Calgary Hotel Gremain: What's the Consensus? - Page 3

Boris2k7 · #41 Posted **Dec 10, 2006, 7:16 AM**

I disagree. Just because an architect disagrees with the layman (even though many of us here have some familiarity with the subject) does not mean his opinion is worth any more or less. In fact, professionals tend to come off as very pretentious.

And on another note, I fail to believe that people are making objective votes. Nothing is value free. Some people are going to be homers, others are haters. It is naive to think otherwise.

EDIT: This is not a knock against you personally, Trueviking, it's a problem I have with a lot of professionals. Professors for instance. I do value your opinion and agree with some of it (it may be a bit too busy, but hey it's a change from what we have in Calgary). I'm a bit of a postmodernist and a relativist so that may explain my position somewhat.

trueviking · #42 Posted **Dec 10, 2006, 7:28 AM**

no prob...its just civil debate...

there is something to be said for being able to put objective (or even subjective) criteria to achitectural critique, beyond a gut level, 'i like it' response...

it is like art critique....people who are trained in the history and theory of art are able to assess a painting in greater depth than a layman...it doesnt mean that public opinion is worthless, but it also doesnt mean that the educated opinion shouldnt be considered.

it is the great debate of architecture...is it an art or not?...is successful architecture that which wins awards and is published in glossy architecture magazines?...or is it what the masses like that is most important?

what i meant on the homer issue was that people have a far greater affinity for projects in their own city....it happens all the time in this forum....most people from edmonton loved their new art gallery...most others didnt...same as winnipeg's museum or hydro office tower.

it is natural....look at all these poll threads...most people here like all the projects that are posted from their city.

i am not convinced that the public opinion for this building will be positive anyways....many here like tall buildings no matter what.

Hardhatdan · #43 Posted **Dec 10, 2006, 7:31 AM**

Its okay, its bold and new...undecided on the shape. The shape does seem like a gimmick, but its such a change from the usual I actual favor it in this case. I am more excited to see the material choices, wood vaneer panelling sounds cool.

Boris2k7 · #44 Posted **Dec 10, 2006, 7:32 AM**

Agreed. However, I should note that we don't really have that good of an idea of who voted for what category here, since we can't see the numbers. There are probably a lot of people from other cities in that "Great" category.

Stephen Ave · #45 Posted **Dec 10, 2006, 7:37 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Only The Lonely..

Vike is right..

It is pretty hideous.

No, Vike isn't right. Vike has an opinion.

As far as the Calgary forumers being homers, and people from other cities being more objective, he has a point. That seems to be the case with Calgary, as well as the other cities. Of course politics are always involved in this kind of stuff as well.

Calgarian · #46 Posted **Dec 10, 2006, 7:40 AM**

This building has the potential to be nice, but as usual it depends on materials. From the rendering it looks kind of akward, but with the architectural variety in the area, with the Chicago inspired Palliser Hotel, the stark brutalism of Palliser Square and Encana Place, to the historical classic designs on stephen ave, this building and it's 2 distinctive styles on the podiums could really work well.

Boris2k7 · #47 Posted **Dec 10, 2006, 7:43 AM**

^ Hey, that reminds me... Where the hell are the brutalist elements? I demand exposed concrete!!!

Kilgore Trout · #48 Posted **Dec 10, 2006, 7:45 AM**

it might be considered ugly in 15 years, but it will probably be celebrated 15 years after that. the "it won't age well" argument is perhaps the most irrelevant form of architectural criticism because tastes change so profoundly over the years. eclectic high victorian architecture was considered impossibly ugly at one time, too.

vid · #49 Posted **Dec 10, 2006, 7:46 AM**

Ugh. It makes the new court house look nice.

Stephen Ave · #50 Posted **Dec 10, 2006, 7:49 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by trueviking

no prob...its just civil debate...

it is like art critique....people who are trained in the history and theory of art are able to assess a painting in greater depth than a layman...it doesnt mean that public opinion is worthless, but it also doesnt mean that the educated opinion shouldnt be considered.

Can't argue with you there. The same of course could be said about the opinion of the general public. I often wonder what kind of buildings we would get if everyone in society was educated in architecture. Would there be enough of a consensus to ever build something?

Quote:

Originally Posted by trueviking

it is the great debate of architecture...is it an art or not?...is successful architecture that which wins awards and is published in glossy architecture magazines?...or is it what the masses like that is most important?

That is the age old question. I suppose in a free market economy, it's what the masses like

Boris2k7 · #51 Posted **Dec 10, 2006, 7:57 AM**

I suppose I should have copied and pasted this a while ago, but...

