News   Sep 12, 2024
 97     0 
News   Sep 12, 2024
 711     0 
News   Sep 12, 2024
 450     0 

Star: The Go-to Guys (Kirkor Architects)

AlvinofDiaspar

Moderator
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
33,485
Reaction score
29,453
Location
Toronto
From the Star:

The go-to guys
`Humble' Kirkor can't help but boast about designing more condo units than any other firm in the country
May 15, 2008

Albert Warson
SPECIAL TO THE STAR

"We're a humble little company," says Clifford Korman, the public face of a Toronto architectural design and urban planning firm he started 28 years ago.

But in truth, Kirkor Architects & Planners is neither humble or little.

The company counts among its projects the NY Towers at Bayview Ave. and Highway 401 and Central Park across from Mississauga's City Hall, both still unfolding, as well as the Waterclub and Riviera condo towers on Toronto's central waterfront.

Among the firm's recent commissions, not yet started, are the 1.8 million-square-foot, six-tower, mixed-use 7 City Centre for the new Town of Vaughan corporate city centre and the 1 million-square-foot, mixed-use Hullmark Centre project at Yonge St. and Sheppard Ave.

Korman has won the right to brag, even ironically.

According to its records, Kirkor (a contraction of Korman and co-founder architect Steven Kirshenblatt) has designed more condo units in Canada – predominantly in the GTA, Mississauga and central Ontario, but also in Vancouver, Edmonton and Calgary – than any other condo designer.

Between 2003 and 2007, the firm designed a whopping 28,531 condo units in Canada as well as another 22,277 in the United States, including units in the Turks and Caicos and Belize.

That's roughly 10,000 units a year, or slightly less than half of all the annual condo sales in the GTA in recent years.

Kirkor has earned its success, but it wasn't always work and fees pouring in. The co-founders would just as soon forget about their work in the first few years, when they cranked out designs for about 200 four- to 10-storey buildings in the GTA. Korman considers them "nondescript." However, the clients were not gunning for architectural awards, just plain and cheap buildings, and it was, after all, a start.

Korman, 57, a high-energy, hockey playing dynamo with a supremely confident manner, has brought in all the business, directly or indirectly. That takes a lot of travel – 35 to 40 trips a year – to sign up clients and check on progress of jobs. Sounds awfully tiring, but he says he has learned to sleep on planes, which makes a difference. "When the engines go on, I go off," he says.

Over the past 10 years, the design assignments have increasingly come unbidden into Kirkor's 10,000-square-foot office in an industrial park near Finch Ave. and Dufferin St. Although there are new clients, more often it's repeat business from clients that include Urbancorp, Kolter Property Co., the Daniels Group, Tridel, the Liberty Development Group and Times Group Corp.

"Many (developer) clients have asked me to give their condo projects an avant garde design," Korman says. "But then their marketing and real estate people say they can't sell that design for $600 a square foot."

At that point, the developers either accept Korman's design proposal and financial pro forma and press on, or they take a pass and aim instead for a more easily satisfied market. Well-designed, well-equipped, well-groomed condos sell briskly, but at a hefty premium over lesser product, and to a relatively small market that can afford it. You can't get a Jaguar at a Jetta price.

Much of the high price of good design, materials and workmanship depends on whether a condo is on the waterfront, in a former factory district or in the suburbs. In the end, architects tell developer clients in the GTA, for example, what kind of condos are right for the site and what it would cost to build them. The rest is up to the developers' bankers and, when the market dips a bit, their willingness to roll the dice.

While condo developers and their architects in the GTA keep busy in an apparently unstoppable market, some venture further out to do smaller, but no less attractive and lower-rise condo projects. Kirkor, for example, has designed them in Orillia, Oakville, Newcastle, Pickering, Midland and Collingwood.

Officials with the Daniels Corp., the Times Group Corp. and the Liberty Development Group were all impressed with Kirkor's concept design of their projects, its responsiveness to clients needs and the overall high level of professionalism and quality of its service.

Not everyone is so bowled over. Toronto Councillor John Filion (Ward 23, Willowdale) doesn't single out Kirkor but complains about the kinds of condos being built in his constituency, albeit for developer clients who call the shots.

High density in these condo towers produces "nightmarish" traffic jams when residents leave for work and return home, he says.

"The design has gone from appalling, particularly in the early '90s, to mediocre," he says.

"For many years, it was just take a drawing out of a drawer ... the cheapest thing possible. Fortunately, the market in the area has dictated that the buildings have to have at least a little bit of pizzazz. Nobody is creating anything that is architecturally noteworthy, that anyone 50 to 100 years from now will be trying to preserve.

"The architects are more interested in their clients' bottom lines than building anything that looks good, although some architects will turn down design work because they're not interested in schlock and tell potential developer clients they are more interested in their reputations than the fees."

Robin Clarke, former senior vice-president and now principal emeritus at Page + Steele Architects, and who has been designing condos for at least 35 years, was careful not to knock a competitor, and especially not disparage his own firm's voluminous work.

But he says many of the larger condo projects are "overblown and overdone," their architectural styles become dated quickly and nothing fresh seems to surface for a long time.

