Canadian City Proposals

[SkahHigh]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I'm not sure if you're just ignorant or trying to be intentionally inflamatory but that POS would be every bit as bad in Halifax if not worse. And to lump us in with Hamilton is completely uncalled for.

I don't think that's what he meant. It's just that in smaller cities, proposals tend to have less efforts spent in design. He wasn't implying that everything in Halifax or Hamilton is ugly... The Holiday Inn proposal is deemed "acceptable" in Montreal but it's far from ugly and boring, so maybe it would stand out more in a smaller city. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[Nouvellecosse]

I just got the impression that he was implying the standards in Halifax were lower than in Montreal or at least that lower standards should be considered more acceptable in Halifax, which would obviously be extremely arrogant and insulting.

[SkahHigh]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I just got the impression that he was implying the standards in Halifax were lower than in Montreal or at least that lower standards should be considered more acceptable in Halifax, which would obviously be extremely arrogant and insulting.

That would be insulting, but I think he was implying it would be more accepted in smaller cities because the proposals are usually of a lesser quality there. That's just the way it is, the bigger the city, the more innovative the designs.

[Nouvellecosse]

That's often the case with many smaller cities vs many larger cities, but not all. So if that was his intention it would have been better to simply say "if it had been in many smaller cities" or use other examples that actually followed such a pattern.

[Martin Mtl]

I don't think you can judge a city's architectural contribution by its Holiday Inn.

I mean, this Holiday Inn just opened in New York. New York !! It makes the future Holiday Inn in Montreal looks like a masterpiece.

[ScreamingViking]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I just got the impression that he was implying the standards in Halifax were lower than in Montreal or at least that lower standards should be considered more acceptable in Halifax, which would obviously be extremely arrogant and insulting.

One would hope that was not the implication.

Just out of curiosity, what was the implication regarding the bolded part of this quote?

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I'm not sure if you're just ignorant or trying to be intentionally inflamatory but that POS would be every bit as bad in Halifax if not worse. And to lump us in with Hamilton is completely uncalled for.

[canuckdave]

Wow, very impressive. Now developers in Toronto, shape up and be inspired. No more glass curtain wall boxes, ie Bay Adelaide centre. I agree with saidso.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by ScreamingViking

Just out of curiosity, what was the implication regarding the bolded part of this quote?

I'd have thought it obvious, but Hamilton has a lot of trouble with it's national image and is often used as an example of a city that is run down or struggling in a similar way people in the US may reference certain rust belt cities. Grouping another city with one that bears such stigma appears to imply a transference of that stigma to encompass both. Especially since they have little else in common that the coupling could be referencing being different sizes, ages, in different regions, etc.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by SkahHigh

That's just the way it is, the bigger the city, the more innovative the designs.

This is often implied on SSP, but is it true? If it were true I'd expect to be able to go to Phoenix (or, say, Lagos -- does it apply to other continents?) and find architectural designs on par with or slightly better than those of Montreal, as an example. Or, to put it in more upsetting terms, Montreal obviously would not be able to compete with Toronto because Toronto now has a larger population.

I think there are a lot of factors other than population that affect the quality of new designs. Population plays into the economics of new construction but there are a lot of other economic influences, and planning rules and local culture play a big part too. Often I think when people fall back on generalizations about population they do so because they don't really have a clear understanding of what's happening in the cities they are talking about.

[ScreamingViking]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I'd have thought it obvious, but Hamilton has a lot of trouble with it's national image and is often used as an example of a city that is run down or struggling in a similar way people in the US may reference certain rust belt cities. Grouping another city with one that bears such stigma appears to imply a transference of that stigma to encompass both. Especially since they have little else in common that the coupling could be referencing being different sizes, ages, in different regions, etc.

Fair enough. I guess I'd have thought it obvious that the stigma is overblown, at least among posters on this site who seem like they are generally more educated about cities across the country (from all the great discussion and sharing of pictures and other information)

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I'm not sure if you're just ignorant or trying to be intentionally inflamatory but that POS would be every bit as bad in Halifax if not worse. And to lump us in with Hamilton is completely uncalled for.

I'm a callin' you out fur a duel!


()

[Chadillaccc]

Annnnd another major residential proposal for Calgary's Beltline. Momentum....


Genco 1108 - 92 meters - 27 floors

Content removed

[Chadillaccc]

Those look awesome! Hamilton is on a roll! Probably has more officially proposed than Winnipeg and Quebec City combined now! At least in the high rise department I think.


Edit: Not quite, but relatively close. Hamilton with 13 projects uc/proposed and Winnipeg and QC with a combined 19 projects.

