Canadian City Proposals

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by esquire

Sorry for not buying into the fantasyland groupthink, but these projects have to exist in the real world. Outside of Skyscraperpage, compromise is occasionally necessary.

I happen to exist in the real world. The rationale behind any sort of in place zoning that prevents them from building a better street wall is decades outdated. There should be nothing in the developer's way.

I don't think you fully get it. I'll make it as clear as possible. The project fails miserably in both aesthetic value and build form. You would be hard pressed to find any urban infill that fails so bad in both accounts just about anywhere. To continue to defend this is absolutely entertaining to say the least.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

I happen to exist in the real world. The rationale behind any sort of in place zoning that prevents them from building a better street wall is decades outdated. There should be nothing in the developer's way.

I don't think you fully get it. I'll make it as clear as possible. The project fails miserably in both aesthetic value and build form. You would be hard pressed to find any urban infill that fails so bad in both accounts just about anywhere. To continue to defend this is absolutely entertaining to say the least.

All I can say is read Biguc's post since you clearly missed it.

[biguc]

Lots of talk coming out of asses here.

"There are plenty of buildings in Canada (not just Toronto) that look far better than that price of — that are going up for the same price."

Such as?

"The idea that it costs a fortune to build good architecture is completely fallacious. All it needs, really, is good taste and the will to build quality..."


Prices are dictated by supply and demand, not taste and will. Tasteful people are no better at willing expensive things to be cheap than any crass philistine.

Anyway, this is actually a good response:

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

I happen to exist in the real world. The rationale behind any sort of in place zoning that prevents them from building a better street wall is decades outdated. There should be nothing in the developer's way.

I don't think you fully get it. I'll make it as clear as possible. The project fails miserably in both aesthetic value and build form. You would be hard pressed to find any urban infill that fails so bad in both accounts just about anywhere. To continue to defend this is absolutely entertaining to say the least.

Nobody is saying this building looks good. It absolutely —. It's ugly--which we're arguing is defensible based on market conditions--and its build form is —. I wish they'd just move the three or four floor pedestal to the street instead of having that stupid one floor sub-pedestal. And that much they absolutely can do without breaking the bank.

But as far as making the thing generally look better? Given the market and harsh climate in Regina, these things will be ugly or not exist. Given that they're filler buildings that'll add some density to Regina's urban space, constructing them will employ people, and they'll provide homes for people, I'd rather they exist.

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by biguc

Lots of talk coming out of asses here.

"There are plenty of buildings in Canada (not just Toronto) that look far better than that price of — that are going up for the same price."

Such as?

"The idea that it costs a fortune to build good architecture is completely fallacious. All it needs, really, is good taste and the will to build quality..."


Prices are dictated by supply and demand, not taste and will. Tasteful people are no better at willing expensive things to be cheap than any crass philistine.

Anyway, this is actually a good response:




Nobody is saying this building looks good. It absolutely —. It's ugly--which we're arguing is defensible based on market conditions--and its build form is —. I wish they'd just move the three or four floor pedestal to the street instead of having that stupid one floor sub-pedestal. And that much they absolutely can do without breaking the bank.

But as far as making the thing generally look better? Given the market and harsh climate in Regina, these things will be ugly or not exist. Given that they're filler buildings that'll add some density to Regina's urban space, constructing them will employ people, and they'll provide homes for people, I'd rather they exist.

Despite being utterly boring the Vue condos in Thunder Bay have a better design. Many of Regina or Saskatoon's existing buildings are better.

Looking at the Regina thread it might be affordable housing, in which case Hamilton has had a number of better looking affordable housing projects.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by biguc

I wish they'd just move the three or four floor pedestal to the street instead of having that stupid one floor sub-pedestal. And that much they absolutely can do without breaking the bank.

Agreed. That is basically the realistic compromise that the developer could possibly make without throwing his financial model out of whack.

But as far as making the thing generally look better? Given the market and harsh climate in Regina, these things will be ugly or not exist. Given that they're filler buildings that'll add some density to Regina's urban space, constructing them will employ people, and they'll provide homes for people, I'd rather they exist.

Nailed it.

[Innsertnamehere]

a quick and far from scientific look at the Regina housing market and condos seem to sell in the $400 per square foot range, which is indeed less than downtown Toronto which sells in the $600 per square foot range, and certainly less than yorkville which sells in the $800-$1000 level.

However, suburban Toronto regularly sells at $400 per square foot.

Here is some stuff in suburban Toronto that sells at that level:












Etc., Etc., Etc.,

None of us here are looking for an architectural miracle, just not something that looks like a 15 floor industrial park building.

[dleung]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

Your being ridiculously defensive. Is this your handy work?

