is are be. He seems to think our tax dollars should only be spent on what he wants....your or my opinion don't seem to matter.

And last time I checked, NHL or NBA franchise owners weren't not-for-profit- charitable organizations....AGO is....it's purpose is to culturally enrich our lives.


Barton Myers's addition is being torn down for two reasons.....

Gehry is re-designing the whole interior, as well as an addition. And to meet the new flow of the gallery (which it needs), it has to go. And hey...it's Gehry...people listen.

Secondly, and much more importantly, it was fuking ugly. Even at the time, when that pomo shit was in vogue, I thought it was just awful...especially the whole Dundas part.

I just consider it a costly fix of a mistake.






KGB

I've heard rumours the Myers addition is structural unstable and the need for extra support is what led to the galleries being chopped up into puny closet

Barton Myers's addition is being torn down for two reasons.....

Gehry is re-designing the whole interior, as well as an addition. And to meet the new flow of the gallery (which it needs), it has to go. And hey...it's Gehry...people listen.

Secondly, and much more importantly, it was fuking ugly. Even at the time, when that pomo shit was in vogue, I thought it was just awful...especially the whole Dundas part.

I just consider it a costly fix of a mistake.
KGB

KGB, you are correct about the barn being a piece of shit. ... when it was new, people were bowing to this crap. Don't you think the same is going to happen with Gehry?

Hey, if I put money into the AGO, and paid for the Are Be Gallery of Demonstrably Inferior Canadian Art ,(where I'd have Monet, Renoir , and French Impressionist paintings beside the self - evidently dreadful Group of Seven paintings etc.) and then, 10 years later, the AGO tears it down, guess what? I'd be freaking pissed!

POINTZ:
1 Wow! The AGO, which is funded by the taxpayer, is tearing down an ugly barn, one that is only 10 years old -or less! Why not leave it alone, and build around it? Move the partition walls all you want, but keep the structure more or less the same. You cannot have it both ways -- Say that the arts are poor, give money to the arts, and watch the AGO tear down a new building! CRAZY! So poor that they can be so wasteful with their assets!

2, Let the AGO get its money- from condo sales! Good enough for MOMA ....
3, and Let the ROM get funding from condo sales!

KGB, you are correct about the barn being a piece of shit. ... when it was new, people were bowing to this crap. Don't you think the same is going to happen with Gehry?

Hey, if I put money into the AGO, and paid for the Are Be Gallery of Demonstrably Inferior Canadian Art ,(where I'd have Monet, Renoir , and French Impressionist paintings beside the self - evidently dreadful Group of Seven paintings etc.) and then, 10 years later, the AGO tears it down, guess what? I'd be freaking pissed!

POINTZ:
1 Wow! The AGO, which is funded by the taxpayer, is tearing down an ugly barn, one that is only 10 years old -or less! Why not leave it alone, and build around it? Move the partition walls all you want, but keep the structure more or less the same. You cannot have it both ways -- Say that the arts are poor, give money to the arts, and watch the AGO tear down a new building! CRAZY! So poor that they can be so wasteful with their assets!

2, Let the AGO get its money- from condo sales! Good enough for MOMA ....
3, and Let the ROM get funding from condo sales!

Yes but since it's the taxpayers who funded this building...don't you have a false sense of security with being in this building....It's ugly and I wouldn't be too surprised if the AGO was structurally unsound...I did hear about problems with the expansion of the building...There has got to be more to it than just a few nooks 'n crannys...nobody tears down a buildings after 10 years...

However....fundraising off the condo, I think, is a great idea

Public support for the capital project is less than 20% of its cost! It is not paid by taxepayers! The governments have cut operating funding of big arts institutions for a decade and then just prior to election gave a portion of the cut back for capital projects... Over $200 million of the AGO Gehry project is privatly funded...
Stop that stupid taxepayers-wate discourse... It is nonesense

...
Hey, if I put money into the AGO, and paid for the Are Be Gallery of Demonstrably Inferior Canadian Art ,(where I'd have Monet, Renoir , and French Impressionist paintings beside the self - evidently dreadful Group of Seven paintings etc.) and then, 10 years later, the AGO tears it down, guess what? I'd be freaking pissed!
...
2, Let the AGO get its money- from condo sales! [/b] Good enough for MOMA
- OK, How can arts groups cry poor, and tear down a 10 year old (or less) building?
I agree that it is SHIT! However, let's SAVE MONEY and save as much of this crap barn as possible. Hey, Group of Seven is shit, too - But, it is Canadian, and the AGO should show this crap, rather than burn it! Further, Canadians want to see it! POINT- It's paid for! Make use of it!


Now, if it is structurally unsound--- TAKE THE CONTRACTOR AND ENGINEERS TO COURT!!! They have insurance!

Re the Ghrey plans: What would you guys think about making the sugar cube 30 stories tall, with 25 stories of condos and 5 stories of gallery space? That way, the AGO will have revenue. However, Barber has arguments against this idea.

well....i dont even give a damn what anybody says anymore..im a skyscraper lover and this is one damn sexy skyscraper so im suporting it all the way, am i short sighted? probebly...ohwell lol

You define the AGO as a skyscraper?

You define the AGO as a skyscraper?

this is a ROM thread.

and i agree a lot with what are be says... but i have to defend the group of seven. i think they are mostly looked down upon by cultural elitists because they are so popular with 'the masses'... plus, i think they've had a profound effect on the national consciousness- promoting national unity, especially in ontario which imho along with alberta has the most to gain in separation.

hmmmm when i think of a "canadian culture" i think of the group of seven and that brief period around the montreal olympics when we were cool... think of the movie "goin down the road"

Well it is nicely scaled...but you need to give it more credit than that...It's a nice tower

If was just iffy about the area at first

It isn't nicely scaled with the surrounding area at all.

As for it being a nice tower...the jury is still out on that too. It looks like your run of the mill condo with some shard-like elements on the side. If they don't use the best materials it could end up looking worse than run of the milll.

Well, there may be a good chance that the materials might be kind of cheap.
Remember: The goal of the ROM condo is to pay for an expansion the ROM cannot afford:

The ROM's faulty tower: a condo too far
...
By JOHN BARBER

....
Once again, one is forced to reflect on the wholesome modesty of the new Four Seasons Centre, now nearing completion on University Avenue, which is modest in part because the COC wasn't willing to pay the price of boldly reaching for the architectural stars, which would have been a monstrous spike of spec-built condo impaling the head of its new theatre.

The ROM pursued the exact opposite policy, building a stupendously expensive showpiece it cannot afford -- except by tacking an enormous tower onto the back end of our poor, worked-over museum, permanently blighting the city's most dignified precinct.

POINT: The ROM condo might be --might be - about "What the frack were we thinking! Now we're neck deep in it!" and now the ROM' s in a bind. Supposedly, Libskind (SP) is notorious for being WAY OVER BUDGET (don't know if this is the case with the ROM) The ROM could be scrambling....

Having said that, I'd rather the ROM get funds by a voluntary tax-- a voluntary tax on condo purchasers at the ROM condos, rather than have the government rush in where angles fear to tread.

Something to be said for the not world class, Diamond designed Opera House---A truly outstanding building for the partly sum it is being built for.

If they are world class and they can't raise the funds - GIVE THE ART INSTITUTION / MUSEUM CARTE BLANCH TO PUT UP SOME TOWER.
Heck, I'd have no problem with the 4 Seasons Centre getting a condo tower!

The ROM condos may be the result of an overly ambitious design - the Crystal. However, I still applaud the design, and welcome the condo tower, regardless of how goofy it may be-- as it will, almost certainly (the condo) ,get lost in the crowd in any event. The crystal, however, will stand out!

If world class design results in the need to have a garbage condo built to pay for it, then I accept the crap condo!

POINTZ:
1 What's going to happen if the ROM tower gets killed?
2 Will the ROM stop construction on the Crystal?
3 Will the ROM be forced to clad the Crystal with cheap -ass, galvinzed corigated sheet metal?
4 Will this kill of world class design in Toronto, and mandate overly modest boxes?
5, Can the tower get a re-design, so that the Crystal can be saved.

Story #1
Tensions rise over ROM condo tower
Building threatens neighbourhood's cultural history, opponents say

By UNNATI GANDHI

Tuesday, November 1, 2005 Page A14

Emotions are running skyscraper-high in advance of a community meeting tonight about the Royal Ontario Museum's plan to build a 46-storey condominium that some say will pierce the heart of the cultural district.

The tower, proposed for the site of the defunct McLaughlin Planetarium, south of the ROM, has brought several residents' associations and parts of the University of Toronto together. They pledge to do anything they can to block what they call a "looming tower" and what the museum says is the final "bookend" of its $230-million Renaissance ROM project.

Mimi Fullerton, a member of the Annex Residents' Association and a long-time supporter of the ROM, said the condo is "too big a price tag to pay" for an area that is so rich in history.

"We have so few areas [like this] in this city. We're not a city with grand boulevards. This is a special area. It's a cultural street. I simply don't understand the proposal for a skyscraper smack dab in the middle of this," said Ms. Fullerton, who, for the first time in 15 years did not renew her museum membership.

Advertisements

The layered-glass tower, proposed as a co-development with Toronto-based Graywood Developments Ltd., would rise within the footprint of the University of Toronto in an area that so far has been predominantly institutional, rather than residential. The ROM has applied to have the property rezoned.

"Not only is the proposal an affront to the elegant sightlines of the area, the rezoning for the ROM also opens the door to other such developments in the precinct," said Ms. Fullerton, who led the residents' association in battling the building of another condominium at the northeast corner of Bloor Street West and Bedford Avenue.

The citizens' group forced investors of One Bedford -- H&R Developments and Lanterra Developments -- to redraw a proposed design. One tower in the two-tower Bedford condominium scheme is to be replaced by a 10-storey pavilion. The remaining tower has been trimmed to 32 storeys from 34.

Most of the developers who came forward to the ROM's original call for expressions of interest in April of 2004 were for mixed use, said Meg Beckel, the chief operating officer of the ROM.

"We were completely open at that stage to whatever would be the best use of the site."

The ROM had even approached the University of Toronto's Faculties of Law and of Music, which are located close to the planetarium site, asking whether they were interested in sharing space.

