I don't get how CentreVenture, an "arms-length agency", can have unabated control over anything. Who holds them accountable, the mayor?
Sure I can email their reception ffs lol. Which will likely do nothing. Who voted on this, the board of directors? Was is a majority vote or some other requirements? Without getting into the nitty gritty, seems their is some internal disagreement there on the final outcome. |
From the website: http://www.centreventure.com/market-...gn-competition
The following Jury members have prepared this final report and are unanimous in their selection of the winning proponent: Bruce Kuwabara, Founding Principal, KPMB Architects Toronto Eladia Smoke, Principal, Smoke Architecture, Hamilton Angela Mathieson, President & CEO, CentreVenture, Winnipeg John Kiernan, Director, Planning, Property and Development, City of Winnipeg, Winnipeg Alan Tate, Professor and Head of Landscape Architecture, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg Zephyra Vun, Executive Director, Design Quarter Winnipeg, Winnipeg Annitta Stenning, CEO, CancerCare Manitoba Foundation, Winnipeg. |
Ah, yes. Right. Thanks Biff.
Seems like a group of smart people. Must be focused on business rather than functionality. |
Download the Jury Report -
https://storage.googleapis.com/wzuku...21%20FINAL.pdf It is only 8 pages (with pictures) so it is a short read. |
Quote:
|
Thanks again Biff.
It's interesting how they mention the connection to the northern half of the site for one of the submissions. And the winning submission mentions how it blocks the entire northern area of the site. So they were aware of this and chose to ignore it, mentioning it would be handled by the architects.. :koko: It seems most of the issues had to do with the market either being incorporated into the overall buildings too much (not stand alone), sunlight not getting to the market with the mixed use building placed on the east property line, and definable public plaza area. We'll see how she goes. |
Quote:
Another comment made a couple of times were the buildings in the designs didn't fit in well with the surrounding neighbourhood. That the surrounding neighbourhood consisted of really square buildings. |
Thanks for posting that, but tbh their explanation is mostly fluff. Light, clarity, simple, blah blah blah.
They lost me at their opening statement: The Jury was most impressed with the clarity of the proposal – an elegant Market Building on a bold new square with a visibly sustainable residential building to the north of the site creating a strong, commendable and appreciated response to the context, particularly the urban grain and morphology of the site creating a clear continuation northward of the continuation of Albert Street and Old Market Square. "Bold" new square? It is simply a flat rectangle. "Visibly sustainable"? Is that really a priority over having a sustainable development that isn't necessarily visible? I totally disagree with the "commendable" response to the context and urban grain. I can't even believe they'd write that. "creating a clear continuation northward of the continuation of Albert Street and Old Market Square"....Uhhhhh, ANY of the design would have achieved this simply because it was required that the south portion of this site be public/market space! Just as I expected their explanation would be a load of finesse and fluff. Whatever. |
Quote:
Basically the priority was to have the market in full sunlight all the time and have the building detached from the other buildings. Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
I once worked at a company where we would regularly monitor and evaluate the performance of our telephone representatives. Whenever we did this as a group of 15-20 people, the group's evaluation would inevitably rate our rep's performance as "terrible" after our group discussions, despite the fact that initial individual evaluations tended to rate the rep as "average". As a group, we tended to dissect the rep's performance in the smallest detail, and nip-pick every small error until they became magnified in our minds.
I kind of see that happening here. When the "final five" plans were first posted, I think most people rated what became the "winning" plan as "middle of the pack"; maybe not the best, but not the worst. Now, in some people's minds, it's an abomination and a tragedy. I personally still stand by my initial reaction, which was kind of "meh". Not the best choice, but not the worst either. I think there have been some good observations to try to give the plan a little more "sizzle", but overall I don't think it's a terrible design. IMO-The alignment of the apartment block seems to be a major point of contention, but I think it has some positives. It gives the RRC more visibility from King and Main streets. The apartment that face south will have great views, but the north-facting apartments will have it pretty bleak until the rest of the area is developed. The market stalls themselves will depend greatly on the vendors that use them and the hours of operation, no mater what they look like. The RRC end of the apartments (glass) will, I think, have a nice "airy" fell, but the King Street side may need a large piece of art to make it interesting. I think it's a good opportunity for a colourful mural or mosaic to give the area a sense of identity. Of course, the conceptual drawings are not always the final form. I will be interested to see what that looks like. |
I heard yesterday that there's a complete redesign underway so where you see Urban Shaman it will only be one floor opening up that part of the streetscape. The plan is to then have an open deck above for events, etc. and projecting images/artwork onto the east side of the building.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Kinda funny to have an international design competition, pick a winner, then tell them their design is shit and you'd like it redone. |
Quote:
Let's all just gripe about stuff. :slob: |
Quote:
|
I guess this begs the question, what would everyone prefer to see?
The larger building split up so there is access to the northern half of the site? Why there is a roadway running through the middle of the site? Is that good or bad? Include the northern half in this planning exercise so the site is cohesive? Something more with the market itself? What else? |
All this talk of "re-design". Is it really a re-design or is it the "actual" design which is occurring? The design competition created a conceptual design that now needs to be turned into an actual working building. The bones of the winning design will be kept with the added changes from the input of the competition critique.
|
Quote:
I supposed I don't really understand the huge emphasis the committee put on needing full sunlight, as long as possible, on the market site. This is not a park were you sit. It's a shopping area. There aren't even areas marked out for lounging around in the winning design. I don't see the need for streets/loading zones/curb cuts going right through the site. Loading can be on the inside lanes of King and Princess The monolithic nature of the high-rise is dated and visually unappealing to me. Honestly I feel like we all already expressed on the last few pages what we would like to see at the site so I feel like I am just repeating myself. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 1:57 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.