Toronto Time and Space Condos | 101.8m | 29s | Pemberton | Wallman Architects

But, in Pemberton's limp defense, it's not as though BIG and Westbank / Allied are being given an easier ride on King Street. If you're still going to get the same milk-toast response from Planning, why bother trying to do something exceptional?
 
ProjectEnd said:
But, in Pemberton's limp defense, it's not as though BIG and Westbank / Allied are being given an easier ride on King Street. If you're still going to get the same milk-toast response from Planning, why bother trying to do something exceptional?
Click to expand...

Because one would hope doing something exceptional should be tied to the ask? Idealistic, I know, but it beats *this*.

AoD
 
But for a developer, the monetary benefit to doing something great would be that it would be acknowledged by Planning as having some 'city-building-value' and be treated as such (expedited process, etc.). If it's all essentially the same, unless you're dealing with an enlightened person / company, there isn't much value in going above and beyond.
 
ProjectEnd said:
But for a developer, the monetary benefit to doing something great would be that it would be acknowledged by Planning as having some 'city-building-value' and be treated as such (expedited process, etc.). If it's all essentially the same, unless you're dealing with an enlightened person / company, there isn't much value in going above and beyond.
Click to expand...

No argument from me, but the value Planning put on architecture is mixed at best. I can see why they act that way - focus on process (quantifiable, legally-defined) vs. outcome (aesthetics? pah!)

AoD
 
It's because aesthetics are subjective and very difficult to defend in court (eg. the OMB). If Planning puts a value judgement on something by saying it's 'better' than something else, that position / opinion will have to be defended and exposes the department to potential bias.

It's frustrating, but it does make sense in the context of our litigious planning process.
 
ProjectEnd said:
But for a developer, the monetary benefit to doing something great would be that it would be acknowledged by Planning as having some 'city-building-value' and be treated as such (expedited process, etc.). If it's all essentially the same, unless you're dealing with an enlightened person / company, there isn't much value in going above and beyond.
Click to expand...

I'll take up this argument.

Reputation matters (it should matter more.....might put Pemberton out of business)

One should strive for quality at all times, irrespective of whether others incent such behavior.

I despise the thought that mediocrity is fine if no one else cares.........

I would hasten to add, great architecture can command a higher price, and facilitate a lower marketing budget as the design does the talking.....and gets you free publicity.
 
As noted above, the issues at this site are many, and materially exceed the design ambition or material pallet.

The public shouldn't accept absurd crap because the developer over paid by 1/2.
 
innsertnamehere said:
the issues with this one though come through many very quantifiable measures regarding density, setbacks, etc. Its not just architecture here.
Click to expand...

Well no, but at the same time quantifiable measures and "good planning" (any bets on how this would have fared at the OMB - as is - if it gets there?) can also put you in a bind. I mean, how come what's considered "good planning" also be so soul-deadening?

AoD
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top