"The University of Toronto didn't come forward with their interests," Ms. Beckel said.

Brian Langille, the interim dean for the Faculty of Law, agrees those talks weren't fruitful, but said the ROM could have gone about the process in a different manner.

"We share an overly tight precinct at the moment with very complicated access, with servicing provisions for the ROM going by the front doors of [the Faculty of] Music and through the parking lot of [the Faculty of] Law," said Mr. Langille, whose office is housed very close to the planetarium site.

"All three of these public institutions need space and building this condominium tower is not helpful for [the Faculties of] Law or Music at all."

With the site of the planetarium, which closed in 1995, being the only available space left in the area for expansion, Mr. Langille said the museum has essentially gone and addressed its space problems while making those of the two university faculties worse.

The Faculty of Music said yesterday it encountered "unanimous opposition" to the condo tower from its faculty, staff and students.

"The ROM tower will diminish our site, boxing the faculty in, towering over it, and diminishing it in profile and visibility," Dean of Music Gage Averill said.

"There is simply no mistaking that the proposed tower is enormously out of scale and represents a level of intensification of the site responsive to budget deficits and not to responsible planning for arts and cultural development."

The condominium would sit atop a five-storey "podium" that would provide 35,000 square feet of office, storage and curatorial space for the museum.

The overall project, called ROM South, also involves an improved, highly accessible subway station , as well as landscaping along Queen's Park, and an east-west extension of the north-south axis of Philosopher's Walk. Its expected completion date is mid-2008.

The condominium, which will likely have four suites per floor, would have an asking price starting around $3-million a unit, with penthouses costing as much as $50-million.

The ROM's Ms. Beckel said the deal with the developer would benefit the museum with money to finance its new Crystal building.

"We're still looking at a benefit of approximately $20-million."

She said she's aware of the varied concerns of the community.

"But we're doing something that benefits both the ROM and the public," she said. "People won't have to walk through the shipping and receiving alley to get to Philosopher's Walk. They'll have easy access to the public space and the subway entrance."

She said she sees the tower, which will be roughly one-third the height of the CN Tower, as something that will designate the cultural area.

"People will point to it and say that's where the museum and arts district is. It will act as a landmark."

The first community consultation meeting takes place tonight at 7 o'clock. in the Mechanical Engineering Building at the University of Toronto, 5 King's College Circle, in Room 102.
....
© Copyright 2005 Bell Globemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights Reserved.



Nov. 1, 2005. 01:00 AM

#2
Stars not aligned for ROM condo

MARTIN KNELMAN

The stars that used to be visible from the deceased McLaughlin Planetarium do not appear to be aligned in favour of William Thorsell, CEO of the Royal Ontario Museum.

The first night of November shapes up as a painful one for those who were hoping the ROM could solve its fundraising challenges through a deal with a developer that would see a 46-storey condominium tower rise on the hitherto low-rise gravesite of the departed planetarium on Queen's Park Cres.

Angry neighbours will make their voices heard tonight at a meeting about the project that will start at 7 p.m. in the University of Toronto's mechanical engineering building on King's College Circle.

And if the museum perceives that it is facing a battle that can't be won, you can bet Thorsell and his board will consider taking the graceful way out of their deal with partner Graywood Developments Ltd.

For the moment, Thorsell insists, "We will be going to the meeting on Tuesday and presenting a strong, persuasive case for our project."

But being a clever strategist and expert at public relations, he is likely to reach the obvious conclusion. The museum's best option surely would be to cancel plans for the tower rather than endure an ugly, costly fight that would not only end in defeat but also antagonize a lot of influential people who used to be considered friends of the museum — notably those connected to the adjacent U of T who feel Thorsell is trampling on sacred ground to raise about $20 million toward the museum's expansion project.

"I will cancel my longstanding membership at ROM in protest," says one supporter of the U of T's music faculty.

Yesterday, Gage Averill, dean of the faculty, went public with his strong objections, announcing the results of its poll of faculty, staff, students, donors, friends and audience members.

The result: unanimous opposition.

"The ROM tower will diminish our site, boxing the faculty in, towering over it, and diminishing it in profile and visibility," Averill says.

What makes this issue sensitive is that the land in question, east of Philosopher's Walk, forms a unique and much-loved haven on the midtown campus. According to Averill, it is inconceivable that such a tower would be allowed to destroy the vista and open space of Queen's Park.

Insiders suggest that those concerns are shared by the city's planning department, which will soon make public its views on this proposal. And as Councillor Olivia Chow explained in a phone interview yesterday, there are a whole lot of factors on the negative side.

The only compromise would be to reduce the height of the tower, but that is hardly the only issue to be resolved.

"Even before we deal with the height of the tower," Chow says, "the zoning would have to be changed." The site is not zoned for residential use. Another strike: Neighbours appear to be strongly opposed. Why would the ROM risk antagonizing city hall and the U of T unless it feels sure of winning?

Martin Knelman can be reached at mknelman@thestar.ca

Additional articles by Martin Knelman



› Get great home delivery subscription deals here!

FAQs| Site Map| Privacy Policy| Webmaster| Subscribe| My Subscription
Home| GTA| Business| Waymoresports| A&E| Life
Legal Notice: Copyright Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. All rights reserved. Distribution, transmission or republication of any material from www.thestar.com is strictly prohibited without the prior written permission of Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. For information please contact us using our webmaster form. www.thestar.com online since 1996.

as if that area is THAT historic. we overglamorize our past...its so recent..were not exactly talking about building this thing beside the pyramids. build the damned thing.

The ROm has already raised so much of its target that the crystal is not in danger... Governenment will likely provide cash to finsh the construction... the issue is more about the operating costs after... also remember that the crystral is only a part of the entire ROM Renaissance... it's only the visible part of the iceberg... if it comes down to this, there are other things that could be "sacrificed"... but seriously it won't happen

Well, then why go for the condo in the first place? I hope the Crystal is not at risk, but the odds of the feds or Queen's Park stepping in to finish the ROM are between zero at one extreme and nil on the other.


Once again, one is forced to reflect on the wholesome modesty of the new Four Seasons Centre, now nearing completion on University Avenue, which is modest in part because the COC wasn't willing to pay the price of boldly reaching for the architectural stars, which would have been a monstrous spike of spec-built condo impaling the head of its new theatre.

The ROM pursued the exact opposite policy, building a stupendously expensive showpiece it cannot afford -- except by tacking an enormous tower onto the back end of our poor, worked-over museum, permanently blighting the city's most dignified precinct. -John Barber

We need the condo tower.
If we want jaw dropping designs for our cultural buildings, we need condo towers to pay for them.

I think people are REALLY over-reacting in regards to that particular spot for a highrise being inappropriate. I really don't see it. Other places yea...just not this one...I think right on Avenue Rd in that location is fine, even if there are no highrises on that particular stretch at the moment.

Sounds to me like mostly anti-highrise (anywhere) people, and for some reason, it "seems" like a bad idea, which brings a lot of usually moderates into the fray.

Personally, i think a verticle element to the horozontal nature of the ROM (old and new) will actually create a better overall effect in the end. And if it's $3 million and up, then I don't see why they can't blow their brains out on some kind of architectural statement....a verticle version of the Crystal.

But....I can see this one being very unpopular and taking on a high profile political football slant...I'd say they will have a tough time getting approval on that one....people seem very emotional about it.







KGB

I agree KGB- What's so strange about a tower on Ave. Rd?

Tensions rise over ROM condo tower
...By UNNATI GANDHI Tuesday, November 1, 2005 Page A14

"Not only is the proposal an affront to the elegant sightlines of the area, the rezoning for the ROM also opens the door to other such developments in the precinct," said Ms. Fullerton, ...
....
The overall project, called ROM South, also involves an improved, highly accessible subway station , as well as landscaping along Queen's Park, and an east-west extension of the north-south axis of Philosopher's Walk. Its expected completion date is mid-2008.

The condominium, which will likely have four suites per floor, would have an asking price starting around $3-million a unit, with penthouses costing as much as $50-million.
(PASS THE BONG THIS WAY!!!! )

The ROM's Ms. Beckel said the deal with the developer would benefit the museum with money to finance its new Crystal building.

"We're still looking at a benefit of approximately $20-million."

She said she's aware of the varied concerns of the community.


She said she sees the tower, which will be roughly one-third the height of the CN Tower, as something that will designate the cultural area.

....
© Copyright 2005 Bell Globemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights Reserved.



POINTZ:
1, We need A TOWER to help pay for the Crystal, but do we need THIS TOWER?
2,
"The condominium, which will likely have four suites per floor, would have an asking price starting around $3-million a unit, with penthouses costing as much as $50-million. (PASS THE BONG THIS WAY!!!! )" They're going to have to have a 2nd condo tower to pay for the first! Are they sure they're not making things worse?

"We need A TOWER to help pay for the Crystal, but do we need THIS TOWER? "


I dunno....sounds like a pretty good tower....as towers go. And I don't think they "need" a condo tower to pay for anything...it's basically paid for already....it's not like another $20 million cannot be raised by any other way than through the condo tower. But it is a way to do it....and it seems to be a popular one (not quite a proven one yet mind you).






"They're going to have to have a 2nd condo tower to pay for the first! Are they sure they're not making things worse? "

I don't know what you mean....are you implying this will be a money-losing development? Not that I know the excact details of this, but I imagine the ROM gets their $20 million from the developer...I don't see them liable for the profitability of the condo tower.

But you do have a point...deciding to make this such an exclusive tower is a risk....especially given their president-making prices. Sure, it's Bloor/Yorkville, and big buck condos are the norm....but that many..."starting" at $3 million...up to $50 million is pushing the limits of the upper area of upscale condos in the city.

If they just stuck to the usual Toronto condo formula, they would simply make them tiny places that sell for 179k, and they could put a shovel in the ground before Xmas. Waiting to sell 80% of all those condos at $3 mil+ a pop may take a while.









KGB

I wonder how the meeting went tonight at UofT, unfortunately I couldn't make it.

So, it is ok to build on Bloor, like the Intercontinental, but not a few metres to
the South. Now it becomes Holy Ground.
I hope they DO build the condo. Yes, this one.

