Cristal | ?M | 32F | Approved [Archive]

Wooster

Jul 31, 2007, 7:52 PM

Now that images of Cristal are now public and posted on the Homburg-Centron Website, might as well have a poll. I've added some other images as well.

What do you think?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v311/joshwhit/development/Cristaltower4.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v311/joshwhit/development/cristaltower3.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v311/joshwhit/development/Cristaltower2.jpg

Public Art Feature
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v311/joshwhit/development/cristal7.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v311/joshwhit/development/cristal6.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v311/joshwhit/development/cristal5.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v311/joshwhit/development/cristal4.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v311/joshwhit/development/cristal3.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v311/joshwhit/development/cristal2.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v311/joshwhit/development/cristal1.jpg

Also - On the front page of their website, they have this image. I bet it was the original taller design. If so, I like the new one better:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v311/joshwhit/development/Cristaltower1.jpg

Mr.Ski

Jul 31, 2007, 7:55 PM

I like it. Heard a rumour that the Vintage Group was lined up to put a one of their new restaurants in the base.

Boris2k7

Jul 31, 2007, 7:56 PM

Ah, now you guys can see that driveway we were arguing about a few weeks back.

Bigtime

Jul 31, 2007, 7:58 PM

Bigtime

Jul 31, 2007, 7:59 PM

Ah, now you guys can see that driveway we were arguing about a few weeks back.

Wait is that little plaza space also a rounded driveway to the front entrance?

If so I'm not liking that at all.

Calgarian

Jul 31, 2007, 8:02 PM

I'm liking it as well, as I expressed in the Calgary construction thread. :tup:

The public space with the fountain and LED lighting will be nice to see also.

However I wish more of the tower was curved than just the one portion, could we pull off an almost completely rounded tower in Calgary? Heck isn't the Marquis or whatever on the west end pretty much rounded?

I'm counting about 28 stories, is that pretty much correct?

I count 32, plus 2 or so for mechanical.

josh, the little rendering you posted is indeed the original, it was supposed to be 40+ storeys. My only beef with this project is that the roof detail is too similar to the Melville in Vancouver.

Wooster

Jul 31, 2007, 8:03 PM

From what I heard in my conversation with the file manager about it was that it was a rounded curb for use ONLY by emergency vehicles, not regular cars for drop off. Our letter of support following the DP application made it explicit that the community opposed this space as a driveway. The plaza is supposed to count toward density bonusing. We argued that it shouldn't count as a 'plaza' space if it was to be used as a driveway.

Arriviste

Jul 31, 2007, 8:03 PM

DLLB

Jul 31, 2007, 8:06 PM

I think it's quite nice. I quite like the rounded side.

sync

Jul 31, 2007, 8:06 PM

the roof detail is too similar to the Melville in Vancouver.

first thing i thought of too.

otherwise, it's alright.

Surrealplaces

Jul 31, 2007, 8:09 PM

I like it for the most part. I'm not crazy about the roof piece, but the I like the materials, and general massing. The podium is nice.

freefarezone

Jul 31, 2007, 8:11 PM

cons:
the shape of the base doesn't suit the asymmetries of the tower - perhaps if there was a bit less plaza and more ground level...
the rounded corner doesn't necessarily need on the street corner, but here it would work better if it were - perhaps it's oriented this way to maximize facing towards the downtown core

pros:
retail frontage along 11th

Kevin_foster

Jul 31, 2007, 8:13 PM

Do they mean "Crystal" - because Cristal is a brand of Champagne. :P

Nice though.. except the melville roof.

WHISTLERINMUSKOKA

Jul 31, 2007, 8:16 PM

I like it a lot except the roof top element. Nice fountain feature. Kind of reminds me of a nicer Verve here in Toronto. Suburban developers should be kept out of the city.

Wooster

Jul 31, 2007, 8:18 PM

Not feeling it. Especially the roof treatment, and the vertical wall extending out the roof. Ground level seems a little derivative, and uninspiring, but the public space should be alright.
It's a fine addition to the area. Not great. The whole thing screams mediocrity.

