Quote:
Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse
I can't say I'm all that impressed with the design, but then again it's a lot harder to get me excited about a proposal if it's a redevelopment than requires demos of some decent buildings rather than of a more poorly utilized site such as a parking lot or strip mall. The lowrise apartment building isn't much of a loss, but I hate losing Victorian-era houses.
But specifically in terms of the design, I don't see anything about the design language that connects it to the aesthetics or architectural heritage the city, province or neighbourhood. Stepping away from modern/contemporary design trends is fine - good even - as long as the result is something that integrates with and plays homage to its location. But then again, those type of design dues aren't actually a departure from contemporary design trends are they? Seems to be quite prevalent in contemporary populist design.
|
From what I read a I think all but one of the heritage buildings on the site were being moved to the Carleton St end of the site.
I really like the podium as well. I am an eternal optimist and hope that the material would be more than bad precast. I could lose that weird pergola on the roof though. And I don't think just because it has stone cladding it is faux heritage. There are a lot of contemporary designs that use stone and traditional window forms. I don't see it as trying to replicated anything or be something that it is not (aside from that pergola) And those deep inset balconies in the stone facade are definitely contemporary in nature.
The towers however are a whole other story. Too many materials and the setbacks do not look fully resolved. I like towers that are have modular components and towers that gradually set back as they rise, but this seems to be trying to do both at the same time and its just not working.