From the Globe And Mail:

ROM condo project takes heat from critics
Architect defends development plan, arguing that tower will 'tell a story from the sky'
By JERED STUFFCO

Wednesday, November 2, 2005 Page A16

Critics of a proposed 46-storey condominium that could be erected at the south end of the Royal Ontario Museum faced off against the project's supporters in a heated exchange last night.

"It sets a dangerous precedent" for other institutional buildings in the area, said Gee Chung, president of the greater Yorkville residents' association.

Several hundred people attended last night's public meeting, which was organized by the city and the project's developers so community members and critics could voice their concerns.

If completed, they argue, the structure -- which would be built on the vestiges of the McLaughlin Planetarium -- will disrupt the district's aesthetic continuity and cast a long, dark shadow over one of the city's most historic precincts.

"There's virtual unanimous opposition to this project," said Jennifer Hassum, a representative from the University of Toronto's students' administrative council.

In order for the developers to break ground, the proposed site's land must be rezoned from institutional to mixed. The ROM applied to have the property rezoned in September.

If the rezoning is approved by city hall, sales of the condos would pump a much-needed $20-million into the ROM's coffers -- money that would help finance the museum's $230-million transformation. Along with the glass skyscraper, the finished package would also include a refurbished, wheelchair-accessible TTC entrance, an expansion of Philosopher's Walk and fresh landscape work along Queen's Park.

Hampered by technical difficulties and heckling from the crowd, architect Brian Brisbin made his pitch, saying that a tower was always part of the original plan.

"It was always related to Bloor Street, which is like our Fifth Avenue," he said at the meeting, which was held at the University of Toronto's mechanical engineering building.

The new structure would "tell a story from the sky," Mr. Brisbin said as he showed images of the design. This was greeted with criticisms, including a shout of "sore thumb" from one woman.

Stephen Diamond, lawyer for Graywood Developments Ltd., noted that the city's Official Plan designates the property as a "development site" that is therefore "suitable for consideration of alternative forms of development."

The building also falls in line with the city's desire for intensification, which implies building up, he added.

While Mr. Diamond conceded that the building would cast a "marginal" shadow on parts of Philosopher's Walk, he said that much of it already falls under the shadow of the existing ROM building.

"You can build this site and have impact on no single-family homes," he said, adding that in a city that is often criticized for its dearth of landmark buildings, ROM South presents a unique opportunity to "accent" the neighbourhood.

Starter units in the tower -- which would be among the most expensive in the city -- are expected to sell for $3-million, with a penthouse unit topping out at $50-million.

City planning manager Lynda Macdonald said officials have yet to take a stand on the development.

"Definitely, we're there to listen. We haven't taken a position yet," she said in a telephone interview yesterday afternoon.

The city expects to reveal its decision in early 2006, Ms. Macdonald said.

If the city rejects the ROM's proposal, the developers can submit an application to the Ontario Municipal Board, which has the power to overrule the city.

Completion of the Renaissance ROM project, designed by celebrated architect Daniel Libeskind, is scheduled for mid-2008.

City planners will take information gathered at the meeting and use it to decide whether they should give the application the green light. If they do, they will present their findings to city hall, which will then vote on the project.

Reacting to negative responses from the audience, ROM CEO William Thorsell said that if opposition is too great from city officials and residents, then "obviously it won't get built."

^^ Yes...a lot of students are beefing with this project...the thing that bothers me is that mant people are saying that it is going to cause more traffic problems along st.george...which I don't agree with. There are many things to do close by...and it is even greater for university students who have the money to make a fat down payment.

As far as the way it looks in the area...it might stand out...but the urban value of it is great

I'm just gonna miss the McLaughlin Planetarium

Apparently the meeting at UofT didn't go so well, people are seeing this with eyes wide shut. Traffic shouldn't be a problem as this is a high traffic area already,and it's not like there will be ten thousand residents moving into this building. It will be an uphill battle for ROM. But as I was at the sight today, a white board has been erected saying that they want to erect a 46 storey building.

Nov. 3, 2005. 04:24 AM...

Height may be right

CHRISTOPHER HUME

The more Toronto changes, the more it stays the same.

A public meeting Tuesday was a good example. The subject was the 46-storey condo tower the Royal Ontario Museum hopes to build on the McLaughlin Planetarium site. Needless to say, virtually everyone who showed up opposed the project. The main reason was height.

So what else is new?

That Torontonians hate tall buildings is a foregone conclusion. They always have. That's why locals get misty-eyed remembering when David Crombie was our tiny perfect mayor and his 14-metre height by-law was still the law. Well, sort of.

Those were the days all right. Developers knew who was boss and city hall was there to keep them in line. Funny, then, how we look back at the buildings of the 1960s and '70s and wonder what was going on. They're so damn ugly, it's hard to imagine how we let them get built.

Ironically, the ROM tower ranks among the most elegant proposals seen recently in Toronto. Designed by Brisbin Brook Beynon, it makes a virtue of its height and celebrates our skyline as few skyscrapers do.

On Tuesday, this didn't matter. ROM president and CEO William Thorsell could have been offering the Chrysler Tower and it wouldn't have mattered.

The only thing Torontonians seem to care about is height. The architecture can be dreadful, the planning appalling, but as long as it's not tall, who cares?

In fact, there are good reasons to build a condo on the McLaughlin site, and equally good reasons not to.

The property is on a subway, near Bloor St., which is already built up, and would provide the chronically underfunded museum with a desperately needed $20 million. On the other hand, the context is public, low-rise and institutional.

You can rest assured city council will turn it down, if for no other reason than to avoid offending voters. Yet that same council approved a much more offensive condo to be constructed beside and on top of the Hummingbird Centre. Like the ROM tower, this unfortunate scheme would also compromise a landmark and privatize public space.

But the Hummingbird is owned by the city, which feels its own need much more painfully than it does the ROM's.

Regardless of what city council does, the Ontario Municipal Board, the quasi-judicial body, can overturn its decisions.

Is it any wonder why Toronto is so poorly planned, its architecture so generally mediocre?

What this city needs even more than another high-rise condo is a clear set of rules governing development. There's the Official Plan, it's true, adopted only last year by city council. But there are also layers of zoning regulations and bylaws that date back decades. What one encourages, the other forbids.

In the meantime, we'd better start getting used to condos and specifically, tall condos. They're here for good, and in much greater numbers than we may realize. Indeed, towers loom large in Toronto's future. Despite what the complainers say, that's not necessarily a bad thing. Properly controlled, it will be an enormous boon.

But first, we have to get past the stage where every proposal is greeted with jeers from all quarters. Meaningful debate about the ROM tower has yet to take place. It can only begin after the shouting has stopped.

Even now, there's no consensus about whether the real issue is that the tower's too tall, or that it's a condo. Maybe both, maybe neither.

Even if the ROM tower were the most beautiful ever designed, it would have been greeted with hostility last Tuesday. We'd rather pan than plan.

But until we have a process that works, it's unlikely we'll get the results we want.

Additional articles by Christopher Hume



› Get great home delivery subscription deals here!

FAQs| Site Map| Privacy Policy| Webmaster| Subscribe| My Subscription
Home| GTA| Business| Waymoresports| A&E| Life
Legal Notice: Copyright Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. All rights reserved. Distribution, transmission or republication of any material from www.thestar.com is strictly prohibited without the prior written permission of Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. For information please contact us using our webmaster form. www.thestar.com online since 1996.

screw him he was dissing this project up from the beginning
what a POS

The only thing Torontonians seem to care about is height. The architecture can be dreadful, the planning appalling, but as long as it's not tall, who cares?

Okay, I'll admit most of the architecture is dreadful...
People best be changing their outlook of how they view the city...or we will never get taller buildings

the "Toronto Height Phobia" has to stop

Why? And what exactly does higher building heights have to do with improving architecture?


taller buildings aren't necessary for building a great city except for enhancing the view of the skyline from distant suburbs

The multitude of midrise buildings being built in the entertainment distant and its eastern counterpart are more urban & better scaled than any50 storey point tower on a podium

this is a truly gorgeous bulding.if it was built everyone would love it even the haters.all these u of t kids raising a stink most of them will be gone and half of them are suburbanites throwing there two cents in get a life!

don't diss the suburbanites attending UofT as they play a major role in the condo boom

Straight from UofT, The varsity newspaper, and don't be making fun of UofT students as I am one of them. From the suburbs as well and I like this project.

A towering 'no'
ROM's proposed condo tower has locals mad as hell
By Sarah Barmak
Published: Thursday, November 3, 2005
Article Tools:Email This ArticlePrint This Article Page 1 of 1

Community members sent a clear message to Royal Ontario Museum directors Tuesday night: a luxury condo sandwiched between U of T and the Royal Ontario Museum is not wanted in their backyard.

In a heated meeting held at U of T's Mechanical Engineering Building, residents and U of T representatives angrily voiced criticisms of the proposed 46-storey tower to be built on the site of the closed McLaughlin Planetarium.

Media Credit: Courtesy ROM

"There is virtually unanimous opposition to the luxury condo proposal," said SAC vice-president Jen Hassum amid excited cheers. Presidents of the Victoria College Students' Administrative Council, the UC Literary and Athletic Society, the Music Undergraduate Association, and others also spoke out against the plans, which they say would increase property costs and traffic, and are simply inappropriate for a cultural and educational district.

The faculty of music, which is located next to the ROM on Bloor St. West, released a statement Monday morning of their opposition to the tower, which they worried would overshadow their three-storey building.

"I am totally opposed to the development and will cancel my longstanding membership at ROM in protest," said one music patron.

The chief architect of the project, Brian Brisbin of Graywood Developments Ltd., who attempted to speak over boos and catcalls from the audience, described the proposed condo as a symbol that "people would point to and say, 'That's where the cultural district is.'"

The area is currently zoned for institutional use only, and the meeting with residents was part of the process necessary to change it to allow a mixed residential building-it would include 35,000 square feet of gallery space-a change many in the community worry would open the floodgates to other, similar developments in the area.

"Are we not establishing a precedent for new 40- or 50-storey buildings built in the area for the same reasons-budgetary needs?" asked one Bloor-Avenue area resident.

"[The area] acts as a relief to our intensely dense metropolis, a chance to breathe," said another.