It is definitely like the many ubiquitous glass point towers of Vancouver. Not a standout. Which, I suppose if this is a 'standard' condo design in Calgary, that's not such a bad thing. We've come a long way from Discovery Pointe and Bosa's projects. It would be nice to see a few more standouts. I hope Torode's hotel arts, Kahanoff, Le Germain and some of the bigger projects in Centre City really keep pushing the standard higher.

Boris2k7

Jul 31, 2007, 8:22 PM

It is definitely like the many ubiquitous glass point towers of Vancouver. Not a standout. Which, I suppose if this is a 'standard' condo design in Calgary, that's not such a bad thing. We've come a long way from Discovery Pointe and Bosa's projects. It would be nice to see a few more standouts. I hope Torode's hotel arts, Kahanoff, Le Germain and some of the bigger projects in Centre City really keep pushing the standard higher.

By Bosa's projects you mean the Barclay and the Macleod? I actually like those two...

Barring the Axxis, I can't of anything nicer in the West End.

tokama

Jul 31, 2007, 8:25 PM

Hey if this is the "standard" we have attained in Calgary then that is alright by me. The overall design is nice, although something does not sit right with the roof for some reason. I quite like the plaza space.

skrish

Jul 31, 2007, 8:31 PM

I prefer the flat side to the rounded side, but the contrast between the two sides is nice. Overall I like it, especially the amount of glass.

Calgarian

Jul 31, 2007, 8:34 PM

bigcanuck

Jul 31, 2007, 8:39 PM

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v311/joshwhit/development/cristal6.jpg

If emergency vehicles are supposed to use the plaza for a driveway, I hope they are able to plow over trees.

bendecido

Jul 31, 2007, 9:13 PM

To me, it's like the cousin of Arriva.

Xelebes

Jul 31, 2007, 9:22 PM

It's ok.

Coldrsx

Jul 31, 2007, 9:31 PM

pretty decent...reminds me of burnaby stuff...7.5/10

Bigtime

Jul 31, 2007, 9:32 PM

It would be cool if the 'stripe' or whatever down the curved side had an LED feature running the length. :cool:

I do wish that the balconies were recessed on the flat sides, they appear to be more flush on the curved portions and look better that way. Actually looking at the rendering closer they don't look recessed either, would be much better that way! :yes:

Hootch

Jul 31, 2007, 10:25 PM

It would be cool if the 'stripe' or whatever down the curved side had an LED feature running the length. :cool:

That's a brilliant idea!

I really don't like the stripe, otherwise, it's quite nice.

The Geographer

Jul 31, 2007, 10:32 PM

So wait, is the base supposed to be active retail/other frontage? Does the image just show plain glass because nothing specific has been planned yet?

Big Sky

Jul 31, 2007, 10:34 PM

By Bosa's projects you mean the Barclay and the Macleod? I actually like those two...

Barring the Axxis, I can't of anything nicer in the West End.

Isn't Axxis a Bosa project? Axxis is easily the best in the west end, and one of my favorites period.

Wooster

Jul 31, 2007, 10:39 PM

So wait, is the base supposed to be active retail/other frontage? Does the image just show plain glass because nothing specific has been planned yet?

The base along 11th will be a restaurant. The space behind the plaza is amenity space for the condo.

Just Build It

Jul 31, 2007, 10:40 PM

11th ave just keeps getting better with projects like this.

Wooster

Jul 31, 2007, 10:40 PM

pretty decent...reminds me of burnaby stuff...7.5/10

Your vote no longer counts. You have this an 8 only a little while ago!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v311/joshwhit/oliver.jpg

Compare:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v311/joshwhit/development/Cristaltower2.jpg

:sly:

IntotheWest

Jul 31, 2007, 11:46 PM

The round driveway only to be used for "emergency vehicles"?

How are they planning to restrict it to just emergency vehicles???

Xelebes

Aug 1, 2007, 12:09 AM

Your vote no longer counts. You have this an 8 only a little while ago!

A 7.5 for Calgary, a 9.5 for Edmonton.

Calgarian

Aug 1, 2007, 12:27 AM

The round driveway only to be used for "emergency vehicles"?

How are they planning to restrict it to just emergency vehicles???

