I disagree with the argument that it is purely economics. For me, it has a lot to do with Canadian conservatism and our ongoing lust to not stick out in a crowd- if you keep your head down and blend into background you are less likely to be noticed- in other words, stick to the status-quo and you will avoid any negative and conversely positive situations.
I have nothing against the project, but in Toronto when discussing architecture, there is a lot to be desired. Yes, things are looking up in this city. It does however, seem to me that we often fall back on the excuse that economics are responsible for design blunders. While it is a factor, I just think that architects in Canada are not versed in having to push the creativity or imagination envelope.
The select group of architects, who are doing the most building, especially in Toronto, have developed a system where they have removed any factor of risk-taking. Essentially, they have a catalogue of existing or pre-designed buildings which they ultimately combine and match into a final product and then add a unique element to make it different for the client. You need look no further than D&S, aA, KPMB or B&H as well as WZMH - they all do it.
Naturally, the client is also responsible for design decisions as well, but essentially most clients have bought or will buy into the conservative system and hell, it works, its on budget and it gets them a decent product. No need to re-invent the wheel right?
p5