Trinity-Spadina councillor Olivia Chow, who had chaired a similar meeting in which residents rejected plans for a new Varsity Stadium complex, oversaw the discussion, which was attended by several hundred people, many who had to wait outside for a chance to speak.

The proposal incorporated a front "plaza" with a bridge to Philosopher's Walk, a holographic wall of images related to the Edward Johnson building, as well as a refurbished, "more symbolic" entrance to the Museum TTC Station, according to Brisbin.

"The tower wasn't merely a financial justification," he argued. "It tells a story that refers down to the museum."

With such strong opposition to the development, ROM CEO William Thorsell's plans to simultaneously finance the Renaissance ROM renovations and transform the Queen's Park cultural space have been dealt a huge blow. Though the ROM could technically go ahead with its application with the city, it's an unlikely prospect at this point.

"If the community is completely united in opposition, then it won't get built," said Thorsell to applause at the end of the night.

I do not understand these people.... simply do not understand them and even I am a U of T: St George student. Students simply don't have enough meaningful things to protest against nowadays.

If they built this in scarborough, i do not think anyone would care... so please do not blame/accuse suburban people for this "nimbyism". They are everywhere.

""I am totally opposed to the development and will cancel my longstanding membership at ROM in protest," said one music patron"

OOOH i'm so scared! its his/her loss anyways... since the ROM would gain even more patrons and international status from building landmarks which would be easily identified with it... i just hope i don't catch him/her in there marvelling in the ROM crystal/expansion when it is completed. Hypocrytes.

Some people are so naiive and have no style...

ROM with a view flayed as 'ugly'
46-storey tower proposed: Neighbours attack museum's vision for condo project

James Cowan
National Post


Wednesday, November 02, 2005

Neighbours of the Royal Ontario Museum last night decried plans to build a 46-storey condominium tower on the site of the McLaughlin Planetarium, calling it "dramatically out of proportion" and "ugly."

"Do we need more ugliness attached to the ROM?" asked Rosie Schwartz, one of 300 residents who jammed a meeting at the University of Toronto. "This is a very bad precedent for institutional zoning."

Members of the audience last night loudly heckled ROM officials as they justified the tower.

Part of the ROM's ongoing revitalization project, the building would provide the museum with an additional 3,250 square metres of office and storage space. The top 40 floors would contain condominiums with an average listing price of $3-million (the penthouse would be listed for $50-million).

Plans also call for construction of a reflecting pool and plaza on Queen's Park Circle, a new entrance for the Museum subway station and an improved path to Philosophers' Walk. Designed by Brisbin Brook Beynon Architects, the tower would feature holographic art around its base, a sixth-floor garden and a 160-car underground garage.

William Thorsell, the ROM's chairman, said the development would "vastly improve" the streetscape. However, he conceded that the proposal faced vehement opposition.

"We certainly know our community partners like the university are hostile," Mr. Thorsell said.

"Obviously, we don't have a right to build this. If the community and the city are absolutely opposed, it won't get built."

City council needs to approve rezoning the site to permit residential as well as institutional use. In addition, the tower would be 181 metres, eight times the current maximum height for the site.

Council will consider the matter early next year.

The plan is opposed by local residents and the University of Toronto. The building will stand directly beside the music faculty's Edward Johnson building and the law school's Falconer Hall.

"The university has been very concerned about this tower proposal for a long time and it is now time for us to say we are firmly opposed to this plan," said Elizabeth Sisam, the university's director of facilities and planning. "We believe there's going to be tremendous impact on Philsopher's Walk."

The Annex Residents Association (ARA) is leading a coalition of organizations opposed to the project. The ARA has a successful history of fighting development in the area, convincing Lanterra and H&R Developments earlier this year to knock several storeys off a tower at Bedford Road and Bloor Street.

Many of those in attendance questioned why the ROM was demolishing the planetarium rather than re-opening it.

Mr. Thorsell agreed Toronto needs a planetarium, but suggested a new state-of-the-art facility should be built as part of the city's waterfront revitalization.

"I think Toronto should be building a centre for cosmology. Not by trying to rebuild a 1968 planetarium ... it's not ambitious enough," he said.

Income from the condominium sales would allow the ROM to complete its revitalization efforts by the middle of 2007, according to museum officials. The development plan is similar to those undertaken by the Museum of Modern Art in New York and the San Franciso Museum of Modern Art.

The ROM first issued its call to redevelop the planetarium site in 2004, nine years after the facility was closed.

Of the firms that responded to the request for proposals, the museum short-listed three, all of which proposed condominium buildings for the site. Graywood Developments Ltd. was eventually selected.

The proposed complex represents the second phase of a development project that also includes the new, crystal-shaped wing designed by architect Daniel Libeskind that is currently under construction. While the Michael-Lee Chin Crystal is not scheduled to open until next fall, the ROM announced yesterday that 10 refurbished galleries will be unveiled this Boxing Day.

Among the new galleries are a 900-square-metre display dedicated to Canada's aboriginal cultures and a suite of Far Eastern exhibits.

I attended the public meeting and there are many many other serious issues with this proposal that have not had any real dicussion in this thread.

It seems to me too many of the skyscraper "tall=good" fanatics posting here at SCC are simply dismissing the opposition as self serving NIMBYism, but there is a lot more to it than that and the opposition encompasses a greater breath of people and interests than the typical NIMBY crowd. The opposition in this case is very influential.

This tower is so inappropriate for the location that it has virtually no chance of being built. I would suspect that the planning department will recommend refusal of the application when the planning report is released in January or February. Community Council and City Council will most definitely reject it and if it goes as far as the OMB there is little chance the OMB would approve it either. The merits of the proposal simply do not stand against the many negative points with respect to the tower.

The anti-NIMBY arguments brought forward on this thread are mostly false and were not the points brought forward at the public meeting. The main issue here is not height. It is a luxury residential use being incorporated in instituionally zoned lands. These lands have had this designation for over a century. To those in opposition there is little difference between 10 and 80 stories. The use is inappropriate in an institutional precinct and sets a dangerous precedent for future proposals on the U of T campus and other instituational lands on the St. Geoge Campus. The proposal should be rejected outright to prevent further erosion of the campus.

The lands in question are public lands rather than a private lot that a developer owns. This is a huge issue with this proposal. It is not like the developer privately owns the lands and has a proposal. This is instituational land owned by the PUBLIC. Why then with so much public opposition should the ROM be permitted to enter into a deal to sell off publically owned lands for the purposes of a super luxury condo? The public ownership of the land certainly enhances any arguments against the development proposal from ROM members, U of T and the public.

The density being allocated towards this proposal would limit future density requirements for expansions to U of T facilities in the vicinity of the project. This is of paramount concern to a number of faculty at U of T.

This proposal would box in the ROM and limit future southern expansion. Why is the ROM selling off its future? It is currently undergoing a massive expansion. Why is a short term decision entirely based on raising $20 million to pay for the current expansion being made that will limit future generations abilities to expand and enhance the ROM. The ROM has undergone 4 or 5 expansions since it was created. This proposal would severly limit future flexibility. In 20 or 30 years the condo would likely be viewed as a tremendous mistake preventing future expansion. The $20 million can be raised elsewhere if Thorsell is patient.

Other capitals often have height limits and rules respecting built form around parliament or legislatures (eg, Ottawa, Washington, Rome etc). While this would be ridiculous on a large scale, the proposal sits on Queen's Park Crecent and would loom over Queen's Park and the Legislative buildings. The vista that was carefully planned over 100 years ago up University Ave terminating at Queen's Park would be partially ruined by the tower looming directly behind the Legislature. This careful planning exercise has worked well the past century. Yet the ROM proposal would have a significant negative visual impact on this important and significant capital.

As far as any traffic arguments go they are weak as this is a "low-density high-rise". That also means this does little if nothing towards intensification There are hardly any units in the building due to their target market (A dense stacked townhome project on the land in question would likely house more people). This does nothing to enhance the official plan or city transportation objectives. There is no benifit to the proposal and several people have trashed "NIMBY's" with this traffic argument - but really it isn't even a factor and I have only heard it discussed on this forum, not from those who actually oppose the project.

Funding is a huge issue. One forumer in a post above shrugged off a ROM member stating they would withdraw thier membership over the proposal as "big deal"... well it is a big deal because it isn't one membership - there are many many ROM members very pissed off by Thorsell proposing to sell out and sell off publically owned assets for a luxry condo. And not just average joe members but some significant ROM doners who have contributed large sums of money and artifacts to the ROM are also very upset. This is very dangerous for the ROM. While is may be a quick $20 million cash grab. Thorsell is in danger of alienating members and doners who contribute a lot of money over many years from the institution. This loss would be insurmountable not to mention the heavy strain on the relationship with neighbouring U of T.

For these reasons I predict that this project won't even get as far as a council or the OMB route. The proposal is so out of context that is was a huge mistake by Thorsell. His best route out of this mess at this point would be to quietly withdraw the application. I suspect due to the pressure he is under from the public and influential ROM members and donars as well as his own comments and resignation at the end of the public meeting that that is exactly what is going to happen.

R.O.M. Condo R.I.P.

Why? And what exactly does higher building heights have to do with improving architecture?


taller buildings aren't necessary for building a great city except for enhancing the view of the skyline from distant suburbs

The multitude of midrise buildings being built in the entertainment distant and its eastern counterpart are more urban & better scaled than any50 storey point tower on a podium

Because Toronto has so many high-rises...that even the taller buildings look dwarfed because of the amount of density in the MINT...scotia plaza and FCP actually look much shorter than 250+....and then the CN tower make it even more smaller....Height does play a major role espcially when you already have many buildings from 70m-150m in a city...

I have lived in Toronto most of my life...and I had no control of moving to the suburbs or not...when I get the money I am moving back to Toronto...

I couldn't care less of how Toronto's skyline looks from Mississauga because Mississauga's is already visible from a lot of points in the city...

Also..if you were implying that i'm suburban then you are screwed

The anti-NIMBY arguments brought forward on this thread are mostly false and were not the points brought forward at the public meeting. The main issue here is not height. It is a luxury residential use being incorporated in instituionally zoned lands. These lands have had this designation for over a century. To those in opposition there is little difference between 10 and 80 stories. The use is inappropriate in an institutional precinct and sets a dangerous precedent for future proposals on the U of T campus and other instituational lands on the St. Geoge Campus. The proposal should be rejected outright to prevent further erosion of the campus.