... this is from the post I made recently in the Calgary Construction thread, after which I posted the renderings shown in this thread... from the next CPC Agenda

http://www.calgary.ca/docgallery/BU/...2694_part1.pdf
DP2006_2694 - Grenville/Germain Complex (4 Parts)
Architect:
BKDI
Developer:
Grenville/Germain Group
Location:
819 and 823 Centre Street SW; 108, 112, 116, and 118 – 9 Avenue SW
Proposal:
This Development Permit application is for a mixed use development consisting of 6300 square metres of office space with at-grade retail spaces, a 150 unit hotel with at-grade restaurant, and 42 dwelling units.

To get to the next three parts of the development permit, just replace the "Part1" in the url with "Part2" etc.

Apparently it will also incorporate a Green Roof and LEED elements (of course it will have LEED, what new development here doesn't?

)

vid · #52 Posted **Dec 10, 2006, 8:09 AM**

It still looks a bit odd. It need more work. I'm sure it will be changed a bit over the course of realisation but still, ...

I think it's because he changes styles in the building. If the style was a bit more uniform and didn't 'clash' like it did the building wouldn't look as bad. I like the top part, it's the bottom that is really odd. Pick one side and copy it on both sides, or don't use either.

It needs more work on the design. It isn't being all it can be.

Riise · #53 Posted **Dec 10, 2006, 10:44 AM**

I'll just post what I did in the Calgary Construction thread:

...What I really like about this project is first off, it's a true mixed use complex and secondly, it's not a plain box, or an attempt at being creative gone awry. I think the best way to describe it is as interesting. When it's built and visitors to the city look at it they'll think, "Oh, that looks interesting. Yeah, really nice." It's a building that makes you want to figure out what it is and how it works, and after you do you appreciate how it looks and comes together to function.

Wooster · #54 Posted **Dec 10, 2006, 3:23 PM**

It is a good sign that this building is polarizing. I've never liked a modern building that was universally liked.

I still think it does pretty much everything right. My perspective of course is from a planner and not architect.

Taller Better · #55 Posted **Dec 10, 2006, 3:36 PM**

A side benefit is they will create an excellent restaurant! They have a reputation for doing so.

Daver · #56 Posted **Dec 10, 2006, 4:39 PM**

Looks like a Communist block architect is bursting out trying something different, but not by much.

Though...it is growing on me.

polishavenger · #57 Posted **Dec 10, 2006, 5:05 PM**

I dont like the look of it, but I love the principal and planning philosophy behind the project. I think it looks awkward and out of proportion, with the residential top being an afterthought someone just dropped in on a whim. The two base towers are unattractive. I want to see it go ahead (ideally with some major design changes) just because of the mixed use concept. Just like with the condo boom, mixed use designs will improve with each subsequent project.

Rusty van Reddick · #58 Posted **Dec 10, 2006, 5:50 PM**

Architecture is one of the only "art forms" that everybody (aside, perhaps, from the blind) is FORCED to look at. Comparing it to music or painting is silly, but "architectural critics" don't seem to understand this obvious point.

There is nothing, NOTHING, wrong with a "gut feeling" response to what is after all an aesthetic judgement. I don't have to apologize for finding something attractive, and am not obligated to explain why I find it attractive.

Finally, yes, the average person might have horrible taste, but very few of the people on this board are "average."

Western Spaghetti · #59 Posted **Dec 10, 2006, 6:34 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by furrycanuck

Architecture is one of the only "art forms" that everybody (aside, perhaps, from the blind) is FORCED to look at. Comparing it to music or painting is silly, but "architectural critics" don't seem to understand this obvious point.

There is nothing, NOTHING, wrong with a "gut feeling" response to what is after all an aesthetic judgement. I don't have to apologize for finding something attractive, and am not obligated to explain why I find it attractive.

Finally, yes, the average person might have horrible taste, but very few of the people on this board are "average."

Well said Furry. Couldn't agree more.

I don't care for the argument, of "well you're not educated in art, so I'll tell you what is good art and what is bad art" That's a ridiculous argument. Artists don't make art to please other artists. If this were the case we wouldn't need public art galleries. Art would never need to be displayed to the public. It's like judging people of the opposite sex, you can't be taught who you like and who you don't, you can't be educated on that.

No matter how you look at it, it still comes down to an opinion, it doesn't get any simpler than that folks.

The Chemist · #60 Posted **Dec 10, 2006, 6:48 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by trueviking

it is natural....look at all these poll threads...most people here like all the projects that are posted from their city.

i am not convinced that the public opinion for this building will be positive anyways....many here like tall buildings no matter what.

Not necessarily true. Penny Lane, for example, has polarized Calgary forumers - some of us like it, but a lot of us hate it. There isn't just blind love for anything that's proposed in this city.

I for one like this proposal. It's so different from anything else we've got - avant-garde, you might say - and I think it'll really stand out. I think we should all be happy, regardless of whether we like the design or not, that designs so unconservative as this are now being proposed for the city. Exciting times.