922 Main St E | ? | 8 fl | Proposal

LikeHamilton · #1 Posted **May 17, 2010, 2:56 AM**

922 Main Street East @ Balsam (Just west of Gage)

8 Stories, 56 units (Multiple Dwelling) Ground floor commercial.

Date for the zoning change has not been announced.

http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/184...streeteast.jpg

matt602 · #2 Posted **May 17, 2010, 9:55 PM**

Was wondering when someone would put this up. It looks good and it would fit well with the area. Some nice infill.

TheRitsman · #3 Posted **Jun 10, 2023, 1:24 AM**

Just so we don't lose the photo I've uploaded it to Imgur. Also I'd love something like this, with hopefully a slightly nicer design. Maybe a bit taller too would be fine, maybe 12 floors

catcher_of_cats · #4 Posted **Jun 10, 2023, 1:49 AM**

Wow, a thread resurrection after 13 years. I too hope that one day this property will be sold to serious developers since the current ones do nothing but pay their property taxes.

ScreamingViking · #5 Posted **Jun 11, 2023, 2:19 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by catcher_of_cats

Wow, a thread resurrection after 13 years. I too hope that one day this property will be sold to serious developers since the current ones do nothing but pay their property taxes.

We have too many of these. But perhaps that's "normal" for a developing city?

Something that's a nicer blend with the church would be optimal IMO. This looks like an office building.

Hawrylyshyn · #6 Posted **Jul 24, 2023, 6:18 PM**

This was posted on UT today --

Chronamut · #7 Posted **Jul 24, 2023, 6:48 PM**

..what happened to the steeple?

Looks like they've made this more generic, not better.. no more arches, less details.. more blegh. I mean some of the details are still nice but there is less than what was originally proposed.

The left building got hit the worst - no cornices, no arches, nothing of any detail. Blegh commie block.

bigguy1231 · #8 Posted **Jul 25, 2023, 2:37 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chronamut

..what happened to the steeple?

Looks like they've made this more generic, not better.. no more arches, less details.. more blegh. I mean some of the details are still nice but there is less than what was originally proposed.

The left building got hit the worst - no cornices, no arches, nothing of any detail. Blegh commie block.

It is a charity. The building will house handicapped people in need of 24 hour care. They just had a fund raiser for this project last week. I don't think making the building look good is a priority. Functionality is the priority.

ScreamingViking · #9 Posted **Jul 26, 2023, 5:19 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigguy1231

It is a charity. The building will house handicapped people in need of 24 hour care. They just had a fund raiser for this project last week. I don't think making the building look good is a priority. Functionality is the priority.

Chronamut · #10 Posted **Jul 27, 2023, 4:10 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigguy1231

It is a charity. The building will house handicapped people in need of 24 hour care. They just had a fund raiser for this project last week. I don't think making the building look good is a priority. Functionality is the priority.

There's no reason you can't have both. Once again the "this is for the less fortunate so the building has to look less fortunate" argument wins out. We're supposed to be a first world country. What the hell are people gonna think of our architecture 100 years from now.. "oh it looked shitty, but hey, functional, amirite?"

I mean they even made orphanages in the past look pretty. Thank god for the building on the right I guess.

Hawrylyshyn · #11 Posted **Jul 27, 2023, 2:14 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chronamut

There's no reason you can't have both. Once again the "this is for the less fortunate so the building has to look less fortunate" argument wins out. We're supposed to be a first world country. What the hell are people gonna think of our architecture 100 years from now.. "oh it looked shitty, but hey, functional, amirite?"

I mean they even made orphanages in the past look pretty. Thank god for the building on the right I guess.

That's not the argument though. The argument is it's a charity so 1) there's significant less capital upfront to build something nice and 2) very limited resources are better spent on actually looking after the people that will live there.

In 100 years people won't think "oh it looked shitty, but hey, functional, amirite?", but rather "oh look, that facility that did incredible work and looked after people who needed help the most".

Chronamut · #12 Posted **Jul 27, 2023, 4:12 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hawrylyshyn

That's not the argument though. The argument is it's a charity so 1) there's significant less capital upfront to build something nice and 2) very limited resources are better spent on actually looking after the people that will live there.

In 100 years people won't think "oh it looked shitty, but hey, functional, amirite?", but rather "oh look, that facility that did incredible work and looked after people who needed help the most".

So what's our excuse for the REST of the city lol..

in any case glad they're getting a place at least.

Pulkvedis Pods · #13 Posted **Jul 27, 2023, 8:29 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hawrylyshyn

That's not the argument though. The argument is it's a charity so 1) there's significant less capital upfront to build something nice and 2) very limited resources are better spent on actually looking after the people that will live there.

In 100 years people won't think "oh it looked shitty, but hey, functional, amirite?", but rather "oh look, that facility that did incredible work and looked after people who needed help the most".

I really doubt people will say anything of the sort, and in terms of probability, that building just won't be standing in a hundred years...
And the argument that just because it is a charity, therefore they can't build something nice doesn't hold water. Look at 400 King St. E. Look at almost any new or rehabbed Social services building in Latvia, which is a much poorer country than Canada, and you will see for the better part of those examples much more attractive buildings (yes there obviously exceptions) than 95% of the modernist crap built in this region.

Hawrylyshyn · #14 Posted **Jul 27, 2023, 8:43 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pulkvedis Pods

I really doubt people will say anything of the sort, and in terms of probability, that building just won't be standing in a hundred years...
And the argument that just because it is a charity, therefore they can't build something nice doesn't hold water. Look at 400 King St. E. Look at almost any new or rehabbed Social services building in Latvia, which is a much poorer country than Canada, and you will see for the better part of those examples much more attractive buildings (yes there obviously exceptions) than 95% of the modernist crap built in this region.

400 King St. E isn't really comparable. This is an entire new building (with the exception of the church portion) while the exterior of 400 King received a cleaning, new windows, and minor fixes.

Can you provide examples of these Latvian buildings for context? Can't comment on that part when I zero idea of what you are referring to.

Pulkvedis Pods · #15 Posted **Jul 28, 2023, 2:15 AM**

https://www.aizkraukle.lv/lv/sociala...w.google.lv%2F

I inserted this link from a rural district (Aizkraukle) homepage, which has information on three of its social care and service centres. I can't speak to the interior of these places, but considering that this district isn't rolling in the dough, I'd say that architectural solution in each case - an early 20th century building rehabbed, a commie-block type building insulated and modernized or what looks like a new build (#3) aren't decrepit eyesores.
I had seen other examples over on skyscrapercity that looked quite appealing considering these are not private projects for post-soviet billionaires.