It's got to be. I haven't seen defensiveness like this since the WhistlerinMuskoka days. There are below-average buildings from 30-40 years ago in developing countries that look better.

[craner]

Vancouver forum:
Originally Posted by Prometheus
Here are some renders of the "origami" tower--possibly to be called Waterfront Tower--proposed for 555 West Cordova Street. However, these are apparently older renders created before the architects understood that their design offended city hall's viewcones. Thus, the actual proposal will be even shorter than shown.

Good looking tower, I like it except for it's stumpiness.
What possible viewcone could it be blocking at that height.?

As for the Regina proposal, it is inexcusably bad (IMO).

[thefourthtower]

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=210671&page=100

The affordable housing project is not that bad , it is desperately needed , that land has been sitting empty for many years and hopfuly it will spur new development , one must remember Regina does not have developers like other cities do who have the monies to build

[biguc]

Originally Posted by Beedok

Looking at the Regina thread it might be affordable housing

That does appear to be the case. Given that this probably has government money involved, we can all shut up and go home unless we're Saskatchewan voters/tax payers worried about how pretty our Pruitt-Igoes look.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by craner

As for the Regina proposal, it is inexcusably bad (IMO).

Yeah, I disagree that it's impossible for attractive buildings to be built by the private sector in Regina. Governments meanwhile definitely have the means to build nice stuff.

In many cities I think the issue is that good design is valuable to the public but not worth as much to developers and buyers. It would be possible for developers to spend a bit more money on good design while still making a profit but there is not enough of an incentive for them to do so.

Municipal governments can step in to correct this with design rules and review boards. Presumably Regina doesn't have these yet. If they were put in place in a sensible way I doubt that all of the developers would walk away from the city; they'd just spend their extra 3% or whatever and the new buildings would be much nicer.

Originally Posted by biguc

That does appear to be the case. Given that this probably has government money involved, we can all shut up and go home unless we're Saskatchewan voters/tax payers worried about how pretty our Pruitt-Igoes look.

You are talking about a complex that was so poorly designed that it ended up being torn down shortly after it was built. If anything I think past experience demonstrates that Saskatchewan voters and tax payers should be really concerned about the design of anything resembling Pruitt-Igoe.

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by thefourthtower

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=210671&page=100

The affordable housing project is not that bad , it is desperately needed , that land has been sitting empty for many years and hopfuly it will spur new development , one must remember Regina does not have developers like other cities do who have the monies to build

I don't argue that affordable housing projects aren't a priority, just that they could make it a bit nicer. There's a number in Hamilton that are reasonably nice. Just a different colour palette would remove a lot of the 'hospital feel'.

[Martin Mtl]

Originally Posted by biguc

But as far as making the thing generally look better? Given the market and harsh climate in Regina, these things will be ugly or not exist. Given that they're filler buildings that'll add some density to Regina's urban space, constructing them will employ people, and they'll provide homes for people, I'd rather they exist.

You settle for less, you get less. Have it your way.

[TorontoDrew]

Originally Posted by dleung

It's got to be. I haven't seen defensiveness like this since the WhistlerinMuskoka days. There are below-average buildings from 30-40 years ago in developing countries that look better.

Or since dleung days on over on ssc.

[TorontoDrew]

Originally Posted by esquire

If you can't handle the sight of a few ugly buildings, then I think you may be living in the wrong town.

No offense but you can't compare a new design to poor urban planning from 50 years ago. If we were still building stuff like that then ya I might be in the wrong town.

[giallo]

Interesting back and forth.

I get the need for low-income housing, and offering it at price that won't cost the taxpayer a lot. The result usually isn't groundbreaking architecture.

But.....

This particular development doesn't just look bad, it looks seriously awful, especially in 2015. There has got to be a better way to address the need for low-income housing without having to resort to this dreck.

[TorontoDrew]

Here is a low income project done well. Both buildings flanking the street are Toronto housing.

http:// http://s1277.photobucket.com/user/andrewjm3d/media-full//RiverCity_05_zps0d207630.jpg.html

[niwell]

Most of Toronto Community Housing Corporation's recent stuff is of fairly high quality. I think they prefer to spend the money on new quality housing that (hopefully) won't be a money-pit a few decades from now. As a decent amount of their older stock has ended up being.

[FrankieFlowerpot]

There's some examples of pretty nice community housing in Toronto

In the Railway lands / Cityplace

https://www.flickr.com/photos/drum118/8385367471/



60 Richmond East



Regent Park (Planned)



Regent Park (completed)

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by esquire

Agreed. That is basically the realistic compromise that the developer could possibly make without throwing his financial model out of whack.

Wow. You really are something else. That exactly what I have said all along but, instead, I get this — over economics.