View Single Post
Old Posted Sep 25, 2013, 2:10 AM
Drybrain Drybrain is offline
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 3,383
Originally Posted by someone123 View Post
Not a huge fan of the current design, but I could see it getting better with some tweaking. I don't like the accordion-like facade above George Street, for example.

The rendering is a little weird. The Champlain Building (Bluenose) is 6 storeys tall, not 4 storeys. I'd like to be able to assume that the full facade would of course be preserved but I am not so sure about that -- the Roy Building redevelopment actually calls for the brick lower portion on Barrington to be cut down by 1 floor for some reason.
Didn't even notice that, but you're right. Champlain is depicted as four storeys from all perspectives, and there's so much attention to detail in the renderings that I doubt it's a mistake.

Facadism is getting out of hand. A heritage designation essentially means the building has been deemed worth keeping around for one reason or another, and yet a lot of people basically treat a facade job as a "preservation" or even "restoration." When what it is, of course, is demolishing the building and appending its street-facing element to an entirely different building. And in this case, even cutting down the height of it, which is just insulting. Sometimes the it works, but it's just become the go-to technique, rather than re-use. (If they want to create a really interesting development, including the old buildings fully would add some variety in the built character, inside and out).

I'd probably feel differently if the new building were a masterpiece in its own right or something, but it's only kind of promisingly awkward, as others have discussed. So, no, can't really get too behind it right now. And the city isn't desperate for development the way it may have been even a few years ago, so... yeah. Definitely a lot of potential, but too disjointed right now, and a bit too much heritage being sacrificed.

Last edited by Drybrain; Sep 25, 2013 at 2:28 AM.
Reply With Quote