News   Nov 29, 2024
Feds Match $758 Million Investments for New Line 2 Subway Trains
 972     0 
News   Nov 29, 2024
Looking Back on a Year of Construction at Amexon's Central Park
 388     0 
News   Nov 29, 2024
33-Storey St Catharines Tower Would Retain Masonic Temple
 704     1 

Fantasy Renderings

It's well and good to claim you've thought out your proposals realistically or that your design includes "loading/parking via rear alley turntable stackers" but that's ridiculous given that these are fantasy renderings and don't represent any real consideration of real spaces designed for human beings to exist in or any consideration of structure, building code, etc. You've been critical of anything I've posted here so I'm just giving you the facts; if you don't strive to improve your actual working knowledge of design, then it makes it borderline offensive when you claim to be taking real-world considerations into design. Playing around in a rendering program is well and good, but please don't wave your "knowledge" around when other people step forward with their own design work.

p.s. setbacks, responding to context, inclusion of street-level mixed uses is important. But those are a given, and real design must go far beyond that.
 
Last edited:
But I'm not an architect! (in training) gasp! I'm just a humble nimby who likes to critique design. There's more to design than the OBC. For example, many practising architects around the world--and in Toronto--have told me good design may be genetic--you either get it or you don't. ;)

As for exterior aesthetics, you may critique away. I critique what I see not what I can not see. I haven't the time to get into details atm.

As for understanding the design process: Spire, how many products have you designed to be manufactured for high volume consumption?
 
Apart from work done at internships? Nothing. But I've done plenty of work in studio that is more feasible than any rendering. Alas, I'm not making this into a one-upmanship / pissing contest. Just telling you that your comments about your own work are very disingenuous.
 
Ok sorry you don't get my sense of humour. I am "making fun" of my nimby skills in my posts. I post in the "fantasy renderings" thread, not "I'm gonna be an architect soon" thread. In fact I probably will never be an architect; but, yes, I have designed products for the masses and will continue to do so for the rest of my nimby career. My nimbytect sketchs rep the very first "sketch" or idea, they are no way set in stone. They are meant to inspire--myself or others with greater talent. Today's "Junction Flatiron" sketch for example from start to finish took under 90 minutes. Meaning from site selection, massing study, concept, sketch, rendering and posting on UT. I like to work fast--details later! (Or never ;)) They are infact like journal entries--reference points that inspire me in other "real world" products I create unrelated to architecture.

As for your design aesthetic--ie exterior design. I will admit I am not a fan. I would say you need to move on from the copying stage and into your own aesthetic--and I mean that sincerely.
 
I see design as a synthesis of many great ideas which have, not always, but often, come before. I've said it many times; you need to learn to walk before you can run. It's important to find a balance between innovation/"new" ideas and synthesis of tried-and-true methods.

That said, I agree to a degree, and feel that over time I need to push myself to develop a more "delightful" aesthetic. But I've found a lot of success in school because of the way I synthesize the many ideas I stumble across in school and in my self-study. I've had a lot of successful critiques for my designs, and I attribute my design success to my design sense and a big part of that is my ability to synthesize ideas clearly, not pass of shmaltzy design as something new and unique (when it doesn't function as well and when it's been done before anyway!). I don't like disingenuous designers. Most critiques I see, 90% of what the designers do is bullshitting. I believe that my work is different than that, and so for now, I will continue on the path I've been working.

With each design, I push myself further. Maybe one day I'll post something that is more "out there" that you will appreciate*. Until then, please respect that my designs take a constant back-and-forth between instructor and student, between designer and critic, between structure and various other considerations. It's a massive process, and it's disingenuous to write it off because you don't like the aesthetic. Architecture is a function of numerous variables; aesthetics are one of many factors.

Anyways, I think/hope I've made my point.

(*A lot of "out there" architecture, however, receives lots of praise from the press, but is known to the architectural community to perform poorly. A lot of Zaha Hadid's work is original in many ways, but is crap. That said, even many of the architectural greats were synthesizing ideas created by others over time. Don't assume that just the work you recognize is "copied" from other architects. Architecture from all around the world and in different regions borrows its ideas from elsewhere. And architecture in Toronto often has similar visual themes because of what the climate and code demand. You can't take all the ideas from a building in Barcelona and assume they would work here. We just can't achieve the same "lightness" of elements that warmer climates can, for example. It's very understandable that certain design features become more popular or "re-used" in certain regions.)
 
Last edited:
I've know (and have dated) architects in RL so yes I do know what they go through.

I know many of these architects hate the flashy architects and prefer steady detail-oriented work. Not everyone is Bjarke Ingels--although I think of myself as being more like him--ie more design promoter than engineer.

Re: Ryerson. I have trouble taking that school seriously the more I hear about it. :p

Oh and I have worked in construction--so yes I know how complicated it is to build an architect's vision. And we're on UT--a site dedicated to watching all sorts of buildings through all their stages to completion. I've been a part of this community for almost 12 years--so maybe I know a bit about the biz....
 
Last edited:
urbandreamer said:
Re: Ryerson. I have trouble taking that school seriously the more I hear about it. :p
Click to expand...

Ah finally, the personal shot to top things off. Ryerson's program isn't perfect, but it's practical and it's great. Instead of just setting foot in buildings your grandfather designed, I get to train under studio profs who run their own firms and design contemporary projects in Toronto.

Best of luck in the "biz".
 
Nobody likes UofT's architecture program. At least nobody from the industry I've spoken to. Not practical enough. I actually started off there before making the switch.
 
You need to be taught by fellow architects. That's why UofW is so great and such a practical program. Ryerson and UW are very closely aligned though, but each have their strengths. It's not as if we're being taught by developers; the folks from within the industry who teach are architects and architectural designers. That's what we need MORE of at UofW and Ryerson, as the "academic" side is more and more stressed as time passes, which churns out students who are big dreamers without the understanding of real-world factors and hands-on knowledge or means to make their big ideas happen. The academic side is important but we desperately need to ensure that we are being taught hands-on, and by practising architects.

Having hands-on/practical knowledge =/= stifled creativity. Quite the opposite many would argue.
 
Last edited:
Yep, we use Rhino 3D, Grasshopper, SketchUp Pro, AutoCAD, and REVIT, among other things. Each has its own particular applications, and some people use certain programs more than others, or at least we have our preferences for when one program is more appropriate than another. It also varies from firm to firm. Laser cutting, 3D printing, and working with wood in the shop are part of the program, as well as for some students, materials testing and use of a wind tunnel. My complaint would be that we mostly have to teach ourselves the software and the means of using laser cutting or shop equipment. Alas, we help each other out and with good allies in the program, you can generally learn what you need to.
 
Rhino 3D is generally used for product design or for complex geometric forms. I could whip together a house in Rhino but the same thing can be done in SketchUp or even Revit much more quickly/efficiently. I've used Rhino for designs before, but it's not my first choice unless I need it to create a particular element. You don't use Grasshopper, or even necessarily Rhino3D, to whip up a simple house design. I'd rather hand-draft it than use Rhino, to be honest. I've had some profs who like Rhino (and shove it down our throats), but plenty of others who, even in their own years of practise, have not seen it used.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top