haltcatchfire
Senior Member
Somebody leak somethin, I mean come on, we've been waiting forever here.
Scotia Place | 36.85m | 11s | CSEC | HOK
- Thread starter Meikkhaell
- Start date
Roaring Flames
Senior Member
The fact the design last time was leaked months before the DP submission and then eventually just dumped onto the DP map for all to see without a proper design reveal and before the CPC gave their design input on changes was likely not well received by CSEC. It's likely one of the reasons they were adamant about removing CMLC from the development managerial position last time. CAA ICON is much more skilled at managing arena developments so I imagine they're being extra tight about design leaks this time around. I fully expect a proper design announcement before the DP goes out this time.
Tothewest
Active Member
Correct, it's all about how it's laid out. Literally, explain it!!
I do love the "where's the public input" piece in the article. The public, through elected rep's and permitting processes, should have a say on scope, usage, public realm expectations, ect... When it comes to the actual design of an arena/library/you name it, absolutely not lol. It's why we have committees, planning commissions, ect... with citizen members. The only channel with enough context and information to provide any kind of rational opinion.
IceCreamMan
Active Member
Getting the public involved in the design, despite how many armchair architectural warriors out there think they know better than actual, qualified architectural experts, is always a recipe for disaster. Many, which often includes the most vocal/angry minority, think they know more about the field than they actually do. Just like any other profession on this earth... leave the architecture (and for that matter, engineering and construction) to the trained experts. If not, you get this:
Thank you to the Simpsons for dedicating an entire episode to the stupidity of letting unqualified people make qualified decisions.
Thank you to the Simpsons for dedicating an entire episode to the stupidity of letting unqualified people make qualified decisions.
haltcatchfire
Senior Member
Some of us are qualified architectural experts though. I myself however don’t design by plural and don’t wish to see anything taking outside input into account. Except for mine.
IceCreamMan
Active Member
Sure. The majority of the general public isn't, however.
darwink
Senior Member
My (non-design) job is mostly stopping spec and feature bloat due to committees. In a process unless someone or a group is empowered to reject, the power of everyone to suggest causes projects to bloat. It is extra common once you have the public sector involved. Certainly not unique though.
haltcatchfire
Senior Member
The majority of those employed in the profession aren’t either to be brutally honest.
maestro
Senior Member
This is a dumb post as consulting the public isn't taking away the project from professionals. Ideas get floated putting pressure on developers to make improvements that they may have considered before but rejected for the bottom line. Developers are beholden to deliver a profitable return on the investment which can be in conflict with their desire for quality intensification. There are neighbours that want nothing to change but, they don't represent the entire public and their viewpoint while heard gets ignored. I've been in meetings that led planners to pursue retail to be added a few times and once a surface parking lot relocated from the front to the rear.
Generally, the proposed revisions developed through public input are always better than the original.
Mountain Man
Senior Member
They should have had a design competition and let the public vote for the winner. Aside from that, I agree, leave it to the experts!
IceCreamMan
Active Member
Nah. Letting the public get involved with the technical details and process of the actual design is a recipe for disaster, always has been (I work on lots of public facilities). Public stakeholder consultation and planning for a building's scope is one thing, and that's where public involvement is fine; the actual design is another (Schematic, DD) ; and this should always be left to the architects and engineers themselves.
Tothewest
Active Member
The public has zero knowledge or context on the design workings of arenas/convention/art centers/libraries. The amount of moving parts when you change a layout...
To compare this type of project to a multi-family/retail development, not even close. The project is costing X, its all legally outlined...CSEC doesnt get to pocket unused public money if goes underbudget, so the land value, construction cost, property sale ROI thing doesn't apply here.
haltcatchfire
Senior Member
A public committee couldn't design a paperclip.
zzkwilliamcanada
Active Member
hahahahaha . they are great at talking
Silence&Motion
Senior Member
Good architects are able to synthesize diverse sets of views in order to produce an original design that responds to its context in novel, creative ways. When they accomplish this, the community feels like they have had a hand in creating the final product.
Community consultation, when done properly, can make the difference between an actually good, original building and something generic that could have been slapped down anywhere.
Architects themselves no longer believe in the all powerful Le Corbusier-style "expert" who waltzes into town, hands down a design from up on high to a grateful and receptive public. Community consultation, and getting different points of view is a big part of architectural training these days.
Community consultation, when done properly, can make the difference between an actually good, original building and something generic that could have been slapped down anywhere.
Architects themselves no longer believe in the all powerful Le Corbusier-style "expert" who waltzes into town, hands down a design from up on high to a grateful and receptive public. Community consultation, and getting different points of view is a big part of architectural training these days.