The lands in question are public lands rather than a private lot that a developer owns. This is a huge issue with this proposal. It is not like the developer privately owns the lands and has a proposal. This is instituational land owned by the PUBLIC. Why then with so much public opposition should the ROM be permitted to enter into a deal to sell off publically owned lands for the purposes of a super luxury condo? The public ownership of the land certainly enhances any arguments against the development proposal from ROM members, U of T and the public.


R.O.M. Condo R.I.P.

And with those two paragraphs, you have managed to convince me. This condo should not get built. As a height issue, I did'nt find the argument substantsive. However, as a zoning issue, I agree the site is unsuitable considering there is not one residentual (that I can recall) building along both sides of Queens Park Circle from College to South of Bloor. It should be kept that way as not all parts of the city need to have residentual, especially in keeping with the uniqueness of the area in question.

OOOH i'm so scared! its his/her loss anyways... since the ROM would gain even more patrons and international status from building landmarks which would be easily identified with it... i just hope i don't catch him/her in there marvelling in the ROM crystal/expansion when it is completed. Hypocrytes.

Some people are so naiive and have no style...

puh-leez...


Storm over ROM tower could threaten funding

MARTIN KNELMAN

A philanthropic Toronto couple who pledged more than $1 million to the Royal Ontario Museum's Renaissance makeover have warned the museum they'll withhold payments unless it abandons a controversial plan to build a 46-storey condo tower on the site of the McLaughlin Planetarium. :cheers: :cheers: :cheers:

The distraught benefactors are not yet prepared to go public, but their row with the ROM raises the scary prospect of a public-relations fiasco comparable to the one that shook the Art Gallery of Ontario in early 2004 when Joey and Toby Tanenbaum withdrew support to protest plans to alter the atrium named after them.

It's a sign of mounting pressure on William Thorsell, the ROM's visionary CEO, to find an exit strategy. The museum was counting on the residential skyscraper to raise $20 million toward the final phase of the daring $211 million reinvention Thorsell has masterminded in collaboration with architect Daniel Libeskind.

The option of cancelling the tower was Item A on the agenda of a crisis meeting yesterday afternoon at the offices of the ROM's partner, Graywood Developments Ltd. The purpose of the meeting was to formulate a response in the wake of an ugly uproar at a public meeting on Tuesday.

Though many have appealed to the ROM to cancel the tower, in fact a decision to cancel could be made only by Graywood. The ROM is by contract obliged to support the developer.

Meanwhile, Thorsell shows little sign of being a man under siege. On Thursday evening he seemed cool, witty and unflappable while greeting guests at a museum reception.

"I realize that if we go ahead with this, there may be some people who get mad and cancel their memberships," he told me, "but we haven't actually built anything. All we've done is introduce a proposal."

At Tuesday's meeting, that proposal drew a public response so hostile as to recall the premiere of Heaven's Gate. The protesters were not just the usual ratepayers' dissidents opposed to any major development in their neighbourhood. It included many representatives from the University of Toronto.

Behind all the shouting is a long-simmering dispute between the ROM and U of T, with which it has shared the holy precinct bounded by Queen's Park Crescent and Philosopher's Walk for more than a century.

"We firmly oppose this plan," says Elizabeth Sisam, U of T's spokesperson. Under the terms of a 1997 precinct plan prepared by the city and the university, she claims, the site is to be used only for public and institutional purposes, not private ones.

But according to Thorsell, the U of T has only itself to blame. "We approached them with the idea of doing a joint development. But they didn't even respond to our call for proposals."

No matter what happens now, the ROM will have to undertake damage control. To press forward with the condo tower would be to risk dividing the city's cultural elite into warring factions and antagonizing the museum's friends ? a route Thorsell, master of public relations, would never favour.

But to abandon the tower could mean an indefinite delay of the second and final phase of the Renaissance ROM.

Private donors have already contributed generously and there are not likely millions more to be tapped. Unless governments add more cash, the final stage of the museum's rebirth will be in jeopardy. That would be a loss for Toronto, for the province, and for Canada.

"At Tuesday's meeting, that proposal drew a public response so hostile as to recall the premiere of Heaven's Gate".
I've never known Knelman to be witty before! Who knew?

Good!
I think the building is both attractive and innovative but in the wrong location.
I think it would be a horrifc addition to the new ROM. Hey what, I have an idea. Why don't they stick it on top of Queen's Park to add even more height.
Skyscrapers are meant to add character to a city but not destroy beautiful building to get there. Toronto is also probably the only city in Canada that has a true great downtown blvd. Medium height office towers with beautiful government and civic buildings. A condo tower would not only wreck ROM but the whole of University Ave.
WilliamThorshell should be shot for even thinking about it.

Well, let's tone it down.

Remember: attaching condo towers to our public institutions, and on public land, is the price we must pay to have bold, postcard worthy homes for our museums and arts centres.
Do we want more wow, like the ROM, which screams out that this is an important buidling? Or somthing that blends in, such as the Four Seasons Centre? See and and vote here:

see http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=276608

"Skyscrapers are meant to add character to a city but not destroy beautiful building to get there."


How would it "destroy" the ROM building? (there are three buildings actually).
This tower will sit where the old planetarium is...which makes it beside ROM. That part of ROM is terrible NOW....this new project will improve it...not destroy it.







" I have an idea. Why don't they stick it on top of Queen's Park to add even more height. "

You're being silly now.









"A condo tower would not only wreck ROM but the whole of University Ave. "


University Ave is south of College....this building will be up at Ave Rd & Bloor. It won't even effect Queen's Park Circle, let alone University Ave.







KGB

The more posts I read about this, the more I get the feeling that literally only a few know where the actual location is. It's not next to Queens Park, its up the road, across from Charles St. where One St.Thomas is under construction. currently.

"Skyscrapers are meant to add character to a city but not destroy beautiful building to get there."


How would it "destroy" the ROM building? (there are three buildings actually).
This tower will sit where the old planetarium is...which makes it beside ROM. That part of ROM is terrible NOW....this new project will improve it...not destroy it.

But why use up valuable space that can be used for an expansion in the future for a short term cash grab? It's ridiculous.







" I have an idea. Why don't they stick it on top of Queen's Park to add even more height. "

You're being silly now.

Explain how the ideas are any different?









"A condo tower would not only wreck ROM but the whole of University Ave. "


University Ave is south of College....this building will be up at Ave Rd & Bloor. It won't even effect Queen's Park Circle, let alone University Ave.

It's closer to Queens Park than to Avenue Road and Bloor, it's right beside the Law Faculty, which is on the corner of Queen's Park.

The idea that you fail to understand is that this building will have a much bigger effect upon the U of T campus and Queen's Park than it will in making the corner of Avenue Road and Bloor more urbanized/dense.

I have to admit this thread is like a black hole, I keep trying to avoid it, since noone here will ever see eye to eye, but I just keep getting sucked back in.

Monday » November 7 » 2005

Toronto doesn't need another eyesore

John Geiger
National Post

Monday, November 07, 2005

CREDIT: Peter J. Thompson, National Post
Last week, about 400 people attended a public meeting to fight the ROM's plan to build a 46-storey condo tower, pictured here in an architect's rendition.

If anyone was truly interested in what the people of Toronto had to say about the Royal Ontario Museum's proposal for a 46-storey condominium development on a site on Queen's Park Crescent, they heard it loud and clear at a public meeting on Tuesday night.

An overflow crowd of more than 400 people filled a lecture hall at the University of Toronto to express their virtually unanimous opposition to the development on every conceivable grounds. By rights, the project should be dead. But in Toronto, community opposition rarely matters in decisions of this kind.

William Thorsell, CEO of the ROM, has described the tower -- which would contain condominiums with an average price of $3-million and feature a $50-million penthouse -- as "a bookend" to the museum's striking new Michael Lee-Chin Crystal building on Bloor Street.

That is nonsense. The ROM addition is an architectural jewel, and the exquisite restoration of the original building a sensitive and welcome counterpoint to it. The high-rise relates in no way to either. It's just another condo tower, albeit one with pretensions.

The architect, Brian Brisbin, used another word for the proposed development. He said he views the high-rise as an "obelisk." But it is more accurately characterized as an enormous index finger. Whatever the structure's presumed architectural merits, it is the site that is the problem.

Thorsell said the condo development would "vastly improve" the streetscape, an odd remark coming from a man who once laid a red rose on the rubble of an old post office in Edmonton.

It is in fact hard to conceive of a proposal more insensitive to its environs -- the glorious and historic institutional precinct of Queen's Park and St. George's Campus -- and more at odds with Toronto's official plan.

Yet Torontonians have often been down the "community consultation" path before, and the lesson is that fierce community opposition is no guarantee that an unwanted development will not proceed.

Consider the Minto tower, currently rising, like some H.G. Wellsian conception of an alien lifeform, out of a vast pit in midtown Toronto, at Yonge Street near Eglinton Avenue. While the city plan called for towers around 20 storeys, the Minto development, called "Quantum," actually involves two monstrous towers of 51 and 37 storeys respectively. The developer won approval in contravention of the city plan -- and, more to the point, despite the overwhelming opposition from residents who must now must live with its frightening impact on their neighbourhood.

Similarly, a large majority of the communities along St. Clair Avenue fought the city's proposal for an exclusive streetcar right-of-way west of Yonge Street. The project went through numerous public hearings, yet despite the opposition, construction proceeded -- until, that is, a local group, Save Our St. Clair, went to court to stop it. Former Toronto mayor John Sewell aptly described the public input process as a "fake consultation."

ROM officials met on Friday to consider the fate of the ROM tower in light of the opposition. At last week's public meeting, Thorsell conceded that the proposal enjoyed little support.

"We certainly know our community partners like the university are hostile," Thorsell said. "Obviously, we don't have a right to build this."

Were that only so. But in face of the public opposition, killing the project would be the right thing to do. Thorsell himself once wrote a column for the Edmonton Journal entitled "Our city core deserves aesthetic goals," in which he argued "proportion is central to a civilized life, spiritual and physical." Sage words.
© National Post 2005




Copyright © 2005 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest Global Communications Corp. All rights reserved.
Optimized for browser versions 4.0 and higher.

I disagree- we need more non- slab buildings - or buildings that blend in well with slabs. As a result, when it comes to museums and arts centers and the like, we need condos to help fund postcard worthy buildings.

However, I do not know if we need THIS CONDO. Further, I do not think the condo project needs to be over - politicized -- which may already be happening. Units starting at $3 million? Sure, while you're at it, pour me some Scotch, too! :cheers2: Penthouse at $3 million? OK.. How about units start at $300,000.?

i really fail to see how building this tower would harm the area in any way shape or form. it would add to the beauty of the area. it's a very nice building and would look amazing next to the new rom.

"But why use up valuable space that can be used for an expansion in the future for a short term cash grab? It's ridiculous."


Excuse me...but isn't that excactly what they are going to do....use several floors for the ROM, with condos above? So that excuse doesn't work. So...they get their needed extra space, plus it gets subsidized by the air rights from the developers. AND we get another cool tower (hopefully it's a looker anyway). That does not sound ridiculous to me...in fact it sounds quite astute.









"Explain how the ideas are any different? "

I feel silly even having to explain that. The Legislature building and it's grounds are formal....they are complete...you can't build anything else there without it ruining it. This ROM project on the other hand, is just replacing an existing building, which is doing nothing, as well as never looking appropriate or having very good street presence at all. If they were going to build a condo tower (or anything) on the Legislature, I would be the first one there to protest....but that is never going to happen....which is why it's silly.











"The idea that you fail to understand is that this building will have a much bigger effect upon the U of T campus and Queen's Park than it will in making the corner of Avenue Road and Bloor more urbanized/dense."


I'm not "not" against this project (which is different than being "for" this project) because of any densification or urbanizing ideas....it's already urban and dense. I merely stating that I don't find it inappropriate for the site. We can argue all you want about how many inches it is from Queen's Park or Bloor all we want....it doesn't matter....I'm not failing to understand anything....I simply disagree that it's site is wrong in terms of context. I simply do not agree that nowhere on or around the UofT campus is innapriopriate for highrises (and there are many already). Some specific spots would be wrong...others not. IMO, this specific site is not. What would be wrong, is for this building to not be interesting architecture, as that is one thing the campus has always been...a place for interesting architecture...old or new, traditional or the more avante guarde.










"Toronto doesn't need another eyesore...William Thorsell, CEO of the ROM, has described the tower -- which would contain condominiums with an average price of $3-million and feature a $50-million penthouse...It's just another condo tower, albeit one with pretensions."


hmmmm....I notice a common thread in all these major whining sessions....using the fact the units will be expensive. There's a definite resentment there....as if it were wrong to allow buildings for wealthy people to live in. Where's our sense of mixed-use, mixed-income housing in the city? We go on at length about subsidized housing and "affordable" housing....and we have $139k condos coming out our ass (which don't have the budget to be quite so intriguing in the architectural area), and then we take this "eat the rich" attitude. This kind of underhanded journalism is what makes me lose respect for journalists. If you don't like the project, then stick to reasons that make sense....trying to tack on this kind of crap to gain ground in the debate is what leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Since this will be a no-expenses-spared project, we might get something worth bragging about. That's why Lambos look so much better than Toyotas.







KGB

ROM Drops Plans on Condo Tower

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1131413095206&call_pageid=968350130169&col=969483202845&DPL=IvsNDS%2f7ChAX&tacodalogin=yes

Nov. 8, 2005. 12:09 AM


Bowing to a public outcry, the Royal Ontario Museum and its building partner, Graywood Developments Ltd., have withdrawn a proposal to build a 46-storey condo tower on the site of the defunct McLaughlin Planetarium.

"We always knew there would be opposition but were startled by the intense wave that hit us late in the process," William Thorsell, the museum's CEO, said yesterday in a phone interview with the Toronto Star after issuing the official announcement.

"When the consensus is that broad, you just have to back off."

Thorsell was heckled and denounced at a public meeting last week. The storm of protest — much of it coming from outraged representatives of the University of Toronto — made it obvious the ROM would face a long, damaging fight, probably ending in defeat, if it decided to press on with ROM South, as it called the project.

And as the Star reported Saturday, a prominent couple who had pledged more than $1 million warned Thorsell they would withhold payments unless the project was called off.

The decision to cancel was made at a crisis meeting Friday afternoon at Graywood's offices. The developer will suffer the losses on expenditures for the aborted project, leaving the museum without a financial penalty for its misadventure.

ROM South would have involved 35,000 square feet of office space for the museum on the lower floors of the tower, a public plaza with links to Philosopher's Walk and a glitzy new subway entrance, as well as living space for super-rich buyers.

Most crucial, the development was expected to yield $20 million of revenue toward Phase 2 of Renaissance ROM — Thorsell's visionary reinvention of the museum.

Phase 1, featuring Daniel Libeskind's Crystal extravaganza along the museum's Bloor St. W. side, is under construction and set to open next summer. The money to pay for the first phase has already been secured.

But Phase 2 — including the restoration of seven galleries in the oldest part of the museum, south of its main entrance — has been left blowing in the wind after yesterday's surrender to public pressure.

"We'll need to raise another $60 million to get it done," Thorsell explained with a sigh. But he has not given up on his target of completing it before the end of 2007.

"Our fundraising team has been spectacularly successful," he notes. "The original goal was to raise $110 million from the private sector in five years, but already they have raised $116 million in three years. Now it turns out that is not enough. So we have a new goal of raising an additional $25 million of private money over the next three years."

The museum is also hoping to get $24 million of government funding ($12 million each from Ottawa and Queen's Park).

"Controversy scares people," Thorsell says, "but it might also have a positive impact. I'm hoping that by drawing attention to our need, this incident will move people to come to our aid with pledges. We knew the last part of the fundraising campaign would be the hardest. That last climb up the mountain is steep and cold and windy. But we are determined to make this happen."

And what will happen to the planetarium site? For the moment, nothing. The ROM is already using the old building for office space.

A deal for redevelopment would almost certainly have to involve a partnership with U of T. But at the moment, the two neighbouring institutions do not seem to be in a collaborative mood.

"We may have to leave the future of the planetarium site to our successors," Thorsell says.

these guys are such liars. they new the 110 wouldnt be enough all along.

these guys are such liars. they new the 110 wouldn't be enough all along.
No condo? No postcard worthy building!

Tuesday » November 8 » 2005

ROM kills condo tower after community protests
'We don't have support' for 46-storey addition, Thorsell says

Melissa Leong
National Post

Tuesday, November 08, 2005

CREDIT: Peter J. Thompson, National Post
The ROM's plan to build a 46-storey condo tower, shown in an architect's rendition, has been cancelled.

The Royal Ontario Museum has backed down on its plan to build a 46-storey condominium tower on the site of the McLaughlin Planetarium in the face of intense opposition from the community and the University of Toronto.

"We don't have the support for it, so there's no point in carrying on with it," said William Thorsell, director and CEO of the ROM. "We're not fighting with the community; we're listening to the community."

Hundreds of local residents turned out for a public meeting with ROM officials last week, many decrying the project as ugly.

The ROM and partner Graywood Developments Ltd. proposed the construction of an additional 3,250 square metres of office and storage space. The top 40 floors would contain condominiums with an average listing price of $3-million (the penthouse would be listed for $50-million). The tower would feature holographic art around its base and a 160-car underground garage.

Plans also called for construction of a new entrance for the Museum subway station and elevated path to Philosophers' Walk.

"We thought the accumulation of public benefits on this site would justify this variation from the norm, but people were just not buying that," he said.

The ROM would have earned more than $30-million in revenue from the new building and two-thirds of the money would have gone to fund the second phase of the museum's developmental project including the renovation of the museum's heritage buildings and the creation of seven new galleries. As well, income from the condominium sales would have allowed the ROM to complete its revitalization efforts by the middle of 2007, museum officials said.

"We'll have to find other sources of money to make sure it stays on schedule."

The ROM still needs to raise $60-million to finish the second phase.

Area resident Mimi Fullerton, who was a part of a coalition of a several residents' associations opposed to the project, said she was delighted that the ROM cancelled the condo project, but she added the museum still needs community support.

"Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater. All of us need to give something, whatever we can," she said last night.

John Martins-Manteiga, director and curator of Dominion Modern museum, and a former employee of the McLaughlin Planetarium, questioned why the ROM was demolishing the planetarium rather than reopening it.

"This is a beautifully designed building. It worked before and it can work again. This whole idea that you have to rip things down that work perfectly well ... doesn't make sense, especially when the city is saying it has no money."

Mr. Thorsell said the ROM does not have the money to reopen the planetarium, which closed in 1995.
© National Post 2005

Copyright © 2005 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest Global Communications Corp. All rights reserved.
Optimized for browser versions 4.0 and higher.



Phase 1, featuring Daniel Libeskind's Crystal extravaganza along the museum's Bloor St. W. side, is under construction and set to open next summer. The money to pay for the first phase has already been secured. I DOUBT IT!
Gee, wonder it the Crystal is going to get cheaped out. Hope you guys like corigated sheet metal!

It would be kind of neat if the ROM went back to the original submissions and revived one of the ones with a condo tower -- There was a 'wave' one that I thought was kind of neat...

that's really sad that they gave up. i never would have given up. if they wanna build a tower and it's their property they should be allowed.

Well ... the 'their property' bit is the rub...

Great news about the cancellation


"Hope you guys like corigated sheet metal! "

LOL @ corrugated sheet metal

Nothing less than Donald Trump gold would satisfy you

"if they wanna build a tower and it's their property they should be allowed."

ownership does not give you the right to do whatever you want especially when part of a much larger corporation with 2.4 million inhabitants

It's OVER. I hadn't even picked a side yet.

I'm glad its over and the right side won.
A beautiful building but not suited to be over ROM and along a beautiful bouleveard of historic and civic buildings. All great cities should have such an avenue.
Lets keep Canada's only civic boulevard condo free.

Thank god they aren't allowed to build condos on the proud site of the ROM... we can all be happy in 30 or so years, looking back on it, and not having to worry about a tower that looks outdated and unsynchronized with the 2030 redevelopment of the museum. (;) but still has a point) As well, it won't be an ugly outdated residential tower like all those '60s/'70s apartment blocks downtown.

