Discussion in 'Buildings' started by urbandreamer, Jun 27, 2011.
Same with you. Always there to defend garbage for the sake of property owners' rights to cash out.
Kind of you to have answered. Hope that sharing knowledge is not a waste of time.
So another question for all those professionals out there. Somewhere, there is an architect who designed this. Somewhere at her/his firm, this design was created and his and her colleagues looked at it. And somewhere, they decided that this was the best they could do. If this crowd feels this way about the design, how could something get so far without more critical review along the way?
If this crowd has design ideas which are superior (at least to this crowd), how is it that expensive turds keep being designed?
Ouch!, i don't look at it that way at all... i see where you're are coming from
^There may not be a single definitive answer to this question, but I believe greed and sloth play a role, along with a touch of gluttony and a complete absence of pride.
I'm not going to speculate if the lead architect sleeps well at night. They work for the developer and the developer works for the investors. There don't see a reason to switch up the status quo if the buyers/renters continue to make these development successful. I'm not implying this isn't short sighted .
I could very well be wrong. I do seem to recall you once or twice implying planning should take an even greater account in the prices developers are paying for their development sites among other pro development gestures.
So...how does the person who designed this feel working for so-and-so and getting feedback like this? Does it encourage introspection or do you knuckle down and do as directed? I personally don't understand anything that is done without keeping in mind:
Good, better, best,
Never, never rest,
'Till your good is better,
And your better, best.
Had to do a little digging but I found this post from a few months back. Basically you get one of two responses. This, below -
Or the alternative, which is that some developers have taken criticisms from UT and addressed them. Tridel comes to mind in particular. Not that they've done enough to improve their designs and choice of material but they also did learn from the 300 Front disaster. Unfortunately, it doesn't appear that Canderel or Graziani+Corazza care about anything other than their bottom line.
First of the orange glazing panels installed from early this morning. Sorry for the grainy shot but It was very dark out.
So much for the terracotta
Did they? They have learned the lesson partially, more along the lines of decent design (with somewhat lackluster execution) for market segmenting than as a modus operandi - consult Aubergine on the Park if one has any doubt (bonus point - they hired the same architect, and the proposal was savaged by the DRP to little avail).
You didn't expect them to pony up for that, did you?
well that is about the biggest disappointment I remember in recent memory. What crap.
Garbage. But really, what do you expect from a team of its finest purveyors...
It would be interesting to contact the planner on the file (below) to see if materials were secured during SPA. I say this because on at least one of their SPA sets, terracotta is clearly labeled (6).
unless they interpret "terracotta" as a colour not a material?
Toronto may be the only city in the world (certainly the only "alpha" city) that consistently uses 2nd and 3rd rate local architecture firms to design its tallest buildings--and then value engineers their already crappy designs!! It's just astonishing how little the city demands of its developers. Even regional cities like Calgary are showing more vision by getting A-list international firms to design their tallest. Actually, forget Calgary--Mississauga is doing better in this regard than Toronto.
I know I'm not saying anything new here, but I just feel a need to add to the chorus of disgust registered here in the hopes that maybe someone amongst TPTB will get the message.