Quote:
Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark
I agree with JET that those buildings will be a loss, although admittedly that area is a bit of a mish-mash now. The new building should clean up the area somewhat, and offer much better land usage for the area. Would be nice if the wooden buildings could be moved to another location, but I realize it probably won't happen due to economics.
While many of you laud this building as beautiful, I'm afraid I'm not seeing the beauty so much. To me, it looks more like a kid's Lego build, with disjointed blocks haphazardly put here and there. Then there's that black rectangle on the side that looks like it stuck there after somebody threw it.
Is this considered good architecture these days?  |
I think the difference is that I don't see anything random or haphazard. If you look closely, the building has near perfect symmetry, with only enough subtle variation as to give it some warmth. The black square toward the top is exactly in the middle of the Brenton St. façade (although it's hard to see it from the angle of the rendering). And the proportions are bang on as well as someone already mentioned. It's tall (for the area), but the setbacks take the edge off making it seem more sensitive to it's surroundings.
Even the colours are harmonious with the tan/grey, charcoal and gold contrasting enough to give some variation but not enough to be jarring. And the pattern created by the common balcony floors and the private balcony floors is consistent. They also strike the perfect balance in terms of materials, with enough glass to make it seem open and modern, but not so much glass as to see unimaginative or lacking in visual weight. The only thing I can possibly think to change would be to perhaps use cooler rather than warmer colours. But that's just a personal preference really.