That said, I think people also forget various factors in the design-to-construction process such as: developers with a preconceived notion of what the design should be; tight budgets; very tight timelines. It's easy to bite off more than you can chew in the design process and the actual amount of time that can realistically be spent on design is incredibly short. A lot of the work has to be completed in a matter of weeks, even for a large building. In that sense, aA are very smart; they have standard details that they have at the ready and which they refine over time and carry forward from one project to the next. They are efficient and able to respond to design issues very effectively by keeping things simple and not creating problems for themselves and the client by overdesigning when there simply is not enough time or resources. Not getting caught up in extras and doodads mean they can get the stuff they do design RIGHT. So yes, this means that the buildings are more "plain" or "boxy" or "boring" or whatever words people here sometimes use to describe them. But I think the real art is in the details and I respect aA for choosing finish and finesse over fancy extras. The criticism people level at aA is maybe more appropriate to apply to developers, who bring the short timelines and relatively unforgiving budgets that firms have to work within. Or going beyond that, maybe capitalism is to blame, or our crazy real estate market. But I have a hard time blaming aA for finding an efficient and effective way to work within the realities of condominium development in Toronto.
I would challenge any UTer to look around at various condominium projects around the city and take a critical eye to the detailing-- where different materials or building components meet. It can be as simple as the edge where the cladding used on a soffit meets the cladding on the facade of the building. aA's detailing is reliable and works well-- even visually, the parts fit together nicely, as they were designed to. A lot of buildings by other firms may look more attention-grabbing or be visually stunning, even, but up-close, you can tell that the details were difficult to execute and ended up being constructed poorly. (Not always, but often.) And, as someone who studies architecture, I would argue that there's an art (and rarity) to buildings where everything can fit together as nicely in the real world as it looked in your drawings.
People have every right to personally take issue with their aesthetic and approach to city-building. That is open to debate, and it should be debated and discussed. But I do think that individuals' critiques should take into account the extremely time-sensitive nature of what architecture firms do and the tight budgets they have to work with a lot of the time. In my opinion, aA has done a great job at taking multi-residential buildings, as a typology, and elevating them to good design. One look at multi-residential buildings pre-aA in this city will show you just how much changed with various projects they used to pioneer new ideas in multi-residential design in Toronto. I don't love every last thing they do, but they deserve respect for their contribution to residential design in the city, and credit for slick designs on condo-developer budgets and timelines.
Sidenote: I am dying for the opportunity to have even just a volunteer internship there. I really want to see what it's like to work in that office and be a part of their process, even if it means working on mundane drawings of fire stairs or bathrooms or parking levels. Just putting my antennas out into the world here...
King Charlotte