GTAConstruction
Active Member
Sounds good to me but that's the Architect's call, not the Builder!
Architect decides all the exterior finishes.
- Thread starter M5A
- Start date
Architect decides all the exterior finishes.
DavidCapizzano
Senior Member
I don't think anyone's going after the construction crew for putting up something that they are required to, it's the materials that people are upset with… and it's more the developer than the architect who sets the budget and forces cheaper materials. Architects generally know that people don't like the cheap stuff, but if the budget doesn't allow better, architects are backed into a corner.
42
DSC
Superstar
This project started off badly and has REALLY gone downhill subsequently. It's clearly going to be a real steaming turd in what is (or was?) a very pleasant neighbourhood.
GTAConstruction
Active Member
Yes and No!
We are talking about two different things.
The Architect will specify the material type, not the Builder. (SG or Masonry or Precast, etc.) - To get his design vision!
https://wallmanarchitects.com/project/time-space/
In another hand, this is the builder to choose the contractor. So depending on the contractor they choose, the quality of work also changes.
P.S. All the finishes and samples are to be reviewed and approved by the Arch. (Glasses, Paint Colours, etc.)
No one is complaining about the quality of the work. They are only talking about the materials. If you're talking about the quality of the work, you are the only one doing it.
So, the architect specifies the material type, yes, but not without the developer hovering over them, holding the budget like a sword over the plans. Typically an architect proposes better materials first, then is told to "find efficiencies," essentially bring the price down, so they end up having to specify something cheaper that they would not have chosen to apply to the building themselves.
The developers do aim to make a profit in the end, but with the lengthy process of development and materials costs jumping beyond the rate of inflation, building plans can get VE'd more than once along the way to preserve a profit. The public never knows, of course, what profit any company is making on any project, but it's sad that we get stuck with really crappy exteriors as part of the process.
42
Kama
New Member
Brick exteriors could subject to some kind of a city local law. That’s the building has to run an inspection every 4-5 years and foot the bill. The bill could run hundreds of thousands depending on the outcome of inspection. A nice brick exterior could hook up a building to such additional expense for life.
The City has not been granted the power by the Province to require a particular material, they can only dictate that the exterior materials used perform in specific ways, such as being fire-resistant, that they insulate to a particular level, etc.
I'm not sure you'd want them saying "all buildings must be brick" or "all buildings must be brick or stone or precast" anyway: products evolve over time: cementitious panels are a new category that are being used on occasion, and if you restrict the materials to a particular list, then it can take forever to modify the list to keep up with technology. That stifles experimentation and progress. The standards that we do have make sure any proposed materials will perform in ways that will make for safe, efficient buildings, while still allowing technological innovation.
42
Last edited:
evandyk
Senior Member
They poured another floor right under our balcony today. Toddler was glued to the window all morning.
UtakataNoAnnex
Senior Member
I wish they could instead state, "Use any other material than that awful generic grey spandrel!" ...so at least it will get around the thorny issue of telling them what to specifically build with.
In the meantime though, we going to have a whole block of said spandrel window wall of, "...the cheapest, most texture-less, most soulless exterior, " as you so aptly put it. And up to 29 floors of it in some places. This is going to make Kowloon Walled City look like the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao when finished...
...perhaps I am being over the top again. But boy, this is very worst of a project that we didn't have very high expectations for to begin with. /bleh
Last edited:
Undead
Senior Member
Well and not to mention something like that would be a ridiculous little bit of overegulation as if we don't already do so much to slow development.
Kama
New Member
The question essentially boils down to who has to pay and keep paying for good look of the building: builders/owners/residents of the building or city residents and visitors.
slicecom
Active Member
Spoken like a true condo investor. You really think buildings should be built with the absolute lowest quality finishes that meet safety standards with no consideration of aesthetics? I know I wouldn't want to live in a cheap and ugly building. Having to look at the hideous grey spandrel wall at street level every time I come and go would definitely impact my happiness and quality of life.
slicecom
Active Member
My last hope for this building was that the black and white contrast in the renders would provide at least a bit of visual interest, but they appear to be using the same grey spandrel for both the light and dark sections. The only contrast is the frame, which is black on some sections and an almost identical dark grey on others (yes, they are slightly different in both pics). This will just be a massive, out of scale, grey, blight on the neighbourhood.
Last edited by a moderator:
chuckles
New Member
The St. Lawrence focus area (which this building misses by a few blocks) has requirements for using brick at ground level, which has done a good job keeping the street wall consistent. https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/u...hood-focused-area-urban-design-guidelines.pdf