Quote:
Originally Posted by cab
This is a very poor building. It has absolutely no connection to the water or the neighborhood. The Architect should be fired. Its a blocky Pearl development in what is supposed to be a sleek new neighborhood. It sucks. I think what the neighborhood is looking for are buildings that are designed with a smaller footprint that actually respects the river. It doesnt mean less people or apartments. Just a more vertical slender approach. One of those nice smaller size condo developments you see around grandville island in BC would be perfect for this location. Maximize view, use lots of glass, just make it fit in with the uniqueness of this neighborhood. This is an embarrassing project from GBD. It looks like they didn't even go to the site to see the absolutely amazing location. You only get so many waterfront locations. They shouldnt waste it with this garbage. I agree actually agree with the neighbors. The main force behind the complaint is an planner and architect. I think he sees right through this pathetic design. Are we so desperate for development that we have to support crap?
|
Wow. Words of someone who doesn't know how an architect such as GBD fits into the process of developer design. (Yes, I know the process, and no...I don't work at GBD). They designed the Ardea, the Brewery Blocks, and plenty of other handsome buildings.
It's like torching every car designer because they were asked to design a Toyota sedan, rather than a Ferrari. It is not the carte blanche imaginarium you seem to expect when it comes to building design. The architect does not just go to his or her corner and concoct a fanciful design of whatever they like. Frankly, the view corridor issue has everything to do with what the architect is asked to provide as far as floor area. The building is fat because they were told to make it fat, to help the pro forma work.
Your issue is with the investors in the commercial bank or the private equity firm, that lends the money to a developer to build. If you have any broad based 401K holdings, that likely is actually you... as fund managers all invest in REITs, etc. Lenders hold the purse strings and ultimately green-light a project that is presented to them by the developer/owner. Currently for most investors, it does not pencil to a comfortable enough margin to balance the risk, to construct high rise concrete for apartments. Plus, there is a backlog of high rise condos in SOWA, waiting to flip back from apartments.
The new IGBS systems are getting there, but somewhat limiting in design (Sky 3 at 11th and Jefferson is tentatively working), and lenders are not all on board with this method yet. More will come with this method proposed but it will be over the next 2-3 years.
Regardless, the owner/lender factor is a FAR GREATER influence on what is designed that it appears many people assume. It's no different than if you wanted to have your home own designed by an architect. You have a budget and an idea of what you want. If you intend to just sell it for a profit, or rent it out and make money on the rent, then you have a whole different set of constraints that determines what you want vs. what you need.
Prev
but Crandall and this group are right. Someone has to hold up some standards. Build this in the Pearl, come back with something appropriate for the waterfront.
Linear Mode
