Toronto 483 Bay | 226.63m | 69s | Northam | IBI Group

IBI is not a "design" group in the sense of Aesthetics - they are more of a "design build" group who don't much care about appearance of their buildings - it's all about fitting it all in and cladding it.
 
I think IBI Group absorbed Young + Wright years ago - not sure if Y+W are still part of their team, but they were pretty decent architects. If they are still there (plus other arch firms acquired no doubt), IBI has some design chops.... hypothetically ;-)
 
Big Daddy said:
IBI is not a "design" group in the sense of Aesthetics - they are more of a "design build" group who don't much care about appearance of their buildings - it's all about fitting it all in and cladding it.
Click to expand...
You're right.

17197-78957.jpeg


42
 
alklay said:
The dead zone along BTS's Bay Street frontage will unfortunately continue, as long as its form remains the same, despite the addition of a residential tower in the back.
Click to expand...
Why? The colonnade offers great opportunity for double storey retail, or F&B.
I think this project might change this stretch of Bay extremely in a positive way.. if done right!
 
JohnnyRaylander said:
I'm not architect or designer but, as someone who spends time in that area of the city, I sincerely hope they demo BTS and start from scratch. That stretch of bay should be a fantastic opportunity to connect Nathan Phillip's with the Eaton Centre and on to Yonge and Dundas. Instead, it is a terribly unfriendly and imposing block. Adding residents would be great for reanimating the area but they should go all the way and reconfigure the street level.

The Mariott doesn't help that block but I think the bulk of the blame is on BTS
Click to expand...

Agreed- the site should be far more fine-grained than it is now to take advantage of the existing pedestrian nature of the site- I think an Artist Alley/Well-type project would work well here, in creating a quasi-extension of the Eaton Centre.
 
interchange42 said:
You're right.
Click to expand...

Neither that rendering nor the agreeable/adequate aesthetic of 411 Church negate what he said, nor does it make IBI a critical design practice. They are generally about as corporate and bland as you can get as an architecture office. Given their status as a large corporate practice as far as architects go, I'm not sure how posting one project you like (out of hundreds of buildings of various typologies, many not being condos) is supposed to change that fact.

And let's keep things in perspective here - 411 Church is a handsome building, but it's by no means a stellar example of multi-unit housing design. It gets the job done, it's handsome, but creating a tolerable design, spec'ing some decent window wall, and providing standard level of construction detailing doesn't an outstanding design practice make.

And that's okay. That's not IBI's schtick. But let's call a corporate office what it is.
 
.dwg said:
Neither that rendering nor the agreeable/adequate aesthetic of 411 Church negate what he said, nor does it make IBI a critical design practice. They are generally about as corporate and bland as you can get as an architecture office. Given their status as a large corporate practice as far as architects go, I'm not sure how posting one project you like (out of hundreds of buildings of various typologies, many not being condos) is supposed to change that fact.

And let's keep things in perspective here - 411 Church is a handsome building, but it's by no means a stellar example of multi-unit housing design. It gets the job done, it's handsome, but creating a tolerable design, spec'ing some decent window wall, and providing standard level of construction detailing doesn't an outstanding design practice make.

And that's okay. That's not IBI's schtick. But let's call a corporate office what it is.
Click to expand...
It wasn't my point to say that any particular quantity of IBI is great, but that they are quite capable of creating real 'design', as opposed to what @Big Daddy was claiming.

Every architect has to eat, even the snooty ones, so they all* take jobs they'd rather not do that are plagued by compromises for the sake of budgets. So much depends on what the client will spend, so it's through good clients that we learn that even the firms that regularly get slagged on UT are capable of rising to the occasion when the client is willing to afford it. The utter dismissal of architectural firms is lazy and unhelpful, and worth calling out.

42

*except Shim Sutcliffe it seems, the only firm I can think of offhand that have never disappointed in a finished project
 
interchange42 said:
It wasn't my point to say that any particular quantity of IBI is great, but that they are quite capable of creating real 'design', as opposed to what @Big Daddy was claiming.

Every architect has to eat, even the snooty ones, so they all* take jobs they'd rather not do that are plagued by compromises for the sake of budgets. So much depends on what the client will spend, so it's through good clients that we learn that even the firms that regularly get slagged on UT are capable of rising to the occasion when the client is willing to afford it. The utter dismissal of architectural firms is lazy and unhelpful, and worth calling out.

42

*except Shim Sutcliffe it seems, the only firm I can think of offhand that have never disappointed in a finished project
Click to expand...

@interchange42 now, now...........let's not be apologists for people who insist on their right to eat...............

Let's instead ask why architectural societies the world over don't impose a standard of practice for good design; and strip the license to practice from anyone who designs crap!

Bad clients can be banned, no buildings for you! A black list of developers who will never be allowed to build a building ever again!

We must stand firm for quality design; eating be damned! ;)
 
All kidding aside, it just doesn't seem possible to credibly come up with a set of standards of excellence to which all architectural firms (and developers) would adhere. The fact that we rarely fall into agreement on this board attests to a wealth of opinions regarding aesthetics. I'm not even certain I'd want to live in a world where everyone agreed to a single template of alleged "excellence."
 
I remember when the existing building was built. I thought it was dark and hulking then and still do. I’ve also thought Bay Street was/is neglected and still is. All the action was on Yonge but urban renewal (read Eaton Centre etc.) brought destruction and ruin to a large swath. That was all the rage then. Here we are now with downtown living popular and happy about that! Having said all that I’ve grown fond of this hulk and hope what is proposed is better for the streetscape and cheerier.
 
I like the tower design, but I have a problem with it being tacked onto the existing complex like that. It feels like an entirely inappropriate usage of the space and it just turns the existing complex into a bulky, giant podium that feels out of scale with the tower.

Honestly, I'd prefer if they demolished the complex and built something new. This site would be perfect for a 3-tower complex, with an office tower to replace the lost space, and a couple of slim, tall residential towers. The existing buildings are not worth saving, in my opinion. The best they can possibly turn out is looking like the Yonge Sheppard Centre if they decide to reclad or modernize them further.
 
I think this is just a bad idea. There are so many sites in downtown that could support a 70 storey tower nicely -- not this one. I wish this proposal would just go away.
 
JohnnyRaylander said:
I'm not architect or designer but, as someone who spends time in that area of the city, I sincerely hope they demo BTS and start from scratch. That stretch of bay should be a fantastic opportunity to connect Nathan Phillip's with the Eaton Centre and on to Yonge and Dundas. Instead, it is a terribly unfriendly and imposing block. Adding residents would be great for reanimating the area but they should go all the way and reconfigure the street level.

The Mariott doesn't help that block but I think the bulk of the blame is on BTS
Click to expand...
Nope. BTS may be problematic but we shouldn't be in the business of demo-ing large structures just because we don't like them. Much can be done here - especially to the ground plane - to make it a better-contributing piece of the City.
 
ProjectEnd said:
Nope. BTS may be problematic but we shouldn't be in the business of demo-ing large structures just because we don't like them. Much can be done here - especially to the ground plane - to make it a better-contributing piece of the City.
Click to expand...

If we're looking to repurpose the space by adding a massive structure on top of it, why not consider taking the opportunity to start from scratch and do it correctly? What are the concerns with that? Disrupting the current tenants? Environmental? Cost?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top