Brilliant museum, and it won't need a condo to be good.

Well no real point debating whether it should have been built or not at this point. Kind of redundant.

The better debate is how the ROM should go abouts making up for the $20 million shortfall.
a) Find other private donors
b) Ask for more gov't assistance
c) Stall or cancel the second phase expansion
d) Get Are Be to pay for it

Well no real point debating whether it should have been built or not at this point. Kind of redundant.

The better debate is how the ROM should go abouts making up for the $20 million shortfall.
....
d) Get Are Be to pay for it
Well, hope you like cereal box condos! Guess the collection of ugly condos: Yonge and Finch, or the ROM? It will be hard to tell when I'm done...


Sadly, I think they're going to cheapen out the Crystal - - my preference is to be wrong on this. More traditional and conventional cladding: corrugated sheet metal. We cannot afford jaw- droppers without condos.

I think we can revive the condo, but let's not go too crazy with the design. There were some submissions from international architects that called for towers.. perhaps some of those plans can be revived.

"Sadly, I think they're going to cheapen out the Crystal - - my preference is to be wrong on this. More traditional and conventional cladding: corrugated sheet metal. We cannot afford jaw- droppers without condos."

The cancellation of the condo is irrelevant (and the 20 million dollar winfall due at the earliest in 2009) when it comes to the crystal's facade which at this point is bought and paid for

I agree with Valentino. They already have the funding for the Crystal. They have already most likely paid for the material as it needs to be pre-built in pieces before being shipped to the construction site.

ROM, U of T: Kiss, make up and then see what redevelops
Martin Knelman
15 November 2005
The Toronto Star

For as long as anyone can remember, the Royal Ontario Museum and the University of Toronto have shared the same piece of hallowed turf, tightly nestled between Queen's Park Ave. and Philosopher's Walk. This precinct has survived as a theme park of Victorian architecture and an otherworldly oasis that offers a respite from midtown urban blight.

If you were looking for a word to describe the hushed atmosphere, "peaceful" would spring to your lips. And here, as far as the outside world could tell, the ROM and the U of T played nicely together and got along.

But earlier this month, when the ROM held a public meeting to discuss the proposed 46-storey condo tower it wanted to build with a development partner on the site of the defunct McLaughlin Planetarium, "peaceful" was the last word you would use to describe the proceedings. Instead, the mood bordered on hysteria.

William Thorsell, the museum's CEO, was heckled and shouted down by activists from the U of T who clearly did not want to give his plan the benefit of serious consideration before angrily rejecting it. Based on the hostile response, Thorsell and the museum's partner, Graywood Developments Ltd., chose within days to make a gracious exit rather than opt for what would surely have been a long and acrimonious fight.

But by then this community had started to seem about as peaceful as the West Bank.

It was as if all the minor grievances accumulated over decades of living together exploded in one night.

Couldn't the ROM and U of T have worked out their differences privately? After all, these two institutions have been living together for a century. Indeed, the museum used to be part of the university. In 1968, the Royal Ontario Museum was formally granted its independence from the University of Toronto, but the two remained entangled and entwined in many ways.

Some of the museum's curators and researchers are on the university faculty. The U of T president sits on the ROM board. Their constituents stroll across one another's lawns and have borrowing privileges at each other's libraries. The ROM counts among its members many people on the U of T staff. And there's a conspicuous crossover among high-end benefactors of both institutions.

In the past, there has been a certain amount of rivalry, with both sides needing to expand but feeling hemmed in, and both wishing to be the favourite child of the Ontario government.

No doubt there are excellent reasons for opposing a high-rise building on the planetarium site. Judy Matthews - who lives nearby and is, along with her husband, Wilmot Matthews, a major supporter of the museum and the university - articulated some of them, both at the meeting and in an interview.

"This area is a vital component of the city," she says, "and it belongs to all of us. It's part of our common heritage. It provides a sanctuary and a breathing space in the middle of the city. That makes it special and precious. That's why it's important to preserve it."

Still, Stephen Diamond, the lawyer representing the developer and the museum, makes a valid point when he says: "Even if there were reasons to be against the project, surely it deserved a fair hearing and serious debate in a calm atmosphere. The proposal had a lot of innovative features - such as links to the subway, Philosopher's Walk and the museum - and wheelchair accessibility."

But few people in the audience wanted to hear about all that. Most of them came to the meeting with their minds made up.

In retrospect Thorsell says: "We knew there would be controversy but we thought our plan had a lot of benefits for the public that would win acceptance. But the atmosphere seemed to change with the season after Labour Day, and the opposition became fierce."

Perhaps in the end this project wasn't right for Toronto.

For the next few years, the old planetarium building is likely to remain as is, a makeshift overflow space for ROM offices. But over the long term this site represents an opportunity for redevelopment that should not be wasted. For the ROM - which faces huge capital costs plus vastly increased operating expenses - the opportunity has to include significant revenue.

The museum would be unwise to redevelop this site without the support of the university. U of T must recognize it is not the owner of this piece of land.

Perhaps these two institutions need a mediator. The future will be brighter for both if they can settle their differences. Peace may not be achievable in the Middle East, but surely there's a way to end hostilities along Philosopher's Walk.

canada, canadian search engine, free email, canada news
Sunday » December 4 » 2005

Toronto tower falls in class war

Terence Corcoran
Financial Post

Thursday, November 10, 2005

Nobody could argue Toronto is desperate for another glass-walled condo tower. Decades ago the city's ruling leftist cabals, following the planning fad of the era, tried to stop most highrise and skyscraper development by imposing absurd height restrictions. The result is a city devoid of interesting period architecture aside from a few downtown office towers that made it through the planning process. More recently, fanned by the latest leftist-reversal fad -- urban density is now good -- the city has 50-storey condo buildings popping up at every major intersection.

The city's skyline is therefore changing at a rapid clip. It was somewhat surprising, in this first decade of the 21st century and amid this new and fascinating phase in urban development, to watch the great white shark of zoning and architectural fascism rise up and devour a proposed 46-storey condo building.

The tower, an obelisk-like affair, was proposed by the Royal Ontario Museum as part of its $211-million renewal project. The renewal already includes a flashy addition by Daniel Libeskind at one end. Stealing an idea from New York's Museum of Modern Art, among others, ROM president William Thorsell planned to convert an obsolete and dated planetarium building at the other end of the museum into four floors of offices and some 40 floors of up-market condos. The ROM would collect $20-million from the condo project, money desperately needed to help fund Mr. Thorsell's very expensive renovation.

Three problems: One, the museum is located on the outer fringe of the downtown campus of the University of Toronto. The university and its many constituent parts -- schools of this, deans of that, sacred walkways and hallowed halls -- is a hotbed of anti-development. This is true even though the university itself has mauled over most of its sprawling land mass with some of the plug-ugliest buildings in the city. The Robarts library has all the appeal of a concrete German gun placement on the beach of Normandy raised to 20 storeys. Aside from some fine century-old stone buildings, the university is a bit of an architectural wasteland. University creep, moreover, is eating away at more and more prime central real estate, creating a major obstacle to downtown development.

Second problem: While nobody actually lives anywhere within even the longest shadow of the proposed tower, local zoning watchdogs and members of nearby ratepayers associations whipped themselves into a frenzy of anti-ROM activity. "Do we need more ugliness attached to the ROM?" asked Rosie Schwartz at a packed meeting of opponents. Ms. Schwartz lives several very long blocks from the ROM, on a quiet residential street where the ROM tower would not have been visible, even from her rooftop.

The ratepayers were also playing into the political hands of Toronto city council member Olivia Chow, wife of NDP leader Jack Layton and all-round troublemaker and anti-development demagogue. She chaired the public meeting that ultimately led to the decision this week by the ROM and the developers to kill the tower project. "Our voices were heard," she said in a newsletter distributed Tuesday.

Third problem: Mr. Thorsell ran his political football head first into a defensive line of overdeveloped media ideologues, a thick-skulled demolition crew of anti-development and leftist class warriors. Among them were some of Mr. Thorsell's former colleagues at The Globe and Mail.

"Toronto is under attack," wrote the Globe's Lisa Rochon in boiling prose. Toronto was letting tall buildings and ill-considered development take place without the benefit of zoning or planning or approval by some great unidentified city authority. "The city's official plan is soft and malleable," she said, with developments taking place on a site-by-site basis, "including the preposterous ones."

No doubt private proposterous buildings are under construction or planned. But who should determine which buildings are ugly and unworkable and which will add to the economic and cultural expansion of the city? Everybody has views, but no modern city would ever get far if everybody's views solicited at public meetings were to dictate development.

Ms. Rochon also played out various class-warfare angles. "The tower is designed to house only about 150 very rich people ... at a site surrounded on three sides by young, brilliant and mostly dirt-poor students." The people at the public meeting were "smart, educated and articulate," which probably meant they were from the university.

Another Globe writer, John Barber, and Christopher Hume at the Toronto Star, joined Ms. Rochon in building a fantasy image of Toronto and the university environment. So did the National Post's John Geiger. The word "precinct" appeared frequently, as in "the glorious and historic institutional precinct" of the university (Mr. Geiger), "the city's most dignified precinct" (Mr. Barber) and "the genteel promenade of Queen's Park Road" (Ms. Rochon).

Odd words to describe a roadway that is essentially a six-lane 24-hour expressway through downtown and a precinct that is already under bulldozed renovation by the university. A nearby university music-conservatory project -- after demolishing a older outdated building -- will do more to transform the area than any ROM tower.

The upshot of the ROM tower collapse is another Toronto government development disaster. Whenever government land is involved, Toronto's planning and zoning dictators come out to kill it. At the waterfront, uptown in Downsview or downtown east, vast tracks of city, provincial and federal land lie vacant and wasting. Whenever everybody who has a different idea gets a vote, paralysis is the inevitable result. The ROM is just the latest to feel the effect.
© National Post 2005




Copyright © 2005 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks Publications, Inc.. All rights reserved.

canada, canadian search engine, free email, canada news
Sunday » December 4 » 2005

Toronto tower falls in class war

Terence Corcoran
Financial Post

Thursday, November 10, 2005

Nobody could argue Toronto is desperate for another glass-walled condo tower. Decades ago the city's ruling leftist cabals, following the planning fad of the era, tried to stop most highrise and skyscraper development by imposing absurd height restrictions. The result is a city devoid of interesting period architecture aside from a few downtown office towers that made it through the planning process. More recently, fanned by the latest leftist-reversal fad -- urban density is now good -- the city has 50-storey condo buildings popping up at every major intersection.

