
The developers behind the much talked about Mirvish+Gehry project in Toronto (Projectcore) recently released a video showcasing the architectural model. It’s a great way to see the project from every angle. Click here if you can’t see it below.
[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mka2kVUCyDk]
I’ve written about this project a number of times before and my view has always been that I’m excited by the project, but that I don’t think we should be demolishing all of the heritage buildings on-site. This latest scheme – with two towers ranging from 82 and 92 storeys – is the result of that compromise.
What are your thoughts on Mirvish+Gehry? And what do you think the condos will ultimately go to market at? My guess would be somewhere around $1,000 per square foot.
Last week I provided a few suggestions for how architects might be able to transition over to real estate development. And I ended by saying that I loved architecture school, but that it could use a few more business and entrepreneurship classes. Today, I’d liked to expand on that idea.
When I was doing my Master of Architecture at Penn, I spent a lot of time thinking about hybrid models for the architecture profession. I was trying to figure out a way to reconcile my love of design with my desire to be more of a building entrepreneur.
I was interested in what Jonathan Segal was doing down in San Diego with his “architect as developer" approach. And I was really taken by a lecture that Joshua Prince-Ramus (formerly of OMA, now REX) gave where he talked about how architects have marginalized themselves (away from being the master builder) by shying away from liability.
Out of all the models, conflating architecture and development seems to me like a real possibility. I believe that good developers understand good design and that good architects understand what’s good for the market. So why not merge the two?
We know that the architecture profession is facing significant challenges; fewer and fewer architecture school grads are getting licensed and actually become a bona fide architect. Some think this calls for licensure reform, but I’m also interested in revisiting the model in its entirety.
Imagine if every architecture school taught students how to design a building and then go out and actually get it leased up and built. Is this too much to ask of one discipline?
I can see firms naturally splitting up roles between those who prefer the design side and those who prefer the selling and business side, but is there any reason why the same firm couldn’t be handling both?

The developers behind the much talked about Mirvish+Gehry project in Toronto (Projectcore) recently released a video showcasing the architectural model. It’s a great way to see the project from every angle. Click here if you can’t see it below.
[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mka2kVUCyDk]
I’ve written about this project a number of times before and my view has always been that I’m excited by the project, but that I don’t think we should be demolishing all of the heritage buildings on-site. This latest scheme – with two towers ranging from 82 and 92 storeys – is the result of that compromise.
What are your thoughts on Mirvish+Gehry? And what do you think the condos will ultimately go to market at? My guess would be somewhere around $1,000 per square foot.
Last week I provided a few suggestions for how architects might be able to transition over to real estate development. And I ended by saying that I loved architecture school, but that it could use a few more business and entrepreneurship classes. Today, I’d liked to expand on that idea.
When I was doing my Master of Architecture at Penn, I spent a lot of time thinking about hybrid models for the architecture profession. I was trying to figure out a way to reconcile my love of design with my desire to be more of a building entrepreneur.
I was interested in what Jonathan Segal was doing down in San Diego with his “architect as developer" approach. And I was really taken by a lecture that Joshua Prince-Ramus (formerly of OMA, now REX) gave where he talked about how architects have marginalized themselves (away from being the master builder) by shying away from liability.
Out of all the models, conflating architecture and development seems to me like a real possibility. I believe that good developers understand good design and that good architects understand what’s good for the market. So why not merge the two?
We know that the architecture profession is facing significant challenges; fewer and fewer architecture school grads are getting licensed and actually become a bona fide architect. Some think this calls for licensure reform, but I’m also interested in revisiting the model in its entirety.
Imagine if every architecture school taught students how to design a building and then go out and actually get it leased up and built. Is this too much to ask of one discipline?
I can see firms naturally splitting up roles between those who prefer the design side and those who prefer the selling and business side, but is there any reason why the same firm couldn’t be handling both?
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog