For all the times there are complaints that UT members are development cheerleaders, when truly objectionable buildings are put up (just off the top of my head, I'm thinking this one, Velocity, Hotel X and University Place) they are received with the opprobrium they rightly deserve.

For this tower, I can't decide which is worse, the fake brick or the spandrel/window-wall.
 
Tough choice!

42
 
Taken last Wednesday afternoon:
DSC_0389.jpg

DSC_0386.jpg

DSC_0385.jpg
 

Attachments

  • DSC_0386.jpg
    DSC_0386.jpg
    879.3 KB · Views: 933
  • DSC_0389.jpg
    DSC_0389.jpg
    1 MB · Views: 1,046
  • DSC_0385.jpg
    DSC_0385.jpg
    885.8 KB · Views: 933
The developer is more visible but, they also have other things on their mind. It takes the designer to accept the compromises put forth by the developer. Rudy Wallman comes across as a sell out. His range of quality between aA and Kirkor is proof positive.
 
"Sell out" is an easy, ugly term to lob, but there's more behind the choices made by architectural firms than just the simple question it infers.

We have no idea how many jobs are coming in to Wallman, or any other firm that gets attacked on UT. Wallman Architects is not Rudy Wallman all on his own, but it's a whole team of people, whose livelihoods depend upon the office having clients. If Rudy needs to accept projects that end up like this (very unfortunate) to keep the office busy and his staff paid, then that's what happens.

It must not be an easy choice to make when faced with having buildings go up that they might not want to feature in their portfolio afterwards, and in fact I know from a past interview with Rudy that the worst thing he has ever had to do is fire people because there wasn't work (way back in the Wallman Clewes Bergman days). Not saying that I know what Wallman thinks about this building, but I do know that keeping his office staff busy is his priority.

We all know from other work that Wallman Architects is quite capable, so we have to know that this building would not look this way if there was the budget here to prevent that. The ultimate responsibility, as I've stated in lots of other posts, lies with the developer who sets the budget.

42
 
Of course. At the core, we expect artists to have a higher moral standard as there is no one else we can count on.

There is risk for partners to give in to financial pressure and make major compromises to their design standards even if it brings more work in the short term.
 
This building is bad on so many levels from the colour to the design and even at street level, it's generic and disappointing. I hate seeing buildings like this approved and built! We really should be doing so much better!
 
maestro said:
Of course. At the core, we expect artists to have a higher moral standard as there is no one else we can count on.

There is risk for partners to give in to financial pressure and make major compromises to their design standards even if it brings more work in the short term.
Click to expand...
We are all compromised at times by the system that keeps us fed, artists (architects) included. We're hypocrites if we don't admit we're susceptible to it ourselves, and our expectations for others should be tempered by that fact. Yes, making compromises can have consequences, and any businesses has to weigh the potential harm that can come their way in the future because of it. I'm not willing to judge others decisions, however, without knowing fully what was on the table. In regards to the short term, if the employment of your staff hinges upon accepting a particular job (no idea if that's the case here), then the short term is a pretty powerful voice in the decision making process and hard to ignore.

42
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top