Are Be
October 16th, 2004, 07:28 PM
Oct. 16, 2004. 01:00 AM
Hume's caustic column unfair to local talent
Designers focus on liveable, affordable Overbudget trophy projects not neededDesigners focus on liveable, affordable
Overbudget trophy projects not needed
"Smart designs rise amid condo dross", Oct. 2
On Friday Oct. 1, I was proud to be in the company of talented Canadian architects and designers at the Design Exchange. We had gathered to accept Canadian Interiors Magazine awards for our work in 2004. It was a festive evening filled with a sense of achievement and camaraderie amongst the award recipients. Bruce Kuwabara of KPMB, winner of the Best of Show, made a gracious and generous acceptance speech that was the highlight of the evening. He offered heartfelt praise of Canadian talent in this city, "evident in our everyday life."
In contrast to an evening of celebration of Canadian architects and designers, I woke up Saturday morning to Christopher Hume's caustic article in the Condo Living section.
Hume dismisses the majority of Canadian architects as "unable to solve basic issues" and calls for two British, one German and one American architect to come and "start Toronto's rebirth in earnest," and of all places, in the condominium construction arena.
Hume's column is widely followed and people care about what he says. It's disheartening to see him write such a bizarre and poorly researched article that ignores the many accomplishments and advances in condominium design by local architects.
For Hume to conclude that the only way for Toronto's "rebirth" to happen is to solicit the help of foreign "star architects" is astonishing to say the least, and as for the actual choice of foreign stars, there are much better pickings available.
Canadian architects are very active and successful abroad and they would never need to speak of protectionism. They are winning projects and awards outside Canada and are much more capable than the stars that the Toronto Star wants to bring to this city.
These foreign "star architects" that Hume champions have made dazzling designs on paper, but have had a dismal record in the creation of actual practical and livable housing. To better inform the reader, Hume's call for the contribution of these architects to our skyline should have been balanced with an investigative piece on the history of such endeavours.
What happened to past stars brought into the condominium arena of Toronto? Hume could have also researched the struggles of his favourite stars in their own backyard, where for example, Alsop and Libeskind's most recent projects have not gained public acceptance and full go-ahead from planners, due to "programmatic and budgetary challenges to their viability" (see Architectural Record, Sept. 4, page 27). One may actually ask how a condominium shaped like a bolt of lightning would solve our problems.
Hume criticizes Toronto architects' inability to make towers "meet the street," whereas Alsop's buildings never even do that!
On the issue of "ersatz historicism," I couldn't agree more with his view but how he gauges Robert Stern's work to be anything but that is beyond me.
By contrast to these stars with a history of exorbitant budgets and trophy projects, many Toronto architects have concerned themselves with a livable and affordable downtown. Many American developers have visited this city in search of how we do things right in the core. I am not advocating for the many ugly buildings that have sprung up here and there and especially in the suburbs, but I think Hume hasn't seen the forest for the trees yet.
I am talking about the many Toronto architects that have worked closely with the city in the vanguard of re-urbanization. We believe passionately in city-building, and many of us have designed innovative condominiums that are well suited to Toronto sites. I invite Hume to do some research on the group of young architects that is trying to undo the inherited mediocre culture of condominium design; they would truly appreciate his involvement and his occasional support.
Babak Eslahjou, Core Architects
› Be Thankful! Subscribe now and Save 50%!
FAQs| Site Map| Privacy Policy| Webmaster| Subscribe| My Subscription
Home| GTA| Business| Waymoresports| A&E| Life
Legal Notice: Copyright Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. All rights reserved. Distribution, transmission or republication of any material from www.thestar.com is strictly prohibited without the prior written permission of Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. For information please contact us using our webmaster form. www.thestar.com online since 1996.
Hume's caustic column unfair to local talent
Designers focus on liveable, affordable Overbudget trophy projects not neededDesigners focus on liveable, affordable
Overbudget trophy projects not needed
"Smart designs rise amid condo dross", Oct. 2
On Friday Oct. 1, I was proud to be in the company of talented Canadian architects and designers at the Design Exchange. We had gathered to accept Canadian Interiors Magazine awards for our work in 2004. It was a festive evening filled with a sense of achievement and camaraderie amongst the award recipients. Bruce Kuwabara of KPMB, winner of the Best of Show, made a gracious and generous acceptance speech that was the highlight of the evening. He offered heartfelt praise of Canadian talent in this city, "evident in our everyday life."
In contrast to an evening of celebration of Canadian architects and designers, I woke up Saturday morning to Christopher Hume's caustic article in the Condo Living section.
Hume dismisses the majority of Canadian architects as "unable to solve basic issues" and calls for two British, one German and one American architect to come and "start Toronto's rebirth in earnest," and of all places, in the condominium construction arena.
Hume's column is widely followed and people care about what he says. It's disheartening to see him write such a bizarre and poorly researched article that ignores the many accomplishments and advances in condominium design by local architects.
For Hume to conclude that the only way for Toronto's "rebirth" to happen is to solicit the help of foreign "star architects" is astonishing to say the least, and as for the actual choice of foreign stars, there are much better pickings available.
Canadian architects are very active and successful abroad and they would never need to speak of protectionism. They are winning projects and awards outside Canada and are much more capable than the stars that the Toronto Star wants to bring to this city.
These foreign "star architects" that Hume champions have made dazzling designs on paper, but have had a dismal record in the creation of actual practical and livable housing. To better inform the reader, Hume's call for the contribution of these architects to our skyline should have been balanced with an investigative piece on the history of such endeavours.
What happened to past stars brought into the condominium arena of Toronto? Hume could have also researched the struggles of his favourite stars in their own backyard, where for example, Alsop and Libeskind's most recent projects have not gained public acceptance and full go-ahead from planners, due to "programmatic and budgetary challenges to their viability" (see Architectural Record, Sept. 4, page 27). One may actually ask how a condominium shaped like a bolt of lightning would solve our problems.
Hume criticizes Toronto architects' inability to make towers "meet the street," whereas Alsop's buildings never even do that!
On the issue of "ersatz historicism," I couldn't agree more with his view but how he gauges Robert Stern's work to be anything but that is beyond me.
By contrast to these stars with a history of exorbitant budgets and trophy projects, many Toronto architects have concerned themselves with a livable and affordable downtown. Many American developers have visited this city in search of how we do things right in the core. I am not advocating for the many ugly buildings that have sprung up here and there and especially in the suburbs, but I think Hume hasn't seen the forest for the trees yet.
I am talking about the many Toronto architects that have worked closely with the city in the vanguard of re-urbanization. We believe passionately in city-building, and many of us have designed innovative condominiums that are well suited to Toronto sites. I invite Hume to do some research on the group of young architects that is trying to undo the inherited mediocre culture of condominium design; they would truly appreciate his involvement and his occasional support.
Babak Eslahjou, Core Architects
› Be Thankful! Subscribe now and Save 50%!
FAQs| Site Map| Privacy Policy| Webmaster| Subscribe| My Subscription
Home| GTA| Business| Waymoresports| A&E| Life
Legal Notice: Copyright Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. All rights reserved. Distribution, transmission or republication of any material from www.thestar.com is strictly prohibited without the prior written permission of Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. For information please contact us using our webmaster form. www.thestar.com online since 1996.