Perhaps some UTers would be interested to hear what it is like to sit through a DRP process on an official basis. My apologies if this is too long or seems irrelevant.
I was once the “proponent” of a small but rather complex project in another jurisdiction and sat at the table beside our architect during a hearing of the area DRP. The proponent is basically the person who would sign the cheques for the project. I was firmly instructed not to say anything or even to show any visible reactions to anything that was said but to leave all responses to our architect. I followed these instructions (not easy for a mouthy guy like me) but certainly had a front row seat for the proceedings. It was a fascinating experience.
The panel members had clearly done their homework before the meeting. They listened attentively to our presentation and approved our overall concept but had certain critiques of the way the main part of our project “read.” As I listened to the proceedings, I realized the critique was well founded and clearly articulated. One panel member offered a criticism of a particular sustainability feature that I thought was ill-considered but the rest of the panel disagreed and the matter was easily dropped.
After the session, our architect was a little miffed after receiving the critique from less senior practitioners but he went back to the drawing board to alter the design in line with the panel’s main suggestion. The result was, in my opinion, a considerable improvement. The resulting structure was in the end both eminently useable and aesthetically striking. In fact, the head of an American institution found it so beautiful that he contacted me recently to ask about the process of getting the structure designed and built.
As a result, I have very positive feelings about the DRP process. Though it would be difficult with irresponsible panel members, I don’t see why a Toronto. DRP would necessarily be a worse experience.
