From today.

IMG_1825.JPG
 

Attachments

  • IMG_1825.JPG
    IMG_1825.JPG
    376 KB · Views: 894
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Well between this and Hotel X, I'd say we are getting SNORRed. At least this one is sort of hidden.

AoD
Click to expand...
I would have thought a so called "moderator" would know that NORR wasn't the design architect for either project. Snark is cheap I guess. Knowledge on the other hand...
 
What's being built looks little like Diamond Schmitt's original design. NORR has overseen the value engineering here.

In the case of Hotel X, we don't really know who is responsible for what aspects of the design, to what degree NORR might have had to value engineer the Stephen B Jacobs Group's design, as we never got a good look at it.

The fuller picture is that there are many hands involved in the decision making process for buildings of this complexity, and I've been arguing in many threads that we should be holding the developer ultimately responsible, not the architects. Not that there's not plenty of praise or blame to pass around for these huge projects… but I suppose we expect the architects to rescue us from the blunders of others, not carry them out.

42
 
This is an institutional building that will deliver growing emergency services in this part of downtown. As much as we all want the best visual for new projects in Toronto, this one is probably using the budget inside rather than outside, hence the sterile look. Any major donor allocating some of the gift towards innovative exterior design would be a bonus.
 
interchange42 said:
What's being built looks little like Diamond Schmitt's original design. NORR has overseen the value engineering here.

In the case of Hotel X, we don't really know who is responsible for what aspects of the design, to what degree NORR might have had to value engineer the Stephen B Jacobs Group's design, as we never got a good look at it.

The fuller picture is that there are many hands involved in the decision making process for buildings of this complexity, and I've been arguing in many threads that we should be holding the developer ultimately responsible, not the architects. Not that there's not plenty of praise or blame to pass around for these huge projects… but I suppose we expect the architects to rescue us from the blunders of others, not carry them out.

42
Click to expand...

That's why snark from moderators who should know better might annoy someone who does know more.
 
interchange42 said:
What's being built looks little like Diamond Schmitt's original design. NORR has overseen the value engineering here.

In the case of Hotel X, we don't really know who is responsible for what aspects of the design, to what degree NORR might have had to value engineer the Stephen B Jacobs Group's design, as we never got a good look at it.

The fuller picture is that there are many hands involved in the decision making process for buildings of this complexity, and I've been arguing in many threads that we should be holding the developer ultimately responsible, not the architects. Not that there's not plenty of praise or blame to pass around for these huge projects… but I suppose we expect the architects to rescue us from the blunders of others, not carry them out.

42
Click to expand...

We need a way for unhappy architects to convey, upon completion of work bearing their name, that this is not a product of which they are proud.

Then firms need to have the courage to apply that.

In other words if a client blindsides you with changes to your work that unalterably molest its better qualities, and you can't detach yourself from the project, you have to tell the world.....'this isn't really my work'.

If the firm uses that ....(lets call it a designation) then the developer can wear the final project. If not, then you as a firm are saying 'this work is representative of what I do' ; and you need to wear it.
 
Also, I'm not sure about mandating 'corner stones', let alone making them bigger; but I do the like the idea of making developers of 'large' properties, at least, prominently display, their own name
and every major firm attached the project. If you do good work, best advertising you could ever get.........if you don't..........hopefully you won't be in business too long.
 
Nastapoka said:
That's why snark from moderators who should know better might annoy someone who does know more.
Click to expand...

And then what, walk away from the poor outcome that are the above examples? Is that what knowledge is used for these days? One did the value engineering, one is complicit in the process and must own the results of it. Like Hotel X - we're given the runaround how the blank walls are for the theatre and it gets hidden by landscaping so ultimately it doesn't matter - well, you know what, the outcome speaks for itself.

Northern Light said:
We need a way for unhappy architects to convey, upon completion of work bearing their name, that this is not a product of which they are proud.

Then firms need to have the courage to apply that.

In other words if a client blindsides you with changes to your work that unalterably molest its better qualities, and you can't detach yourself from the project, you have to tell the world.....'this isn't really my work'.

If the firm uses that ....(lets call it a designation) then the developer can wear the final project. If not, then you as a firm are saying 'this work is representative of what I do' ; and you need to wear it.
Click to expand...

Well. it's the bottom line - fine, let it be that. But don't expect to do the dirty work and then wash one's hands off entirely and say "it's the client's fault, we are only the _____ architect" and pretend it isn't also their problem. That's too easy. It's your work, right?

AoD
 
Last edited:
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Well. it's the bottom line - fine, let it be that. But don't expect to do the dirty work and then wash one's hands off entirely and say "it's the client's fault, we are only the _____ architect" and pretend it isn't also their problem. That's too easy. It's your work, right?

AoD
Click to expand...

Agreed.

But I was thinking of the Alan Smithee type situation for directors, where the movie that went out was re-cut/edited w/o their permission by someone else.

Simply of a way of communicating 'this is not what I was on track to do'
 
Northern Light said:
Agreed.
But I was thinking of the Alan Smithee type situation for directors, where the movie that went out was re-cut/edited w/o their permission by someone else.
Simply of a way of communicating 'this is not what I was on track to do'
Click to expand...

I am sure it happens - and of course saying no won't endear you to anyone. But that's the rub - do you want to be a firm that will be willing to do anything (there are those) and don't care if your end product is a pile?

Automation Gallery said:
Again the building is fine and a lot better than what was there before, it serves its purpose:cool:
Click to expand...

It's hard to beat a parking lot with a medical oxygen tank.

AoD
 
Last edited:
interchange42 said:
What's being built looks little like Diamond Schmitt's original design. NORR has overseen the value engineering here.

In the case of Hotel X, we don't really know who is responsible for what aspects of the design, to what degree NORR might have had to value engineer the Stephen B Jacobs Group's design, as we never got a good look at it.

The fuller picture is that there are many hands involved in the decision making process for buildings of this complexity, and I've been arguing in many threads that we should be holding the developer ultimately responsible, not the architects. Not that there's not plenty of praise or blame to pass around for these huge projects… but I suppose we expect the architects to rescue us from the blunders of others, not carry them out.

42
Click to expand...

Doesn't look like much changed...

http://www.sbjgroup.com/project/list/featured/hotel-x
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top