People often forget it is the client, not the architect in the driver's seat. The conservative modernism of Toronto's Clewe's designs are a reflection of the conservative Toronto developers not the ambitions and design integrity of the architectural firm.
Yes, the client is in the drivers seat, but the architect is often responsible for navigating.
Clewes has stated in the media that he wishes Toronto would embrace more ambitious daring designs: there's a reason most of his work is in Holland.
No, most of his work is here; aA has a curvy (= more daring) project in Holland. I don't see a reason why he couldn't do more curved work here, as there are lots of curved projects in this city too, like The Met, WaterPark City, WaterClub, some CityPlace, Windermere by the Lake, Marilyn. (Whose is the WindermereBTL tower anyway?)
Toronto is slowly changing--for the better. Compared to the stunners I'm seeing on SSP's montreal forum though (for example 350 De Maisonneuve)--Aa's Toronto effort is cold and timid in comparison--a reflection of Toronto the Old (most developers are "old" men so naturally have old fashioned Toronto values.) Real expressive architecture may never have a home in Toronto; but within 100 years surely the effects of all the various immigrants will result in some more colourful buildings?
I think it's happening faster here than you claim, and that Montreal is not so chock-a-block with stunners yet itself. Yes 350 De Maisonneuve is cool, and there are some other good ones, but much of what is going up in Montreal right now is dreck - see Le Crystal de la Montagne, Terrasse Versailles, Quartier Parisien, Le Gouverneur, Le Mont Latella, Le Simpson as examples - or simply average and inoffensive modern, like much of what gets built here. I certainly wish the business community here would embrace more radical designs in office towers - the suits here are dead stodgy - but we are getting expressive architecture here already, mostly in the cultural sector - the ROM's crystal, OCAD's tabletop - and now in the more creative industries - Alsop's Filmport offices for example.
Context has a certain idea of what they want from Clewe's--something sophisticated but understated. It would be nice if some more younger architects were given a few commissions to design condos (Clewes must be over 50 by now--certainly looks rather old in his photo on Aa website; Stephen Teeple too is rather old.) Where are Toronto's under 35 architects?
I'm glad for a restrained approach to modernism here if it keeps us from getting a Pudong skyline, but I would like to see more Alsops, more Behnisches, more Gehrys, better Fosterses, some Hadids, some Nouvels, some Rogerses, some Herzog and deMeurons, showing up here too. None of those architects are spring chickens any more either, but I don't think age has anything to do with it. It has to do with sensibilities, which (yes) can change over time in some people, but which don't so often in the real iconoclasts minds; these people have been evolving their particular take on break-the-box modernism over the years in innovative ways that continue to excite, while still remaining true to Modernism's less-is-more mantra.
That's not to say I don't want to see fresh faces making waves in the architectural marketplace here - I'm just not asking anyone to retire simply because of their age.
42