Break away bollards are usually how they restrict it to emergency vehicles.

niwell

Aug 1, 2007, 1:24 AM

It's pretty good. I'm a little underwhelmed by the ground level treatment, though the public space should be nice. I think most condo projects in Calgary could use a higher streetwall for the podium, especially given the rather wide street ROWs in the beltline.

Thinner6

Aug 1, 2007, 1:27 AM

Yet another solid tower for the betline. Let's hope she gets built.

Arriviste

Aug 1, 2007, 1:29 AM

No offense dude, but you don't seem to like anything that gets proposed. What do you like?

Haha! Thats awesome. You are completely correct. I don't like anything.
I like St. Germain for its daring (although it fails to meet the credeentials I lay out below), and the Bow for obvious reasons.
I'm really into simplicity. I like things to be as uncluttered as possible, with absolutely no unnecessary decoration. Basically I like the structural elements to be exposed, and as little material used as possible. I like a taut curtain wall, unadorned concrete/brick/etc, and use of wood when applicable. Take the Farnsworth House by Mies, lose the white paint, and too me thats nearing perfection. Well, it also needs to sit in place for another few decades. It seems to be achieving that feel that only the passage of time can impart on a place. Anyway, I'm just too uptight, and am hoping that by being so I might eventually aid in boosting Calgary's appreciation for good architecture and break the cycle of complacency/ignorance.

Heres the Farnsworth House for you in case you have not laid eyes upon it...

http://www.architectureweek.com/2004/0128/images/12355_image_3.150.jpg
http://www.e-architect.co.uk/chicago/jpgs/farnsworth_house_gmad06_3.jpg

I like honesty in architecture. It needs to be honest with itself in its purpose, honest with the place it occupies, honest with the inhabitants and their intent, and honest to the time when it was created.
Artsy fartsy dribble, I know.

As for current architecture, most anything by Piano. He's a man after my own heart.

Xelebes

Aug 1, 2007, 1:39 AM

For the most part, minimalist architecture never appeases me.

Calgarian

Aug 1, 2007, 2:01 AM

Haha! Thats awesome. You are completely correct. I don't like anything.
I like St. Germain for its daring (although it fails to meet the credeentials I lay out below), and the Bow for obvious reasons.
I'm really into simplicity. I like things to be as uncluttered as possible, with absolutely no unnecessary decoration. Basically I like the structural elements to be exposed, and as little material used as possible. I like a taut curtain wall, unadorned concrete/brick/etc, and use of wood when applicable. Take the Farnsworth House by Mies, lose the white paint, and too me thats nearing perfection. Well, it also needs to sit in place for another few decades. It seems to be achieving that feel that only the passage of time can impart on a place. Anyway, I'm just too uptight, and am hoping that by being so I might eventually aid in boosting Calgary's appreciation for good architecture and break the cycle of complacency/ignorance.

Heres the Farnsworth House for you in case you have not laid eyes upon it...

http://www.architectureweek.com/2004/0128/images/12355_image_3.150.jpg
http://www.e-architect.co.uk/chicago/jpgs/farnsworth_house_gmad06_3.jpg

I like honesty in architecture. It needs to be honest with itself in its purpose, honest with the place it occupies, honest with the inhabitants and their intent, and honest to the time when it was created.
Artsy fartsy dribble, I know.

As for current architecture, most anything by Piano. He's a man after my own heart.

I love minimalist architecture, modernist architecture, contemporary architecture, post modernist architecture (as long as it is tasteful and not too flashy)...

Essentially, I love all of it, especially when we have a healthy mix of all styles. Buildings like FCC2 are nice in my books, but the fact that it will be absolutely unique in it's context is it's biggest asset IMO. I would love to see more modernist architecture, but that is a style that can be easily overdone, especially in highrise architecture.

This building is pretty decent in my books, it will look pretty good when done as long as Homburg-Centron use good quality materials. The roof element is interesting and is better than the typical rtu screen or mechanical penthouse, but is far too similar to the Melville in Vancouver (which is top notch with that copper).

Arch26

Aug 1, 2007, 2:15 AM

Haha! Thats awesome. You are completely correct. I don't like anything.

I think it's a good thing. As a field, architecture is very critical. Projects, particularly developer-driven projects IMO, can ALWAYS be better. A critical edge helps to establish this. In short, it is quite often via criticism, that the bar can be raised. If we want to move beyond mediocrity, then we should look at everything with a critical eye and not be content to "settle". End rant.

I voted "meh" on this project :)

WhipperSnapper

Aug 1, 2007, 2:43 AM

hate the thing jutting out the side, dislike the cliched roofline (comparing it to Melville is giving it far too much credit) and don't care for the plaza and fountain which would probably be better served as a continuation of the mixed-use podium - still a pretty decent development

Deepstar

Aug 1, 2007, 3:29 AM

I'm not much of a fan of the roof piece, and the side bar, although the side bar could turn out to be better than in the rendering. It's one of the those things that could go either way.

Outside of that, a good looking project.

The Kid

Aug 1, 2007, 3:33 AM

Your vote no longer counts. You have this an 8 only a little while ago!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v311/joshwhit/oliver.jpg

Compare:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v311/joshwhit/development/Cristaltower2.jpg

:sly:

That's funny Josh, I like your sense of humour. I think this is a pretty decent looking building which is another welcome addition to the skyline.

Arriviste

Aug 1, 2007, 4:01 AM

I love minimalist architecture, modernist architecture, contemporary architecture, post modernist architecture (as long as it is tasteful and not too flashy)...

Essentially, I love all of it, especially when we have a healthy mix of all styles. Buildings like FCC2 are nice in my books, but the fact that it will be absolutely unique in it's context is it's biggest asset IMO. I would love to see more modernist architecture, but that is a style that can be easily overdone, especially in highrise architecture.

This building is pretty decent in my books, it will look pretty good when done as long as Homburg-Centron use good quality materials. The roof element is interesting and is better than the typical rtu screen or mechanical penthouse, but is far too similar to the Melville in Vancouver (which is top notch with that copper).

I completely agree. Its very difficult to pull of a truly successful structure on a very large scale that is completely free from adornment of any kind.
Lever house is NYC is one of my favorite examples that has enjoyed some success:

http://www.howardmodels.com/dpr/lever-house/lever-house2-800.jpg

http://en.structurae.de/files/photos/2621/leverhouse01.jpg

Heres The Sainsbury Centre for Performing Arts, another gem this time by Foster (aren't we lucky):

http://en.structurae.de/files/photos/2521/image81copy1.jpg

I think overall as far as high rise architecture, Piano's NY Times HQ is among my favorites. Although many argue that the prominent brise soleil (or ceramic tube screen as my American friends aptly referred to it as) makes the building seem imposing, I think it should be admired for the delightful effect it has on the play of light and shadow within. Calgary's environment would lend itself perfectly to this technology. I admire the buildings simplicity, and its representation of good design principles being applied without adding superfluous garnish.
I also am quite fond of x-condo's in Toronto. Although derivative some would say, and lacking in materials, it's very clean.
Really its a Meisian clone, based on everything I have said I should hate it, but thats alright.

Boris2k7

Aug 1, 2007, 4:27 AM

Have to say, I'm far more fond of César Pelli than Mies van der Rohe...

Pelli rox my sox

http://img118.imageshack.us/img118/2779/grantorrecostaneraqc9.jpg
http://img118.imageshack.us/img118/453/torrepuertotrianatl1.jpg

Arriviste

Aug 1, 2007, 4:45 AM

Really?
In my estimation Pelli is the Tommy Hilfiger of architecture. Take that for what you will.
Different strokes...

Boris2k7

Aug 1, 2007, 4:51 AM

Really?
In my estimation Pelli is the Tommy Hilfiger of architecture. Take that for what you will.
Different strokes...

Being someone who does his shopping at Sears, I would have no idea how to relate to what you are saying. ;)

Kevin_foster

Aug 1, 2007, 5:19 AM

Heres the Farnsworth House for you in case you have not laid eyes upon it...

http://www.architectureweek.com/2004/0128/images/12355_image_3.150.jpg
http://www.e-architect.co.uk/chicago/jpgs/farnsworth_house_gmad06_3.jpg

I really do appreciate modernism, but realistically, I'd rather live in a trailer than this mess. Sure, this would be nice... for about 5 days.

It's for novelty. I don't see any lasting beauty in it...

craner

Aug 1, 2007, 5:27 AM

With regard to Cristal - I like the tower. It's not totally fantastic but It's certainly in the upper half of what has been built in the city to date IMO. The non-rounded elevations bring to my mind Union Square. I like the curve but agree that the crown has not been resolved, it would look better with the triangular part removed (again IMO). All in all I give it a :tup: as I think it is a step up in the design quality of condos in Calgary, hopefully a level to build on from here.

Calgarian

Aug 1, 2007, 5:30 AM

The beauty is in the simplicity of it, it is meant to bring the natural environment right into your home. I woldn't want to live in it because it's all glass, but that is a different matter.

Phillip Johnson's glass house is even worse (for privacy that is). lol

http://images.businessweek.com/ss/06/11/1122_glasshouse/image/1.jpg

http://www.nationaltrust.org/Magazine/_images/news/glasshouse1.jpg

Boris2k7

Aug 1, 2007, 5:33 AM

The beauty is in the simplicity of it, it is meant to bring the natural environment right into your home. I woldn't want to live in it because it's all glass, but that is a different matter.

Phillip Johnson's glass house is even worse (for privacy that is). lol

But isn't that exactly the problem with (old) Modernist architecture? The fact that it doesn't relate to the people who use it at all? It has no personality, and in many cases such as the ones above, is totally impractical.

Calgarian

Aug 1, 2007, 5:36 AM

Heres The Sainsbury Centre for Performing Arts, another gem this time by Foster (aren't we lucky):

http://en.structurae.de/files/photos/2521/image81copy1.jpg

I think the oversized structural elements absolutely ruin this building. This is what I love about Architecture, everyone's taste is so different.

Here is one of my favorite buildings.

http://arthurerickson.com/images/buildings/moa1.jpg

http://www.clip.ubc.ca/archive/seminars_conferences/images/jay_fox_feb2003/UBC_museum_of_anthropology.jpg

Kevin_foster

Aug 1, 2007, 5:43 AM

Good architecture has to incorporate functionality. While the glass house is functional, in theory, it will not stand the test of time. You can not, realistically, foresee this building being occupied 200 years from now.

Anyways, perhaps I should discard the opinions on the glass house for now - it's irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Calgarian

Aug 1, 2007, 5:54 AM

But isn't that exactly the problem with (old) Modernist architecture? The fact that it doesn't relate to the people who use it at all? It has no personality, and in many cases such as the ones above, is totally impractical.

It (as with all architecture) is completely subjective, the glass house related to a time in Architecture where the shear simplicity of it was shocking. The glass house was Phillip Johnson's place of residence, he built it entirely for himself, to him it was practical. The relationship to a building is all about perception, if you are a simple person, and don't like flashy post modern architecture, this building is for you.

Arch26

Aug 1, 2007, 6:24 AM

But isn't that exactly the problem with (old) Modernist architecture? The fact that it doesn't relate to the people who use it at all?

Actually, on the contrary, I think Modernist architecture was very much designed to relate to people. The problem is, is that it often regarded people as machines. That said, these projects were usually very precisely scaled and positioned to the human body and designed so as to facilitate a crafted human experience. There was also a major obsession with cleanliness and sanitation at the time, which is one way of justifying minimalism from a human perspective also. The problem is of course, a question of functionality. As much as modernist work was designed for people, it did not necessarily take individual identity seriously.

Bokimon

Aug 1, 2007, 6:37 AM

Boris2k7

Aug 1, 2007, 7:04 AM

Actually, on the contrary, I think Modernist architecture was very much designed to relate to people. The problem is, is that it often regarded people as machines. That said, these projects were usually very precisely scaled and positioned to the human body and designed so as to facilitate a crafted human experience. There was also a major obsession with cleanliness and sanitation at the time, which is one way of justifying minimalism from a human perspective also. The problem is of course, a question of functionality. As much as modernist work was designed for people, it did not necessarily take individual identity seriously.

Well, while you have a point about proportions (in some cases), I was sort of getting at that bolded part. People aren't machines, they are social creatures. They need creative, distinct, and memorable places to live and work. They needs symbols and references that they can identify with.

niwell

Aug 1, 2007, 7:27 AM

But isn't that exactly the problem with (old) Modernist architecture? The fact that it doesn't relate to the people who use it at all? It has no personality, and in many cases such as the ones above, is totally impractical.

Exactly.

Architects will hate me for my point of view, but I think that modern architecture has been taken to a point where anything that is not "original" is seen as heresy. You can't have a building that even emulates traditional massing, much less material, without ripping off previous styles. The accusation of faux-historical is thrown around far too often. We seem to have forgotten that buildings should be designed around a human scale.

For me, massing is FAR more important than design. Sure, a good design is preferable, but I'd rather an ugly building (god forbid faux-historicist) with proper street treatment and human scaled features than a modernist box.

Arch26

Aug 1, 2007, 7:34 AM

Well, while you have a point about proportions (in some cases), I was sort of getting at that bolded part. People aren't machines, they are social creatures. They need creative, distinct, and memorable places to live and work. They needs symbols and references that they can identify with.

True, but that is really only a certain era of modernist architecture. Go backwards to FLW (early modernist) or forwards to Eileen Grey or Alvar Aalto (late modernist, verging on post-modern) and it's a very different story. The kind of work to which you are referring, I think, only represents a pretty narrow range of time when modernist ideologies were at their strictest.

Arch26

Aug 1, 2007, 7:52 AM

Exactly.

Architects will hate me for my point of view, but I think that modern architecture has been taken to a point where anything that is not "original" is seen as heresy. You can't have a building that even emulates traditional massing, much less material, without ripping off previous styles. The accusation of faux-historical is thrown around far too often. We seem to have forgotten that buildings should be designed around a human scale.

For me, massing is FAR more important than design. Sure, a good design is preferable, but I'd rather an ugly building (god forbid faux-historicist) with proper street treatment and human scaled features than a modernist box.

Well, I think it's a bit more complex than that. I mean, what is massing? Massing is just a few boxes or shapes constructed out of cardboard or drawn into a crude sketch. Massing is not architecture, it's just a step in the process, so I don't really understand how it can be more or less important than anything else. You can't have a building based solely on mass. The entire design process is important.

I also don't really see how massing can be easily categorized into "traditional" or "contemporary", save for some fundamental issues such as symmetry. You have to look at more than just the massing alone (maybe I missed your point here). I believe the differences between contemporary and "historicist" architecture are as evident in the planning, the materials, and the ornamentation (or lack thereof) as in the massing. Nobody is building modernist buildings anymore, because it is not a part of the present-day canon, so it's really an irrelevant point. That said, there is no reason why a contemporary building can't satisfy the criteria you have outlined (eg/ scale, street treatment) without resorting to being "faux-historicist" or ugly (always subjective anyway)... those criteria carry no less weight now, than they did in the past really, so i see no explanation for why historicist "styles" would be any better at satisfying them. A poorly considered building is just that--it has nothing to do with whether it is contemporary, historicist or otherwise.

WHISTLERINMUSKOKA

Aug 1, 2007, 11:58 AM

Really?
In my estimation Pelli is the Tommy Hilfiger of architecture. Take that for what you will.
Different strokes...

You hit the nail on the head, and anybody that's been in A Mies building would never say they don't like his stuff.

Arriviste

Aug 1, 2007, 2:32 PM

I think the oversized structural elements absolutely ruin this building. This is what I love about Architecture, everyone's taste is so different.

Here is one of my favorite buildings.

http://arthurerickson.com/images/buildings/moa1.jpg

http://www.clip.ubc.ca/archive/seminars_conferences/images/jay_fox_feb2003/UBC_museum_of_anthropology.jpg

An absolute gem of Canadian architecture. I adore this building as well. Erickson is a master.

As far as Sainsbury goes, the structural supports were as advanced as they could have been at that point in history. I'm sure if it were designed with more modern materials it would be considerably less bulky.

Arch26, would you really consider FLW a modernist? He would surely scoff at the insinuation, although I do agree in theory that his early work paves the way for much of modernisms later triumphs. Really, Im just curious as to your opinion of FLW in relation to modernism. Also, I wholeheartedly agree with you that massing is just a step in the process. Like the knot when tying your shoe, its fundamental to the process, but doesn't define it.

Boris, you assert that "They need creative, distinct, and memorable places to live and work. They needs symbols and references that they can identify with." I think that this statement acknowledges a problem in your thinking. Whistler alludes to it in the previous post. If you really observe a building erected upon modernisms truest principles, you would surely never be lacking for a creative, distinct and memorable environment. The detailing is sublime in its honesty. The relation of the forms to one another, and the contrasts in materials are superb. Lastly, I would argue that a modernist structure is the identifiable symbol and reference for its in habitants. Elaboration and decoration is not necessary for the structure imparts a sense of progress, and ingenuity of its creator(s). I would say that modernism is still very much alive, its just adjusting to 21st century sensibilities.

Lastly, I like to think of modernist structures as a beautiful apparatus for living. They have a charm, elegance, and sophistication all their own, but once they are filled with a life times worth of objects, stories, and occupation, they become alive. Take Erickson's Museum at UBC posted by Johnny. Without its contents, it remains a beautiful and iconic structure, but with all that it contains a certain aura is transmitted that would be overshadowed in my estimation in some PoMo monstrosity, or revivalist POS.

Arriviste

Aug 1, 2007, 2:39 PM

You hit the nail on the head, and anybody that's been in A Mies building would never say they don't like his stuff.

Absolutely! A Miesian building really translates its ingenuity to its inhabitant.

Innersoul1

Aug 1, 2007, 2:49 PM

Apart from the name Cristal is a a gem (pardon the pun).

I too am not a fan of the roof element but it is nice to see some curves incorporated for a change.

Calgarian

Aug 1, 2007, 3:01 PM

I like it,
I think it has a flare of Vancouver in it which IMO isnt too overdone. It will fit in nicely with the skyline and look unique from a number of angles. As for the roof element being too Melville alike, so what? Its better than a flat metal screen.
Most people don't even know the Melville condo in Vancouver. Its just us SSP junkies getting too nerdy with our references. :)
Curved element can look quite good here too. It actually reminds me of the sail of Oscar, but a sail done right!

Only part i nitpick on this one, tacked on balconies, 3 rows of them on one face!! I think a little bit of creativity wouldnt hurt. Vary the sizes, angle, profile, recesses...

You're right, 99.9% of people in both cities wouldn't really notice the similarities, but people who are involved in architecture or have an interest definately would. I guess the similarities are superficial as I'm sure the units and treatments inside are totally different. I just want something unique to Calgary, not buildings that borrow elements from, or try to sell themselves as buildings from another city. Maybe that's why i like Arriva so much, can't wait for Arriva 44 (man that sounds good). :banana:

Innersoul1

Aug 1, 2007, 3:09 PM

I am still waiting for a condo building that has a Spur as the roof element. :cool:

Oh and if the spur doubled as a windmiill th created green energy to power the mechanical bull in the atrium....now that would be the cats, I mean cows moo!:haha:

Calgarian

Aug 1, 2007, 3:12 PM

At least the roof line of Cristal will absolutely look unique in Calgary's skyline, that with Kai's (oops, I mean Oslo's) roof elements, that part of the skyline will look anything but boring.

korinsensei

Aug 1, 2007, 4:25 PM

At first I like it,

At 32 +stories well the height is good, kind of lacks a unique design but will add to the ridiculous density lucky Calgarians are now building.

Good overall but it could include some more striking elemts for the size of the project..

