What Becomes an Icon Most?

Now here’s a conundrum with as many swooping sides as a Frank Gehry design —David Mirvish will seek a judgment from the OMB in January in an effort to get a green light for Toronto native Gehry’s three-tower condo plans for the Royal Alexandra Theatre site on King West.

The Toronto Star reports that at an Empire Club of Canada lunch this week, Mirvish made an impassioned case for OMB intervention, saying it was the only way to see to fruition the project “that could put Toronto on the architectural map and fulfill the ambitions of the world-renowned Gehry, 84, to build his first from-the-ground-up landmark in the city where he was born and raised.” (Quoted from the Star, not from Mirvish.) Mirvish told the crowd that fitting in, not sticking out or putting your head up too high, was unacceptable for both a project and an esteemed creator that “doesn’t fit into the normal box.”

In addition to the design itself, which has changed considerably since it was first bandied about this time last year, controversy also comes from the proposed demolition of four designated heritage warehouse-style buildings dating back to the 1800s. Mirvish argues that the buildings impede pedestrian traffic. He says pulling his proposed towers back from the corners to widen sidewalks along John Street would help turn it into a “cultural corridor.” The new towers also involve demolishing the Princess of Wales Theatre.

Like a lot of Gehry’s work, parts of the proposed arts and condo complex look like cosmic Kleenex that floated down from the heavens and landed on some pillars, but I’m not sure that’s such a bad thing. I generally do prefer interesting to safe and I, like Gehry, have lamented the banality of Toronto’s architecture in the past. It looked even more like trademark Gehry before the latest redesign (about No. 45 in what he expects to be about 75 redesigns, according to Gehry), closer to the Disney concert hall in L.A. This new version is more organic, but there has to be some irony is designing something that, according to the Star’s Christopher Hume in June, is “reminiscent of the industrial structures that would be torn down to make way for the new stuff.”

While I agree with Hume that city planning rules are made to be broken (and often are), I’m still not sure why height alone is a deciding factor for planners. If we’re going to let anyone else, ever, move into Toronto, we have no choice but to grow vertically, and if we’re going to be a skyscraper city, we might as well be a great one.

While I do have concerns that the OMB’s overturning the decision might validate much of the criticism hurled at it (that it favours builders, and is too quick to veto city planning decisions), I think basing a decision on height and heritage is pretty silly.

Better questions to ask are, can the neighbourhood support the new residents? If not, what infrastructure do we need in place, and how can we get it? Does it enhance life for residents (both of the buildings themselves and of the city at large), and bring positive attention to Toronto? And does the design enhance the neighbourhood? I think if we let a ground-up Gehry building go unbuilt before the great man goes to the big drafting board in the sky, that we’ve done a disservice both to Toronto and to world architecture. This is his hometown, for crying out loud.

As for heritage, let’s not make knee-jerk decisions about preserving “heritage” either. We’re not talking about structures with lasting beauty, nor event significant ugliness. We’re talking about warehouses that, while they may have some interesting details, are largely square brick boxes. Exactly what heritage are we preserving by keeping them? I promise if you stop 50 Toronto natives on the street, even right in the neighbourhood, most of them couldn’t even tell you which buildings they’re talking about preserving. As for the theatre itself, it was built in 1991, so history isn’t much of a factor. If its style is significant, either work around it, or move it.

I’d love to see a Gehry project in his hometown, the more whimsical the better. We don’t have enough buildings that create an instant mood, even if that mood is puzzlement. (I’m looking at you, OCAD.)

Frank Gehry, unlike many architects, has a signature style. Gehry is 84 years old. Whatever it takes, let’s get him building something.