The responsibility falls on everyone as there really is nothing equivalent to a 120 metre tower to showcase your cheapness; your will to compromise; your poor or disinterest in style. It falls on the developer. It falls on the architect. Let's not forget ... It falls on the buying homeowners.
 
I've spoken with an architect who told me about the developers he told he wouldn't work with because he knew it would reflect badly on him. Luckily he's in demand so he can afford to say no.
 
It's not really the City's fault: It's incredibly difficult to legislate taste generally, and specifically to stop buildings from going up that don't come up to aesthetic standards. (I'd like to read the language that any of you would propose for new laws covering how buildings must look—I'm genuinely curious—so cough it up!) Besides that, the Province hasn't given anyone the power to reject buildings based on aesthetics; rejections can only be based on failure to meet zoning or planning rules and Ontario Building Code.

It's not really the buyer's fault: in a city where we have more demand than supply, and where everything sells, the buyer has very little power to prevent crappy architecture from rising: the buyer simply doesn't have enough choice to avoid buying in an ugly building most of the time. (Any argument on that point?)

It's not really the architect's fault: G+C have been hired by Tribute to design this building. They have responded with a sleek proposal—at this point for the rezoning submission supporting documents. That's all that these images are intended for—Tribute needs an amended zoning bylaw to be allowed to build something so tall, so dense, etc. The development team then have to come to agreement with the City on what is acceptable here, or it goes to the OMB (or the coming LPAT equivalent). In the end, the developer finds out how much density they can build. They know what they paid for the land, how many suites they can build, what they target to take in profit. They then have to consider what market they want to sell to and what it will bear for their offerings.
All that worked out, marketing happens, and some time in there we get to the Site Plan Approval stage. It's there that the materials have to be specified to satisfy the City, but again, there are only certain areas where the City is allowed to weigh in.

If the developer has been realistic throughout the process, releasing images that reflect what they intend to build, then the Site Plan docs will still have a building that looks like it did in the rezoning application. The building has typically changed quite a bit, but you can see if the developer is still aiming for the same concept. If, suddenly, there are a million mullions everywhere, then the developer has made changes at some point, or has been deceitful through the renderings all along. Whichever it is, the architect is responding to budget demands throughout.

It's entirely disingenuous for us to lazily spread blame to everyone past "the buck stops here" developer: they are the last word in how much gets spent on a building. The better stuff costs more, period. If the better stuff were cheaper, everything in Toronto would look amazing.

42
 
Whatever you think of the aesthetics, there's no denying it will have an impact on the Yonge and Eg skyline as proposed.

2LyE2gu.jpg
 
interchange42 said:
It's not really the City's fault: It's incredibly difficult to legislate taste generally, a specifically to stop buildings from going up that don't come up to aesthetic standards. (I'd like to read the language that any of you would propose for new laws covering how buildings must look—I'm genuinely curious—so cough it up!) Besides that, the Province hasn't given anyone the power to reject buildings based on aesthetics; rejections can only be based on failure to meet zoning or planning rules and Ontario Building Code.

It's not really the buyer's fault: in a city where we have more demand than supply, and where everything sells, the buyer has very little power to prevent crappy architecture from rising: the buyer simply doesn't have enough choice to avoid buying in an ugly building most of the time. (Any argument on that point?)

It's not really the architect's fault: G+C have been hired by Tribute to design this building. They have responded with a sleek proposal—at this point for the rezoning submission supporting documents. That's all that these images are intended for—Tribute needs an amended zoning bylaw to be allowed to build something so tall, so dense, etc. The development team then have to come to agreement with the City on what is acceptable here, or it goes to the OMB (or the coming LPAT equivalent). In the end, the developer finds out how much density they can build. They know what they paid for the land, how many suites they can build, what they target to take in profit. They then have to consider what market they want to sell to and what it will bear for their offerings.
All that worked out, marketing happens, and some time in there we get to the Site Plan Approval stage. It's there that the materials have to be specified to satisfy the City, but again, there are only certain areas where the City is allowed to weigh in.

If the developer has been realistic throughout the process, releasing images that reflect what they intend to build, then the Site Plan docs will still have a building that looks like it did in the rezoning application. The building has typically changed quite a bit, but you can see if the developer is still aiming for the same concept. If, suddenly, there are a million mullions everywhere, then the developer has made changes at some point, or has been deceitful through the renderings all along. Whichever it is, the architect is responding to budget demands throughout.

It's entirely disingenuous for us to lazily spread blame to everyone past "the buck stops here" developer: they are the last word in how much gets spent on a building. The better stuff costs more, period. If the better stuff were cheaper, everything in Toronto would look amazing.

42
Click to expand...

Legislating all buildings over 100m require an open design competition could help. I believe Berlin did that decades ago and reaped the benefits.
 
In what way?

42
 
Won't help unless you're in an environment where there is the expectation to follow through. It helps to remember how Concord went for a Block 22 competition , chose a scheme and the chosen firm dropped the project after learning their role?

AoD
 
Berlin also has very, very few buildings over 100m. Every one is super luxury and takes years and years to approve. It's an entirely different environment.
 
If they do it along the likes of Selby - the "boxed" area towards the base would be totally acceptable. The glass volume at the corner would be tricky - and only certain design firms would be able to handle it well and keep it relatively clean looking (e.g. aA, S+P).

AoD
 
Vancouver is the Canadian leader when it comes to legislating design standards. It has blocked the truly heinous from being built but, it hasn't raise the average design or minimized the use of cheap window wall with more and more spandrel. It's the market for $3000 a square foot condos that has led to exceptional designs like Vancouver House and the Kengo Kuma tower.
 
innsertnamehere said:
Berlin also has very, very few buildings over 100m. Every one is super luxury and takes years and years to approve. It's an entirely different environment.
Click to expand...
Well, yes, but mostly no. Berlin only has thirteen towers 100 metres high or over, two of which are still under construction. They are not a particularly impressive bunch. I'm not sure this reported requirement for an open design competition for that height actually exists, but if it does, it has not produced much to talk about. It's Berlin's shorter buildings where the city shines.

42
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top