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I just got the impression that he was implying the standards in Halifax were lower than in Montreal or at least that lower standards should be considered more acceptable in Halifax, which would obviously be extremely arrogant and insulting.

Well, until very recently, architectural standards in Halifax were much lower than in Montreal. As much as I'd like to think that Halifax has "caught up" with Montreal (as some non-Haligonians have remarked lately), I have no reason to assume that Montreal's standards haven't also increased (this proposal probably not being representative of the city's more exciting proposals).

The fact is, if this were proposed in Halifax, a lot of people WOULD be excited (because it's tall) and I honestly don't think it looks bad (that said, there are a number of reasons why it would not likely be approved here, aesthetics notwithstanding). Not exactly a landmark, but not an eyesore either. Acceptable is probably the best description so far. This doesn't look too far off from the Maple (which everyone seems to be excited about) or some of the King's Wharf stuff, and I like it a lot better than the Homewood/Hampton development on Brunswick Street (which was the Halifax version of "acceptable" and was completed this year).

I'm also not insulted by being compared to Hamilton, a city about twice the size of Halifax, full of great architecture, and known for a vibrant arts scene. Why get all inflamed about someone supposedly implying that Halifax is somehow inferior to Tor/Mtl and then in the next breath imply that Hamilton is somehow inferior to Halifax? Hamilton seems like a fantastic city with a lot to offer.

The fact is that that Halifax probably has as much of a reputation as a small, foot-dragging, not-particularly-cosmipolitan city, detached from mainstream Canadian culture as Hamilton does as some kind of industrial slum. Neither are really true anymore. Both cities seem to be on the upswing and are raising the bar on their architecture.

I think the presence/absence of architecture schools and the approach of these schools is a bigger deciding factor in architectural quality/cutting-edgedness than the size of the city. It just happens that most of the architecture schools are in the largest cities. Despite not being in the top 10 for population, Halifax has an architecture school (and I would guess a disproportionate number of architectural firms).

[Hali87]

To highlight a point,

I just got the impression that he was implying the standards in Halifax Hamilton were lower than in Montreal Halifax or at least that lower standards should be considered more acceptable in Halifax Hamilton, which would obviously be extremely arrogant and insulting.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

Annnnd another major residential proposal for Calgary's Beltline. Momentum....


Genco 1108 - 92 meters - 27 floors

Bad render, or just kinda ugly?

[Chadillaccc]

It's a clearly warped, monochromatic render.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Hali87

Well, until very recently, architectural standards in Halifax were much lower than in Montreal. As much as I'd like to think that Halifax has "caught up" with Montreal (as some non-Haligonians have remarked lately), I have no reason to assume that Montreal's standards haven't also increased (this proposal probably not being representative of the city's more exciting proposals).

The fact is, if this were proposed in Halifax, a lot of people WOULD be excited (because it's tall) and I honestly don't think it looks bad (that said, there are a number of reasons why it would not likely be approved here, aesthetics notwithstanding). Not exactly a landmark, but not an eyesore either. Acceptable is probably the best description so far. This doesn't look too far off from the Maple (which everyone seems to be excited about) or some of the King's Wharf stuff, and I like it a lot better than the Homewood/Hampton development on Brunswick Street (which was the Halifax version of "acceptable" and was completed this year).

I'm also not insulted by being compared to Hamilton, a city about twice the size of Halifax, full of great architecture, and known for a vibrant arts scene. Why get all inflamed about someone supposedly implying that Halifax is somehow inferior to Tor/Mtl and then in the next breath imply that Hamilton is somehow inferior to Halifax? Hamilton seems like a fantastic city with a lot to offer.

The fact is that that Halifax probably has as much of a reputation as a small, foot-dragging, not-particularly-cosmipolitan city, detached from mainstream Canadian culture as Hamilton does as some kind of industrial slum. Neither are really true anymore. Both cities seem to be on the upswing and are raising the bar on their architecture.

I think the presence/absence of architecture schools and the approach of these schools is a bigger deciding factor in architectural quality/cutting-edgedness than the size of the city. It just happens that most of the architecture schools are in the largest cities. Despite not being in the top 10 for population, Halifax has an architecture school (and I would guess a disproportionate number of architectural firms).

I think I explained the reference to Hamilton earlier and don't intend to rehash any further. In fact I'm not sure there's much point in rehashing any of it as it was a passing objection that's been thoroughly discussed and worn out at this point. I'm glad to hear you weren't offended by any of it, but I was. And I'm glad you'd be happy to have such a building in Halifax but I wouldn't. If you'd like to embark on further analysis feel free to PM me so we don't further disrupt the thread.

Content removed