Edmonton Construction 9 (2008-08) - Page 222

ue · #**4421** Posted **Apr 14, 2009, 4:40 PM**

240, they do look kinda similar but not overly. Either way I feel sorry for Hamilton for getting that. But I feel even more sad for Edmonton getting Venetian, Oliver Square, and other GMH stuff.

240glt · #**4422** Posted **Apr 14, 2009, 4:47 PM**

THe big difference in that the Grand is slathered in pastel stucco whereas the Mayfair will have a masonary finish. I've said from the start that the success of the Mayfair will depend almost entirely on the finishing.

Kevin_foster · #**4423** Posted **Apr 14, 2009, 5:35 PM**

The colors might be the same? But other than that... I don't think there are any other similarities

Daveography · #**4424** Posted **Apr 14, 2009, 5:47 PM**

Agreed, and I have every faith in both Atb and Procura that Mayfair will use quality materials and will be a great product.

Anyone remember a little development called Cecil Place? You might have heard of it...corner of 104 St. and Jasper? Home to Sobey's Urban Fresh? Guess who the architect was?

chevvac · #**4425** Posted **Apr 14, 2009, 5:56 PM**

I'm just not too sure why we are replicating an old Chicago look in Edmonton in 2009. We tear down our historical buildings and put up fake ones. Cascadia and Azure look good. Mayfair does not. Besides the historicist applied detailing the massing is brutal.

rapid_business · #**4426** Posted **Apr 14, 2009, 5:59 PM**

Speaking of Mayfair, just looking at the corner CRU that is 45deg to the intersection. Is that those 'windpipes art project' above the front door? It sure looks like it.

I mean, is that the history we preserve in this city?

ue · #**4427** Posted **Apr 14, 2009, 6:03 PM**

While I am confident that ATB will use quality materials on the Mayfair as they have done in the past, I don't think building a historic looking building in a modern time really fits, especially to that scale. I like historic styles, the Chicago style is beautiful, but it just isn't modern. We don't use those styles anymore. Glass, steel, even stucco and what not. That's just my opinion.

Hardhatdan · #**4428** Posted **Apr 14, 2009, 6:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by edmontonenthusiast

While I am confident that ATB will use quality materials on the Mayfair as they have done in the past, I don't think building a historic looking building in a modern time really fits, especially to that scale. I like historic styles, the Chicago style is beautiful, but it just isn't modern. We don't use those styles anymore. Glass, steel, even stucco and what not. That's just my opinion.

So a beloved style that is proven to work and stand the test of time and positively contribute to urban area should be retired never to be used again, even if it is held true to the same finish level and materials used on the historic versions?

I don't get it.

ue · #**4429** Posted **Apr 14, 2009, 6:10 PM**

^It's the architecture style. We usually don't go and wear clothing from 1920 unless we're in a play or it became stylish again. This architecture while stylish, isn't used anymore for new buildings and hasn't really been since the 1950s.

240glt · #**4430** Posted **Apr 14, 2009, 6:21 PM**

There's a difference between a trend and a classic style. I'm sure, if you do some hunting around you'll find other good examples of classic styles being used on new buildings.

A trend would be, for instance, the awful roof treatments that we've seen on many projects in other cities (and even a few here) as of late... fins, crowns, crap like that is going to look like shit when the building has aged a couple of decades, even if the building is clad in floor to ceiling glass.

Even the use of curtain wall could be considered a trend. I'm not entirely sure that we'll be using that type of exterior treatment for residential applications in 30 years.

As far as I am concerned, the style of the Mayfair reflects a very successful, classic style of building, that will (or at least should be) clad in good quality finishings. It;s fine to say you don't like that particular style, but there is nothing inferior about it.

deedub35 · #**4431** Posted **Apr 14, 2009, 6:23 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 240glt

THe big difference in that the Grand is slathered in pastel stucco whereas the Mayfair will have a masonary finish. I've said from the start that the success of the Mayfair will depend almost entirely on the finishing.

First of all I made an observation that the two renderings look similar. And in my opinion they do.

Second of all the Grand isn't even built yet! From the website ...

Architecturally, the new building will be a truly distinctive landmark.

Although the exterior façade will be fundamentally new construction, the building includes many elements of the original 19th century structure that once stood on the site.

The original brick walls and window arches will be integrated into the décor.

http://www.hamiltongrand.ca

Kevin_foster · #**4432** Posted **Apr 14, 2009, 6:28 PM**

Interesting discussion... I'm a fan of borrowing from past era's if they work; and applying a modern element to them to reflect the time it was built. Someone here mentioned the new Sobeys.. perfect example.

240glt · #**4433** Posted **Apr 14, 2009, 6:29 PM**

It looks marginally better in the website but still not good.

I'll still take the Mayfair over that, easily.

rapid_business · #**4434** Posted **Apr 14, 2009, 6:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin_foster

Interesting discussion... I'm a fan of borrowing from past era's if they work; and applying a modern element to them to reflect the time it was built. Someone here mentioned the new Sobeys.. perfect example.

Here is a thread that touches on that idea. Although there are only a couple examples, it gives you an idea.

TimB09 · #**4435** Posted **Apr 14, 2009, 6:52 PM**

So any word on when Mayfair will get started? I know there was talk something was to happen in April. Has the demolition of the current building been pushed back?

Makes me giddy to see some of these new renderings popping up and doing wonders for that area of downtown.

Kevin_foster · #**4436** Posted **Apr 14, 2009, 6:56 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by onishenko

Here is a thread that touches on that idea. Although there are only a couple examples, it gives you an idea.

Interesting.

And one more point, roof mouldings have become overused, to the extremest extreme. I swear some developers think they should mould everything.

Coldrsx · #**4437** Posted **Apr 14, 2009, 7:00 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hardhatdan

It's garbage.
I wouldn't doubt that rendering is 15-20 years old...it sure looks it.

posted many times before... quite old.

chevvac · #**4438** Posted **Apr 14, 2009, 7:07 PM**

my biggest problem with historicism is the lack of innovation. But sure you can sensitively nod to the past without being a slave to it. Cecil Place Sobey's is a excellent example (minus a few crazy details). But in the case of the Mayfair its just ornament applied to a box. The volume itself isn't interesting and there is no articulation to break the mass up to make it relate/be more sensitive to the street rather than just tower over it. Which is why I think Cascadia is far more successful from the model shown at least.

Coldrsx · #**4439** Posted **Apr 14, 2009, 7:07 PM**

so i go to NYC for 5 days and i come back to all of this... maybe i should leave permanently so we get better projects here.

Garneau - John Day/ATB will do a great job on that i am sure, love the look.

Azure - drools

Cascadia - not bad but not great

0773|=\ · #**4440** Posted **Apr 14, 2009, 7:14 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin_foster

Interesting discussion... I'm a fan of borrowing from past era's if they work; and applying a modern element to them to reflect the time it was built. Someone here mentioned the new Sobeys.. perfect example.

I've thought the same thing this past year when wandering around Winnipeg's Exchange District, it is just packed with amazing historic buildings. I wonder to myself if some of these buildings could be replicated in today's construction, or if too many of the construction methods employed at that time are now also "antique". So many little things would have to be done to give those buildings a certain look/feel. Many of them used to be warehouses, so the old loading docks, though modified, are still evident on a lot of the buildings. Same goes for the old fire-escapes attached onto the outside of the buildings. If done today, it would just be for appearance, and not actually for functionality.

I do wish Winnipeg could share some of its historic buildings with Edmonton