General Urban Waterloo Updates and Rumours

[ac3r]

That one is just...what the hell? Like, what is up with the random white and black panels when the rest of the building is this uniform grey? It's like they ran out of grey so they just started using other colours.

Ok, I dont always agree with your analysis of some buildings, but I respect that you are an architect, and as such, I have to ask you....  Who would have designed that finish ?  Would it have been part of the design by the architect firm ?  Or, is that be the owner inserting their own preference of design.  Sort of like a signature of the developer ?  

Because I cant imagine people in a boardroom coming to consensus that this would have a good outcome.

The main thing is there are two forms of development and architectural design. Pardon the long post, but I'll try to explain.

You can think of one form as being economically driven. Developers see a need in a market that can be fulfilled, in this case to provide housing to students. They want to achieve this in the most economically conservative way possible. You get developers who see that need and then they want a piece of that pie. So, they plan out these buildings in a way that does not cost them a whole lot. Being student buildings, they only need to serve a few functions: the main, obviously, to give people a place to stay with the minimum amenities required. In turn, you get a pretty simple building proposal. They then hire in an architectural group that can design them a building that fulfills their criteria (apartments, some parking, minimal recreational amenities etc). But since they are approaching this economically, they don't expect a building with any thought into the experience, high quality finishes, high quality building materials, unique design and so on. As a result, you end up with a proposal that can be completed without costing a lot of money and then you end up with the sort of ugly buildings we see around Waterloo.

The other main form of development and design is that which aims to create a useful space that also fulfills a need (since buildings all serve a function - luxury condos, offices, commercial spaces, civic spaces etc) but which uses a more intellectual approach that focuses on how human beings use, interact with and react to that space. This has long been a thing we've sought to do as human beings when designing our buildings - for example, historically, we have always designed churches/mosques/etc to emphasize God or we'd create homes that offered inhabitants a very personalized experience. Gaston Bachelard contributed to this form of architectural theory with works like The Poetics of Space and the Martin Heidegger also contributed to a lot of theory with his works on dwelling (which can be explored in this wonderful book Heidegger for Architects). In short, their theories - and the theories of countless other architects in history - sought to evolve architectural design into something that places emphasis on the lived experiences we have in the buildings we create and live our lives in. But, since the vast majority of architecture in the world these days is - first and foremost - functional (as well as economic), there is not always emphasis on creating useful, pleasing and aesthetically beautiful places for us to exist in.

Some architects have attempted to bridge the gap between the two forms, a good example being Le Corbusier who designed buildings to be functional (such as his Plan Voisin in Paris) but he also designed in a manner that used design as a way to heighten more intangible aspects of the human experience, such as his religious architecture which resulted in some of the most beautiful churches created in history, creating buildings that were not only functional as churches, but that also offered spiritual and sacred spaces for religious practitioners.

In the case of these student buildings, they are all obviously economically driven. There is no deeper thought into why and how one can create a useful yet pleasing space. These buildings just exist to fulfill a need in the market, generate profit and pack students into them like sardines. Whatever conversations were happening in the meetings between the developer and architecture, I know none of them consisted of any consideration of how they can create a space that students can live in, but also offer those students a pleasing experience during their time spent there. In contrast, we have several luxury condo developments now which aim to fulfill a need in the market and create a nicer building for the people who are willing to buy or rent units in it. Then there are more serious forms of building in the region - such as the Canadian Clay and Glass Gallery or the John M. Harper branch of Waterloo Public Libraries - both of which were designed using more theoretical architectural design (using things like: how can we use light and space to create a gallery to emphasize the art, or create a library that offers the public a bright, functional and intellectually stimulating place).

Naturally, not everything we build in a capitalist system can or needs to place emphasis on the human experience one has within the buildings because they are often devoid of any principles, ideologies etc, but yikes...they could at least try to not make them look so bad. The result when you don't do so is how we end up with these monstrosities dotted all over Waterloo.