UtakataNoAnnex
Senior Member
Or they could be doing jobs to take home the paycheque, for good or bad. That is, in a world where the developer calls the shots on the materials and design budgets (read: value engineering) too my understanding.
Toronto 1075 Bay | 210.25m | 59s | Canderel | Hariri Pontarini
- Thread starter raptor
- Start date
DavidCapizzano
Senior Member
This is only kind of a half truth. David Pontarini was the partner in charge of One Bloor, King and Portland Centre, 7 St Thomas and Pinnacle One Yonge. To say he isn't responsible for any of the firms hits is a bit unfair.
Last edited:
Agreed that it's only a half truth. While the projects under Siamak Hariri are generally high profile homes and institutions where the proponents are normally deep-pocketed and willing to spend, the projects under David Pontarini are not the opposite of high quality, necessarily… but because they include the condos, those projects tend to run a higher risk of being value engineered.
Architectural firms gradually grow in size to meet demand for their designs, and you have to consider every job that comes your way as you have payroll to make, (and no-one wants to downsize their workforces). When you do have a developer telling you to cut costs, you do your best to maintain the quality of the building, and in those cases function comes first and exterior expression second. Meanwhile we get to sit here taking potshots, and while there's nothing wrong intrinsically about criticizing a design, it's worth considering that it's very, very difficult for firms to turn down jobs, and so companies set the threshold higher for that to happen than you may like sometimes.
42
Yegger
Active Member
This looks like the lovechild of Garrison Point and 1 Eglinton East (which was also designed by HP). I don't have any qualms with this proposal. Is it my favourite? No. But it is simple, has some interesting angles and is a couple of steps above your typical box with jazzed up balconies slapped on. The execution will make or break it in my opinion.
UtakataNoAnnex
Senior Member
I am curious though, what is your position on the ...er, much "loved" Graziani + Corazza outfit? I get that they are a broken watch that tells the right time twice a day on the occasion, but they are the mostly the scorn of regulars here who appear to have insider/industry credentials. So to qualify my question, how much of the design decision is theirs and not their clients? And thus, is the scorn of them being misplaced?
...and sorry if this is little off-topic. But this has been a burning question of mine that's been there ever since "it's not always the architect's fault" was raised when I was nothing but a simple lurker.
Generally, architects take more stick on UrbanToronto than they deserve, and there are several firms that get dumped on by members on a regular basis: "Architect X designs another pile of rubbish" or even before we've seen a concept drawing "This is Architect Y so we know it's going to be terrible." Those posts only really show that the authors have already made up their minds, no matter what we eventually see in renderings or real life.
All of the firms that regularly get dumped on, a list that also includes Turner Fleischer, IBI, and Kirkor, have buildings in their portfolio that most UT posters would agree (you can never get everyone on board) look great, some have more than others. (Some UT members can't get past who designed a building to fairly judge it in the first place — they see who the architect is and that's enough to make up their minds without even considering the building itself.)
Architects have different expertises, aesthetic predilections, experience, knowledge, and skill levels. Architectural firms typically have many architects on staff, and while some firms have a tightly controlled style of expression, many are looser, with no one particular defining style (although as their buildings may exhibit tried-and-true-to-the-firm practices).
Buildings, though, are commissioned by and paid for by developers who come in with a wish list. And the same time, the City has all sorts of planning criteria the buildings must satisfy, while because of Toronto land prices, economics typically demand that building GFAs exceed the lot size many times over, (and if the lot is an irregular one, the building is likely to be quite irregularly massed too) meaning that the developers and City come into conflict over size and massing. Other neighbouring buildings or close by public spaces having to be taken account of in designs too, so there are many, many moving parts, but in the end of course yes, it's the architectural firms and developers who jointly have the greatest impact…
…but because the developers are responsible for the budget (and the decision of which architectural firms to hire in the first place), for me it ultimately comes down to the developer: they own it, so they gotta own it, on a building-by-building basis.
42
daniel_kryz
Active Member
I agree with all of these points. We tend to forget that ultimately the developer approves the design, not the designer. Regarding David Pontarini, I think he has been in charge of some great projects, although I think that his faction of the firm doesn't have as much of a commitment to quality and they have at times made already low-budget projects worse. Sometimes, it does have to do with the architect. While I agree that cost is an important factor, I can also think about firms like Claude Cormier + Associés, which does a great job of value-engineering while still keeping their landscape projects' beauty and design vision. I know, one is architecture and the other is landscaping. But my main point is that many designers just don't know how to make a low-budget building look acceptable, or even how to do good design for high-budget buildings.
For example, how can anyone justify this? Or this? (it took architectsAlliance 5 years to concede to public outcry and design a somewhat normal looking building)
/https://www.thestar.com/content/dam/thestar/politics/political-opinion/2019/07/08/ottawas-chteau-laurier-renovation-really-has-the-town-talking/_3chateau_laurier_addition.jpg)
Even if you don't agree with these examples, I'm sure we can all agree that there are some buildings with terrible designs that don't have to do with the developer. Some architects are lacking in ideas, do not share an aesthetic ideology that non-architects can agree with, lose themselves in weird fantasies instead of going back to the basics of what makes a good building, and some are just really really stubborn.
I think that we should be more open-minded, because sometimes firms that we don't like come up with designs that no one expected them to make (BDP Quadrangle is a good example). At the same time, I think the cynicism that people have here is often very well-founded. Toronto can really disappoint and it comes from almost every proponent that takes part in our city-building. Sometimes, there are ideas or projects that give me so much hope, and this forum is such a great place to talk about these topics. So while I think we should try to keep an open mind, we should also express our cynicism that comes from being let down too many times and not always seeing this city live up to its great potential.
As they say, admitting a problem is the first step to finding a solution!
For example, how can anyone justify this? Or this? (it took architectsAlliance 5 years to concede to public outcry and design a somewhat normal looking building)
Even if you don't agree with these examples, I'm sure we can all agree that there are some buildings with terrible designs that don't have to do with the developer. Some architects are lacking in ideas, do not share an aesthetic ideology that non-architects can agree with, lose themselves in weird fantasies instead of going back to the basics of what makes a good building, and some are just really really stubborn.
I think that we should be more open-minded, because sometimes firms that we don't like come up with designs that no one expected them to make (BDP Quadrangle is a good example). At the same time, I think the cynicism that people have here is often very well-founded. Toronto can really disappoint and it comes from almost every proponent that takes part in our city-building. Sometimes, there are ideas or projects that give me so much hope, and this forum is such a great place to talk about these topics. So while I think we should try to keep an open mind, we should also express our cynicism that comes from being let down too many times and not always seeing this city live up to its great potential.
As they say, admitting a problem is the first step to finding a solution!
Last edited: