Homer said:
Again I may be biased but every project I have seen gets changed due to the client. I really feel the developer gets off easy, they can sit back and let the architect take the blame for their decisions.
Click to expand...

While I agree that the focus on most projects should be directly at the developer, I would respectfully disagree in terms of "getting off easy" - all of the risk falls onto the developer. It is the developer's project, so obviously they can request any changes necessary to advance the project - be it for a whole variety of reasons that have little to no impact on the architect (financial, legislative/regulatory, target market/consumers). The architect is paid by the developer and assumes no risk, nor has any skin in the game.
 
Mike in TO said:
.....The architect is paid by the developer and assumes no risk, nor has any skin in the game.
Click to expand...

Hey everyone open up an architecture firm as it is not your typical business there is no risk:

-no financial risk that your mid to small size client can't seem to pay their bills according to the
agreed fee schedule.
- no financial risk that while you agreed that minor design changes are part of the fees, your client ends
up with half the building redesigned but considers it as part of the fees.
-no financial risk that while some extras are expected the project you get accumulates a large number of unexpected extras
causing much more staff hours for which the client assumes is part of the fee.
-no risk to your reputation with the public or other clients (thus your ability to get new work) when the building
ends up not to be what was envisioned.
- no risk to your reputation with the community, our city hall (when during construction the developer and/or contractor
behaves badly toward the community the project is in) simply because your firm is associated with the project.
- no risk of legal issues when a contractor starts construction without a permit.
- no risk of legal issues when the sub-trade and contractor sue each other, but your involved in the case that really has nothing
to do with you because you are the architect of record.
no risk of legal issues because a member of the public slips and falls in your clients development and sues everyone involved with the project even though it had nothing to do with the architecture.
-no risk that bloggers will hate your designs whether or not you had full say in the design.

nope no risk at all...
 
The level of risk is at a substantially different level then the proponent, but yes obviously anyone involved in the process or any business takes on some level of risk. The bloggers being the worst of course.
 
A friend of mine once spoke of how one her friends, a architect for a local firm and how they were basically "discouraged" by clients from actually producing interesting designs. The product was always dumbed down.
 
Last edited:
tkip said:
A friend of mine once spoke of how one her friends, a architect for a local firm and how they were basically "discouraged" by clients from actually producing interesting designs. The product was always dumbed down.
Click to expand...

Having worked in the market research and advertising research industry I know why the clients do that: it is because pretty much none of their customers want to buy interesting designs. I've heard estimates that pretty much the entire high arts and culture industry in Canada is supported by about 20,000 hard-core customers. Art and design are a low priority for most Canadians.
 
Mike in TO said:
The level of risk is at a substantially different level then the proponent, but yes obviously anyone involved in the process or any business takes on some level of risk. The bloggers being the worst of course.
Click to expand...

Yes the developers risk is very calculated and often imposed by bank restrictions (like having a % of sales before proceeding) while other firms the risk is chance.
 
Parkdalian said:
Having worked in the market research and advertising research industry I know why the clients do that: it is because pretty much none of their customers want to buy interesting designs. I've heard estimates that pretty much the entire high arts and culture industry in Canada is supported by about 20,000 hard-core customers. Art and design are a low priority for most Canadians.
Click to expand...

I woud further and say it really comes down to these clients and people involved just being cheap. They undermine creativity and aesthetics. Why we have so many "boxes" being built that look alike.
 
Specifically, it's developers who are generally the cheap ones. Large projects can be complex and risky ventures and they may want some simplification, but low-quality architecture is nonetheless unacceptable because it will be around for a long time and determines the beauty of a city's built form. Everyone else seems to care about creativity in design. The marketers always try to make the building's design seem appealing in how it's described. They try to ascribe images in their promotional material of a certain architectural style, like a tower with a sailboat-style fin named after some southern coastal city, evoking its cityscape. Townhouses are marketed as "brownstones".

Architects work to present their towers as sophisticated as they can in renderings with patterns of curtains (or simply lighting in units in a night rendering) evoking some cladding detail that won't be in the final product, and the colours of sunset imbuing an ordinarily grey tower with rich blue tones. They correctly sense that their work will be popularly judged. In the long run, buildings with better architecture will probably more desirable places to live than similar quality buildings in the same locations.
 
Automation Gallery said:
Well looking around, i dont see too many hat-wearing 202 meter razor thin elegant boxes. lol:D
Click to expand...

The exception. If builders started copying the design of Casa into other projects, we'd just see another cycle of boxes with hats and wrap around balconies instead. A box is still a box.
 
For people who don't like boxes, yes, a box is just a box. For people who don't like operas, all operas seem the same too. For people who don't like the Stones, one of their songs sounds like the next.

An appreciation for boxes, however, brings familiarity with the form and an awareness of the things that separate some boxes from others. Proportion, material palette, articulation... attention to detail of all kind becomes second nature when analyzing a design, and the truth of these matters is revealed to those who take the time to delve into it: a box is not just any box, an opera is not just any opera, a Stones song is not just any Stones song.

Casa is not just any box. It's a particularly beautiful one that is admired by many on UrbanToronto. That it might get a taller brother now seems to be a stumbling block for some, but the fact is that there are countless instances of pairs or more of the same design repeated in this city. Creating a pair of buildings creates a campus, or a complex, and they are often complimentary. Cresford has had good success with Casa, why shouldn't they expand on that? There's no danger of there being 20 Casas anytime, so it seems odd to me to fret about only one more.

42
 
The (good) thing is those concrete slabs & brick bunkers are not very prominent on the skyline, unless your view is from the cn tower or out of an airplane window. Where as all these glass boxes are generally taller and much more visible. Its becoming our city's style, a very dull & repetitive one at that. More diversity is needed i.e. Aura, L, ICE, Scotia, Royal Bank Plaza, Shangra-la, 1 St Thomas, Ritz. Theres nothing wrong with a high quality glass box i.e. 4 Season, X or Casa, but its disappointing to see that the majority of new proposals (highly visible buildings) have almost the exact same proportions.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top