Oxford Tower - Page 3

WhipperSnapper · #41 Posted **Oct 15, 2014, 4:27 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by RyLucky

The lukewarm acceptance of this Oxford tower brings a question to mind:

Given that the main criticisms of the tower are that it is generic, devoid of distinguishing features, and conservative, how much should (or can) a project strive to suit a particular location?

The Bow reflects several elements of local geography, but in my opinion is fairly insensitive to its immediate surroundings. Brookfield Place somewhat responds to its surroundings, but would not be out of place in Houston, Toronto, or Sydney. Telus Sky seems to fit its environment well, but will forever be compared to Beach and Howe. In a globalized world, are urban environments becoming more and more the same? Should walking down the street in Calgary feel like walking down the street in Toronto?

Is it possible to get an iconic 1-of-a-kind tower in 2014? Starchitects tend to protect a brand, and shareholders expect a functional, conservative investment. Obviously, these rules are different in Asia and the Middle East, where labour is dirt cheap and companies may be controlled to single families..

I'm not sure what exactly I would have liked to go in the place of Oxford's tower. Other than vague comparative adjectives like "taller", "more beautiful", "better", I don't know what to say. By no means do I think curvier is better, though I think most SSPers would prefer curves. After all, curves are easier to design and build than in the past, and therefore might be indicative of our era of architecture.

What do you guys think?

No need to worry. One of a kind buildings will continue to get built with the majority of them turning their back on fitting into the urban fabric. Fitting in defeats the purpose of most star architect's visions.

The aspect that a few curves will improve a design does often rub me the wrong way. There have been some well done "boxes" that get lumped in with the rest. There have also been some poorly thought out designs featuring curves and such that get praised. Of course, I want better but, the reality is tenants are demanding highly efficient, identical floor plans and developers are filling that demand with extruded right angled forms.

Chadillaccc · #42 Posted **Oct 15, 2014, 4:42 AM**

Shanghai Tower. Shard. Devon. TransBay. Eureka.

These are the things we should be striving to. Not City Centre.

craner · #43 Posted **Oct 15, 2014, 5:42 AM**

My feelings pretty much what has already been said - pretty good but not outstanding which we were all hoping for.
I like the profile it will cut from the north and south. But I worry it will be a girthy slab from the east & west.
Go taller, much taller I say!
Having said that, we are spoiled in this city when this proposal is met with such indifference.

TallBob · #44 Posted **Oct 15, 2014, 6:01 AM**

This thing is going to get kicked around and re-designed a little, so it's probably a ways off! When it's all said and done, I'd bet this will be in the 270-280 meter range. Bet on it!! Unless they "Punk Out" with a couple of TWINS!! (OMG... I said that dreadful word)!

WhipperSnapper · #45 Posted **Oct 15, 2014, 1:21 PM**

It's odd the Oxford logo doesn't appear on the renderings.

Bigtime · #46 Posted **Oct 15, 2014, 1:27 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

It's odd the Oxford logo doesn't appear on the renderings.

Don't worry about that.

Amsterdamned · #47 Posted **Oct 15, 2014, 2:11 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spring2008

https://www.flickr.com/people/75646235@N06/

Looks decent, but it reminds me of the original design for Penny Lane Towers (save for a single tower) before it was redesigned to 8th Avenue Place.

Big Sky · #48 Posted **Oct 15, 2014, 3:15 PM**

I voted that I like it. I know many feel it's a disappointment given the location, but I voted simply on what I thought of the tower, and overall I like it. It's basic and simple, and I have no problem with that.

Bigtime · #49 Posted **Oct 15, 2014, 3:19 PM**

I voted "Like it" too, but want to qualify that in the fact that the design is decent enough, but NOT for this site.

Spring2008 · #50 Posted **Oct 15, 2014, 3:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigtime

i voted "like it" too, but want to qualify that in the fact that the design is decent enough, but not for this site.

*2

Doug · #51 Posted **Oct 15, 2014, 3:29 PM**

This has to be a place holder. The podium looks too simple to be real.

With the amount of space already u/c and uncertainty around energy pricing, Oxford won't be building anytime soon.

H.E.Pennypacker · #52 Posted **Oct 15, 2014, 3:33 PM**

Definitely could be a placeholder, particularly since it looks so similar to Penny Lane

It's possible that they are 'pre-leasing' right now for a large tenant - maybe they're trying to provide some incentive for that prospective tenant by giving them some input into a final design?

I mean if you're a predominant tenant in a new tallest building in Calgary, you'd want to occupy a building that is pretty marquee

Chadillaccc · #53 Posted **Oct 15, 2014, 3:36 PM**

This could be the older version from years ago.

Bigtime · #54 Posted **Oct 15, 2014, 3:38 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

This could be the older version from years ago.

You mean before Oxford owned the site?

ItsALondonThing · #55 Posted **Oct 15, 2014, 3:44 PM**

Not even moved to Calgary yet but hope you don't mind me asking what you're all moaning at? Maybe the scale of awesome development out there has got people used to this sort of proposal.

For what its worth, I think it's width will be all important and you can't really get a decent grasp of the x and y dimensions on those mockups. Provided it isn't too wide it'll look towering and the design leaves potential for some pretty lighting effects.

Imagine it at 280m, could add something special to the skyline.

Surrealplaces · #56 Posted **Oct 15, 2014, 3:49 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ItsALondonThing

Not even moved to Calgary yet but hope you don't mind me asking what you're all moaning at? Maybe the scale of awesome development out there has got people used to this sort of proposal.

For what its worth, I think it's width will be all important and you can't really get a decent grasp of the x and y dimensions on those mockups. Provided it isn't too wide it'll look towering and the design leaves potential for some pretty lighting effects.

Imagine it at 280m, could add something special to the skyline.

I think the height is what most people aren't happy about. If this tower was 280m, most people would like it.

Personally, I like the design of the tower, and have not problem with it being boxish, but wish it was taller....mainly just because of its location. If it was somewhere along 9th ave I would be very happy with it.

ItsALondonThing · #57 Posted **Oct 15, 2014, 3:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Surrealplaces

I think the height is what most people aren't happy about. If this tower was 280m, most people would like it.

Personally, I like the design of the tower, and have not problem with it being boxish, but wish it was taller....mainly just because of its location. If it was somewhere along 9th ave I would be very happy with it.

I've missed the actual detail of its height. How tall is it?

Spring2008 · #58 Posted **Oct 15, 2014, 3:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ItsALondonThing

I've missed the actual detail of its height. How tall is it?

We're not sure yet. Rumored to be a new tallest, so 250m+

Bigtime · #59 Posted **Oct 15, 2014, 4:00 PM**

No confirmed height given yet.

Chadillaccc · #60 Posted **Oct 15, 2014, 4:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ItsALondonThing

I've missed the actual detail of its height. How tall is it?

We don't have confirmation of that yet. All we know is that it's only "slightly" taller than Brookfield Place, our current new tallest which is still under construction at 247 meters.