"Everything, even the Crystal element on the Royal Ontario Museum," he says, "becomes dated quickly."

Toronto Star

http://www.yourhome.ca/homes/article/425150

AoD
 
What a great distinction to have when it comes to the world of architecture: quantity over quality. I don't believe offices like this are about design, but rather to make a buck. I wonder if they are related to Petroff Partnership, of big box notoriety?

p5
 
the 1.8 million-square-foot, six-tower, mixed-use 7 City Centre for the new Town of Vaughan corporate city centre

I haven't heard this mentioned before. That's a pretty good start for the new subway line!

I found renderings. Go to http://www.kirkorarchitects.com/, click on Upcoming Projects, and then click on 7 City Centre. It's one of those condos-in-a-forest renderings, so it's pretty hard to tell exactly where they're located.

If this hasn't been mentioned before, this probably deserves its own thread.
 
Is there a way we can stop these guys from existing? Clearly, some of the worst architecture in Canada has been created by these idiots. (Okay, they're good at making money, but bad at making Canada look good.)

I'm puzzled how Tridel went ahead with Kirkor for their Hullmark Centre buildings--why not get Wallman instead?
 
http://www.city.vaughan.on.ca/vaughan/council/minutes_agendas/committee_2008/pdf/CWA0505_55.pdf

I've been doing some work on this. The previous plan called for 6 towers up to 35 floors. The buildings being primarily condos with some at grade retail and some small office component.

The current plan as part of the zoning and OP amendments (which is going to the OMB, as per the latest report) will be 5 towers, all 34/35 floors, comprising of almost 1800 units.

It is located just east of Jane on the north side of highway 7. It is subject to the Vaughan Corporate Centre Secondary Plan. Distance from the proposed terminus of the Spadina extension would be a 5-10 minute walk at most.

7citycentre.jpg


This is the previous design. I haven't seen the revised renderings, but it would be similar except the smallest building (behind the tallest on the left) is no more and the other two shorter buildings are the same height as the 3 tall ones.

EDIT: In response to 7 City Centre, some more info for unimaginative
 
Thanks so much for the information! That's more than I could have hoped for.

Well, this project shows that at least there are going to be a lot of people up there to ride the subway. I just wish they'd work on the urban planning principles a bit more. This sure isn't in keeping with the sidewalk-cafe, strolling-on-the-boulevard image of "Avenue 7" that they were trying to project.
 
Kirkor might have done a ton of bad projects, but I'm still impressed by their design of Ellipse at Scarborough Centre. Those two remain the best looking condo towers in Scarborough, even after Monarch completes its building spree in SCC.

ellipse-artist-rendering.jpg


E1055917.jpg
 
Now that you mention it, those are good looking towers. Too bad Kirkor's other meh efforts tend to overshadow these better examples. It's clear that they could do so much better than the New York demi-clones. They could give Vaughan something very interesting - possibly inspiring change.
 
Kirkor don't even look that good on their own website. It seems from Ellipse that they have potential, but they're mainly interested in designing many lackluster buildings at a low price.
 
but they're mainly interested in designing many lackluster buildings at a low price.

Yep, they do exactly what the developers want like any good design factory. We need better developers or less dominant mediocre ones like Daniels & Liberty out in the 'burbs to show those SUV huggers the light
 
How can anyone expect these guys to produce anything noteworthy? I honestly don't believe they have it in them. Not only are the sewn to the hips of shitty developers, they are themselves shitty architects. Every single design of theirs is proof that they lack any creative imagination what-so-ever and I therefore would bet a lot of money that even if they were given an unlimited budget that they would still produce the same "CRAP" they are presently preposing for VCC.

I do agree that it is also the responsibility of the developer and the city/town etc., but they can only guide things, ultimately the creative impetus behind the project should originate with the designers.

p5
 
a little ideallyic don't y'think

^^Well..I am not sure? Ideally, we would have developers and town/city councils willing (pushing) the envelope in building construction. Instead you get half interested builders who are interested solely in making a cheap and quick product, no matter the outcome and architects, if you can call them that, working to fulfill these ideas/plans.

I am not saying the creative impetus lie entirely with the architects, but they are the ones who are trained in coming up with creative building solutions - and not just what the developer wants.

p5
 
Toronto isn't exactly a frontier market with builders that have yet to face adversity. Most here are hard nosed veterans that probably have lost it at one point or another. These guys know exactly what they want and I seriously doubt architects banding together to push forward better design would ultimately change their minds. Even with Toronto going on all cylinders, it's still a high risk industry and keeping it familiar keeps the preverbial food on the table. Same applies to architects, those that don't concede to developer's whim will never get more than a one off house here and there.

I'm not a huge fan of government architectural guidlines either. While it may raise the median level of design , it also tends to dum down those that do push the envelope.
 
The design review process should, at the very least, prevent bad things from happening to good cities by raising the bar of what is acceptable. The course that the Aura condo has taken shows that it can be done - all sides appear to be happy with the result, even though the firm designing it isn't considered one of the best.
 

Back
Top