But good on ya Calgary!

niwell

Aug 1, 2007, 5:39 PM

I also don't really see how massing can be easily categorized into "traditional" or "contemporary", save for some fundamental issues such as symmetry. You have to look at more than just the massing alone (maybe I missed your point here). I believe the differences between contemporary and "historicist" architecture are as evident in the planning, the materials, and the ornamentation (or lack thereof) as in the massing. Nobody is building modernist buildings anymore, because it is not a part of the present-day canon, so it's really an irrelevant point. That said, there is no reason why a contemporary building can't satisfy the criteria you have outlined (eg/ scale, street treatment) without resorting to being "faux-historicist" or ugly (always subjective anyway)... those criteria carry no less weight now, than they did in the past really, so i see no explanation for why historicist "styles" would be any better at satisfying them. A poorly considered building is just that--it has nothing to do with whether it is contemporary, historicist or otherwise.

I think we actually agree, I was just tired and slightly intoxicated when I wrote my post, so some of what I was trying to say was probably lost. I'm not trying to villify or praise certain architectural styles. I'm certainly not a fan of most faux-historicist buildings, but if quality materials are used and the street level treatment is handled in a site appropriate manner (small setbacks for main streets and the 1:1 ratio for height to street ROW for instance) I won't complain. By the same token if a contemporary building satisfies such criteria I will be happy with that.

It's just that in personal experience with contemporary academic architectecture is that too much emphasis is placed on originality of design above and beyond any other factor. This can result in a poorly considered building, and in my mind has in many occasions.

Boris2k7

Aug 1, 2007, 5:58 PM

I think we actually agree, I was just tired and slightly intoxicated when I wrote my post, so some of what I was trying to say was probably lost. I'm not trying to villify or praise certain architectural styles. I'm certainly not a fan of most faux-historicist buildings, but if quality materials are used and the street level treatment is handled in a site appropriate manner (small setbacks for main streets and the 1:1 ratio for height to street ROW for instance) I won't complain. By the same token if a contemporary building satisfies such criteria I will be happy with that.

It's just that in personal experience with contemporary academic architectecture is that too much emphasis is placed on originality of design above and beyond any other factor. This can result in a poorly considered building, and in my mind has in many occasions.

Indeed, I think you'll find that the four of us (Niwell, Boris, Arriviste, Arch) probably agree on most things. At least, I certainly did get that sense when grabbing a drink with Arriviste several months back... :cheers:

It's partially a matter of perspective. You and I, as planners, probably put people first far before the building itself, and subconsciously think about things like land use designations, street frontage, shadowing impact, and contextual concerns (ie, making sure that a building is distinct but still reflects on the existing community). Concerns such as originality, materials, etc., come in second.

We aren't artists such as Arch and Arriviste, we are more like social technocrats. We are more functionalistic and managerial in our approach, as compared to the modern architect who seems more radical and transformative... which may be part of the reason why architects never seem to be happy with anything. ;)

Arriviste

Aug 1, 2007, 6:03 PM

I think you summed it up nicely Boris. It's finding a good combination of thinkers to make a project successful.

jeffwhit

Aug 1, 2007, 6:14 PM

Who would have thought a relatively pedestrian condo tower would have sparked such an interesting debate?

Boris2k7

Aug 1, 2007, 6:14 PM

Now, how this applies to Cristal...

I think that the building fulfills most of it's functional needs. It has over 200 condo units, some of which are townhouses, and also retail at ground floor. It has the usual amenities that one would find in a condo building. The massing, overall, is quite slender.

However, I have some reservations about how it carries out those functions. The retail frontage could be better, especially as the east side of the building facing 12th Street will be just the internal amenities (gym, whatever). The public plaza in front could turn into a disaster if the lanes aren't restricted to emergency vehicles and that rule is enforced. It would just become dead space in front of the building. The podium could also be taller so as to form more of a streetwall, and as a little more of a setback to the tower.

The name, and the design perhaps, is a tribute to the historical use of the site. Which is something I find appropriate, especially as we won't be losing any heritage buildings. However, it would be cool if Bennet Glass was able to move back into one of those retail spaces, or a similar tenant. That won't happen of course, this building is aimed at wealthier, younger people, so you can be sure a Starbucks will rent the space...

Now, stylistically, it's really good, but could use some improvements here and there. The roof element is, admittedly, a little awkward. It doesn't quite work with the rest of the design. But I certainly don't feel like we are stealing anything from the Melville. The glass treatment seems overall quite clean, though a bit weird on the rounded portion. And balconies protrude about 1.1 metres I think...