From a couple days ago:

IMG_1153.jpg
IMG_1154.jpg
IMG_1158.jpg


42
 
I do wonder why CentreCourt, who are clearly willing to spend money on high quality materials (that window wall is about as good as it gets) are so loyal to IBI Group, who are not an architecture firm I'd associate with developers who care highly about design. Given the quality of the work that CentreCourt have wrung out of IBI, I'd love to see what they could do when paired with a top-shelf architect like HPA or KPMB.
 
smably said:
I do wonder why CentreCourt, who are clearly willing to spend money on high quality materials (that window wall is about as good as it gets) are so loyal to IBI Group, who are not an architecture firm I'd associate with developers who care highly about design. Given the quality of the work that CentreCourt have wrung out of IBI, I'd love to see what they could do when paired with a top-shelf architect like HPA or KPMB.
Click to expand...
I think it goes to show that architectural firms that don't charge quite as much may also have some great architects working for them. When the developers hiring them are willing to spend on higher quality cladding materials, suddenly we see the architectural firms shining, when they were always capable of that. Plus, while we look at them as monoliths typically, but these firms have a pile of people working for them with varying skills and talents and personal takes on the company style, and we rarely know which one has the design lead on any particular project, but that usually has an affect too. I would just prefer that we not write off architectural firms around here with quite so much prejudice.

42
 
interchange42 said:
I think it goes to show that architectural firms that don't charge quite as much may also have some great architects working for them. When the developers hiring them are willing to spend on higher quality cladding materials, suddenly we see the architectural firms shining, when they were always capable of that. Plus, while we look at them as monoliths typically, but these firms have a pile of people working for them with varying skills and talents and personal takes on the company style, and we rarely know which one has the design lead on any particular project, but that usually has an affect too. I would just prefer that we not write off architectural firms around here with quite so much prejudice.

42
Click to expand...

A good eye can often spot which building is designed by which partner in the larger firms. HPA is particularly stark between the two partners, but even firms like Quadrangle, IBI, etc. have distinctive differences in style between each of their lead architects.
 
interchange42 said:
I think it goes to show that architectural firms that don't charge quite as much may also have some great architects working for them. When the developers hiring them are willing to spend on higher quality cladding materials, suddenly we see the architectural firms shining, when they were always capable of that. Plus, while we look at them as monoliths typically, but these firms have a pile of people working for them with varying skills and talents and personal takes on the company style, and we rarely know which one has the design lead on any particular project, but that usually has an affect too. I would just prefer that we not write off architectural firms around here with quite so much prejudice.

42
Click to expand...
Not incorrect generally, but I happily 'write off' folks like Kirkor, G+C and non-AoR Turner Fleisher immediately and with prejudice.
 
innsertnamehere said:
A good eye can often spot which building is designed by which partner in the larger firms. HPA is particularly stark between the two partners, but even firms like Quadrangle, IBI, etc. have distinctive differences in style between each of their lead architects.
Click to expand...
HPA is not as simple as you think. While David Pontarini oversees 90% of the towers that company designs, those there then split between project leads Michael Attard and Michael Conway, and there are differences in the designs their teams work up.
ProjectEnd said:
Not incorrect generally, but I happily 'write off' folks like Kirkor, G+C and non-AoR Turner Fleisher immediately and with prejudice.
Click to expand...
Which means that your takes on any building they design come with a bias that in another setting would disqualify you from being a juror.

42
 
interchange42 said:
I think it goes to show that architectural firms that don't charge quite as much may also have some great architects working for them. When the developers hiring them are willing to spend on higher quality cladding materials, suddenly we see the architectural firms shining, when they were always capable of that. Plus, while we look at them as monoliths typically, but these firms have a pile of people working for them with varying skills and talents and personal takes on the company style, and we rarely know which one has the design lead on any particular project, but that usually has an affect too. I would just prefer that we not write off architectural firms around here with quite so much prejudice.
Click to expand...
For sure, and I didn't mean to write off IBI group, though I would say that their best designs are still not in the same league as the best designs coming out of the top-tier local firms. This project is an interesting case study, though, in that it's right across the street from a pretty disappointing HPA build by a client who was clearly not willing to pay for good materials. So far, I prefer the work of the less prestigious architect.

I guess my curiosity was more around why CentreCourt landed on IBI group as the architects they wanted to work with regularly. Is it about value for money? They realized they could get designs they're happy with without paying a premium for a better-known architect? Maybe they just have a good relationship with IBI and would rather stick with the architects they know and trust? Semi-rhetorical questions -- it just struck me as odd.
 
smably said:
For sure, and I didn't mean to write off IBI group, though I would say that their best designs are still not in the same league as the best designs coming out of the top-tier local firms. This project is an interesting case study, though, in that it's right across the street from a pretty disappointing HPA build by a client who was clearly not willing to pay for good materials. So far, I prefer the work of the less prestigious architect.

I guess my curiosity was more around why CentreCourt landed on IBI group as the architects they wanted to work with regularly. Is it about value for money? They realized they could get designs they're happy with without paying a premium for a better-known architect? Maybe they just have a good relationship with IBI and would rather stick with the architects they know and trust? Semi-rhetorical questions -- it just struck me as odd.
Click to expand...
No idea regarding the nature or nurture of CentreCourt's relationship with IBI exactly, but my take is that if our year end poll were being taken right now, IBI's design of 411 Church for CentreCourt will turn out to be the favourite new building overall in Toronto completed in the last year. They are capable of showstoppers!

42
 
interchange42 said:
Which means that your takes on any building they design come with a bias that in another setting would disqualify you from being a juror.

42
Click to expand...

Actually, picking a jury in the Canadian setting is quite different from the US (i.e., from what is depicted on TV). In Canada, selection is speedy and so few questions can be asked of a potential juror that this type of bias would never come up or be known.

I know that this is a complete aside, but I could not resist ;)
 
Better than expected - and better than the renders too imo.
The renders were ok, but looked like anything else. The actual execution is much bolder. Nice surprise.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top