The city's skyline is therefore changing at a rapid clip. It was somewhat surprising, in this first decade of the 21st century and amid this new and fascinating phase in urban development, to watch the great white shark of zoning and architectural fascism rise up and devour a proposed 46-storey condo building.

The tower, an obelisk-like affair, was proposed by the Royal Ontario Museum as part of its $211-million renewal project. The renewal already includes a flashy addition by Daniel Libeskind at one end. Stealing an idea from New York's Museum of Modern Art, among others, ROM president William Thorsell planned to convert an obsolete and dated planetarium building at the other end of the museum into four floors of offices and some 40 floors of up-market condos. The ROM would collect $20-million from the condo project, money desperately needed to help fund Mr. Thorsell's very expensive renovation.

Three problems: One, the museum is located on the outer fringe of the downtown campus of the University of Toronto. The university and its many constituent parts -- schools of this, deans of that, sacred walkways and hallowed halls -- is a hotbed of anti-development. This is true even though the university itself has mauled over most of its sprawling land mass with some of the plug-ugliest buildings in the city. The Robarts library has all the appeal of a concrete German gun placement on the beach of Normandy raised to 20 storeys. Aside from some fine century-old stone buildings, the university is a bit of an architectural wasteland. University creep, moreover, is eating away at more and more prime central real estate, creating a major obstacle to downtown development.

Second problem: While nobody actually lives anywhere within even the longest shadow of the proposed tower, local zoning watchdogs and members of nearby ratepayers associations whipped themselves into a frenzy of anti-ROM activity. "Do we need more ugliness attached to the ROM?" asked Rosie Schwartz at a packed meeting of opponents. Ms. Schwartz lives several very long blocks from the ROM, on a quiet residential street where the ROM tower would not have been visible, even from her rooftop.

The ratepayers were also playing into the political hands of Toronto city council member Olivia Chow, wife of NDP leader Jack Layton and all-round troublemaker and anti-development demagogue. She chaired the public meeting that ultimately led to the decision this week by the ROM and the developers to kill the tower project. "Our voices were heard," she said in a newsletter distributed Tuesday.

Third problem: Mr. Thorsell ran his political football head first into a defensive line of overdeveloped media ideologues, a thick-skulled demolition crew of anti-development and leftist class warriors. Among them were some of Mr. Thorsell's former colleagues at The Globe and Mail.

"Toronto is under attack," wrote the Globe's Lisa Rochon in boiling prose. Toronto was letting tall buildings and ill-considered development take place without the benefit of zoning or planning or approval by some great unidentified city authority. "The city's official plan is soft and malleable," she said, with developments taking place on a site-by-site basis, "including the preposterous ones."

No doubt private proposterous buildings are under construction or planned. But who should determine which buildings are ugly and unworkable and which will add to the economic and cultural expansion of the city? Everybody has views, but no modern city would ever get far if everybody's views solicited at public meetings were to dictate development.

Ms. Rochon also played out various class-warfare angles. "The tower is designed to house only about 150 very rich people ... at a site surrounded on three sides by young, brilliant and mostly dirt-poor students." The people at the public meeting were "smart, educated and articulate," which probably meant they were from the university.

Another Globe writer, John Barber, and Christopher Hume at the Toronto Star, joined Ms. Rochon in building a fantasy image of Toronto and the university environment. So did the National Post's John Geiger. The word "precinct" appeared frequently, as in "the glorious and historic institutional precinct" of the university (Mr. Geiger), "the city's most dignified precinct" (Mr. Barber) and "the genteel promenade of Queen's Park Road" (Ms. Rochon).

Odd words to describe a roadway that is essentially a six-lane 24-hour expressway through downtown and a precinct that is already under bulldozed renovation by the university. A nearby university music-conservatory project -- after demolishing a older outdated building -- will do more to transform the area than any ROM tower.

The upshot of the ROM tower collapse is another Toronto government development disaster. Whenever government land is involved, Toronto's planning and zoning dictators come out to kill it. At the waterfront, uptown in Downsview or downtown east, vast tracks of city, provincial and federal land lie vacant and wasting. Whenever everybody who has a different idea gets a vote, paralysis is the inevitable result. The ROM is just the latest to feel the effect.
© National Post 2005




Copyright © 2005 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks Publications, Inc.. All rights reserved.





"Three problems: One, the museum is located on the outer fringe of the downtown campus of the University of Toronto. The university and its many constituent parts -- schools of this, deans of that, sacred walkways and hallowed halls -- is a hotbed of anti-development. This is true even though the university itself has mauled over most of its sprawling land mass with some of the plug-ugliest buildings in the city. The Robarts library has all the appeal of a concrete German gun placement on the beach of Normandy raised to 20 storeys. Aside from some fine century-old stone buildings, the university is a bit of an architectural wasteland. University creep, moreover, is eating away at more and more prime central real estate, creating a major obstacle to downtown development."


This is nonsense. U of T has some of the best projects in the city. While it may be perfect, citing Robarts hardly proves that all U of T has done is put up ugly new buildings nor does it demonstrate why the condo tower should've been allowed.

Decades ago the city's ruling leftist cabals, following the planning fad of the era, tried to stop most highrise and skyscraper development by imposing absurd height restrictions. The result is a city devoid of interesting period architecture aside from a few downtown office towers that made it through the planning process. More recently, fanned by the latest leftist-reversal fad -- urban density is now good -- the city has 50-storey condo buildings popping up at every major intersection.

-VERY GOOD POINT!
It is true! Tall buildings had to be stopped! Now, suddenly, they are OK.

Times change, man. I don't expect the left or the right to be clinging to the same values for the rest of human history.

Can someone explain to me what leftist as to do wit hany of this (I mean apart from being a very pejorative term here...)?

Live Webcam updates of ROM: http://www.rom.on.ca/webcam.php

http://www.rom.on.ca/graphics/crane02.jpg

I'm jealous of you guys getting the Libeskind extension (that should have been for the V&A in London) ;-)

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/arts/2004/07/22/PAspiral3.jpg

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/gallery/2002/06/28/spiral1.jpg

Can you post some pictures of construction from street level if possible?

Also, can you fill me in on what Calatrava has done in your fair city?

Regards

PS - I was reading an article in the UK Financial Times about the huge amount of high rise apartments under construction in Toronto and the general consensus was that they are rather bland and ruin the area at street level?

BCE place galleria by Calatrava:
http://wvs.topleftpixel.com/photos/bce_place.jpg

Article Posted by Billy Corgan on UT:

From The Town Crier

ROM ponders new plans for site
(Posted Date: Friday, December 9, 2005)

By Kris Scheuer



What does the ROM have in store for the site of the old Planetarium now that a proposal to build a 46-storey condo has been abandoned?

That is the $20-million question. Twenty million is how much the Royal Ontario Museum would have gained had it gone through with plans to build a highrise beside the museum at 90 Queen’s Park.

William Thorsell, director and CEO of the ROM, said the museum will regroup and consider its options for the site in January.

“There won’t be another proposal that looks anything like this one,” he said. “The most likely option is to do nothing and keep the status quo possibly for the next 10 years.”

Graywood Developments, which responded to the ROM’s request for proposals for this site, is not holding the museum to any contractual obligations, so the ROM will not be penalized for abandoning the plan.

The University of Toronto faculties of law and music have buildings right next to the site in question. The university has expressed interest in expanding these facilities and so it’s possible U of T and the ROM could find a project that could accommodate these needs, said Thorsell, adding it’s always been a possibility to work with the university.

What about another residential development?

“It’s possible. It’s hard to see how you can fit it in,” he said.

The proposal was withdrawn primarily because there was such great opposition to the idea of a 46-storey condo smack dab in the middle of a cultural district that is not zoned for residential use.

The ROM could have revised its proposal and tried to gain the support of the public and city government. Or it could have rolled the dice and appealed the proposal to the Ontario Municipal Board, but it didn’t go that route.

“I wouldn’t have gone to the OMB. I think that would have shown contempt for the (public),” said Thorsell, adding that it would have been okay to go the OMB if there was some public support. However, there was next to no public support.

“It’s a positive outcome for the public and city. I’m pleased that the ROM listened and responded,” said councillor Olivia Chow, who openly declared her opposition to the project.

About 350 people, who were almost unanimously opposed to plan, showed up at a Nov. 1 meeting on the proposal.

“At the meeting that night there were people from northern North York, Etobicoke, Scarborough and downtown speaking against it,” said Annex resident Sandra Shaul.

A lot of people felt the site of the old Planetarium, which closed 10 years ago, belonged to all Torontonians.

Joanna, who lives near Spadina Rd. and St. Clair Ave., said a condo of any size or height is not appropriate here because this is the cultural capital of the city.

Gee Chong, from the Greater Yorkville Residents Association, said a condo of this size here would set a bad precedent.

Rosie, a Brunswick Ave. resident, said, “We need affordable housing, not million-dollar cubes,” referring to the $3-million price the condo units would have sold for.

“This section of the city acts as a pause in this ever-increasing Metropolis. It allows us to breathe in and out. How does the museum justify taking this space from the public and using it for its own gain?” Elgin St. resident Judy asked at the meeting.

After the ROM’s decision to withdraw its proposal, Annex resident Shaul said people were not against the ROM.

“We care deeply about the ROM and the Queen’s Park precinct. We just saw this (project) as something that would be deeply damaging for both,” said Shaul, who worked for the ROM from 1985 to 1998.

The ROM is seeking the public’s help to raise money to complete its renaissance project and the restoration of its heritage buildings.

“We’re planning to put together a grassroots fundraiser,” said Shaul. “We’ll put our money where our mouths are.”

“This was not just an Annex issue. We are just closest to it. This is bigger than the Annex,” she said, adding that because so many residents’ groups came together against this proposal the Annex Residents Association plans to work with other groups in the future to encourage good planning.