Listening to city planner Gregg Lintern trying to outline his department’s objections to the David Mirvish/Frank Gehry project on King St., one almost felt sorry for him.

Speaking at a meeting of the Toronto/East York Community Council on Tuesday morning, Lintern was unable to say anything more than the triple-towered scheme was “too dense.” Asked what exactly that meant, he couldn’t explain.

In the conspicuous absence of his boss, chief planner Jennifer Keesmaat, who calls the scheme “trite,” it fell to the unfortunate Lintern to make sense of a policy based more on a fear of change than a rational argument against it.

Toronto has undergone a huge transformation, nowhere more so than along King west of University Ave. Gehry’s towers, which come in at 82, 84 and 86 storeys, would be taller than most, it’s true, but they’d also be one of the few examples of great architecture in this city of built-form mediocrity.

But perhaps what most frightens our planners is the thought that something could break their patently ridiculous rules and still be better than the crud that doesn’t.

Think small, think small, one can hear them whispering to one another. Make only little plans; they have no magic to stir men’s blood.

Indeed, Toronto planners are so confused, they object to Mirvish’s plans on one hand because they are “too dense,” and on the other because of the “shortfall in proposed parking.”

Too big, but not big enough.

The towers would have 2,700 units but only 300 parking spots. In other words, the vast majority of inhabitants would walk, bike or take transit. Isn’t that exactly what the city wants?

Even better, the 220 parking spaces beneath the Princess of Wales Theatre would disappear, leaving a net gain of 75 parking spots.

The planners’ argument — that “the population is growing faster than the provision of infrastructure” — might be correct. But if that’s the case, isn’t building infrastructure preferable to killing growth?

Besides, the TTC’s new LRTs will begin service on King within the next few years.

Most of the city’s objections are the usual planner piffle about sunlight, wind and height, which scares the hell out these poor, timid souls.

The only price the city has to pay for the complex, which would include art galleries and schools as well as retail, is the loss of four designated warehouses and the 20-year-old Princess of Wales. No question that will hurt. But as they say: no pain, no gain.

In return, Toronto gets a shot at a genuine architectural masterpiece designed by one of the world’s leading practitioners, who, it so happens, was born and raised in this city.

That seems a pretty good deal for a city that in the eyes of the world looks more than ever like some frozen northern backwater presided over by Mayor Hogg and Sheriff Doug.

Gehry’s proposal, which has a long way to go before completion, deserves better treatment than it has received at the hands of this deeply conflicted burg.

“Toronto,” Gehry pointed out Tuesday, “looks like any other city in the world.” Not only are the glass towers “banal,” according to the 84-year-old architect, “there are too many of them.”

But as he proved in Bilbao, Spain, a building can change a city. Though it doesn’t happen often, it can. In Toronto, the last architectural icon, City Hall, opened in 1965. Nothing approaching it has appeared since.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

“At this point in my life,” said Gehry, “and since this is my own home town, I’d like to contribute.”

Little wonder community council declined to endorse the planning department’s recommendation to reject the project. It now gets passed on to the full city council, where it will be discussed at a Dec. 16 meeting.

Christopher Hume can be reached at chume@thestar.ca

Read more about: