Canadian City Proposals

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by 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)

TCHC buildings are designed to a higher standard. 333 Sidney Belsey, 121 Parkway Forest and, 180 Sudbury Street represent rent geared to income properties the private sector builds.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

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

Go back and reread your posts. You trashed the whole project, not just the setback. I'm not sure where developers of affordable housing projects in Regina are supposed to find the money to enable them to meet your design standards, but if you know you really ought to fill them in.

[niwell]

Originally Posted by esquire

Go back and reread your posts. You trashed the whole project, not just the setback. I'm not sure where developers of affordable housing projects in Regina are supposed to find the money to enable them to meet your design standards, but if you know you really ought to fill them in.

He trashed the project but made it clear that it could be at least salvageable without the setback.

You have had a weird knee-jerk defence for this awful project. It could very likely be OK without busting the budget.

[isaidso]

The persistent view that good design can't be achieved on a budget grows tiring after a while. Expensive materials and good design aren't one in the same. Good design requires creative innovative use of materials, colour, texture, proportion, and technology resulting in something functional, smart, and beautiful.

I've seen a $200,000 house made of corrugated metal that's far better designed than 90% of the $500,000 houses in Markham. Having a big budget helps but it's not mandatory.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by isaidso

The persistent view that good design can't be achieved on a budget grows tiring after a while. Expensive materials and good design aren't one in the same. Good design requires creative innovative use of materials, colour, texture, proportion, and technology resulting in something functional, smart, and beautiful.

I've seen a $200,000 house made of corrugated metal that's far better designed than 90% of the $500,000 houses in Markham. Having a big budget helps but it's not mandatory.

Man, are you out of date!

[Chadillaccc]

Embassy Bosa's Currie Baracks neighbourhood. Eventually to house over 17 000 people, with a population density of over 10 000 in the western suburbs of Calgary. The development of the neighbourhood is already well underway with the first towers to be proposed quite soon from what I hear.

[dleung]

Originally Posted by TorontoDrew

Or since dleung days on over on ssc.

AndrewJM3D/whistlerinmuskoka is back! Knew there was something off bout this torontodrew guy lol

[Daveography]

I find this discussion interesting, since Edmonton was in the same boat not too long ago (and sometimes still is). "But this is Edmonton. It's cold. At least someone wants to build something here, who cares what it looks like?"

If you settle for —, you get —. If you demand better, you get better.

Honestly, I find this discussion very confusing; Regina has an excellent built form, and some great looking buildings in it's core; I can't fathom why anyone would argue that this development is in anyway "good enough." Has the civic pride of Reginians (?) taken a nosedive recently?

[esquire]

^ I was there when a lot of the most egregious stuff in Edmonton was being built. Ugly as sin architecturally, but pretty decent from an urban environment standpoint - it brought people into the area and planted the seeds for now-thriving urban neighbourhoods. Without the Peregrine Point, True North Properties and various 4-storey wooden building type projects, you probably wouldn't be seeing the kinds of things that the much more mature Edmonton downtown residential market is producing these days. Yet somehow Regina is supposed to skip over that step and start building prize winners right away?

Sorry, but there is no way that the surface parking lot that exists at the proposed site is better than the proposal in question. It's very easy to have perfectionist standards when all one does is sit there comparing proposals to what's going up in markets that are many times larger.

[Daveography]

^ Straw man: no one is arguing that the added population hasn't been a boon. What brought those people to the core, though, were the units that were built, not the designs of the buildings. There is no reason they could not have been better designed with urban integration in mind. We just blindly accepted them out of desperation and lack of civic pride, and we deeply regret that now because it cannot be undone.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Daveography

^ Straw man: no one is arguing that the added population hasn't been a boon. What brought those people to the core, though, were the units that were built, not the designs of the buildings. There is no reason they could not have been better designed with urban integration in mind. We just blindly accepted them out of desperation and lack of civic pride, and we deeply regret that now because it cannot be undone.

There you have it Regina; don't worry about the economics of it or building up a critical mass of residents to establish thriving residential communities that serve as a draw to a larger pool of potential buyers willing to pay higher price points. It's as simple as asking nicely.

[Daveography]

^ I thought we already discussed about how good design doesn't have to cost more, but you seem to like to gloss over that argument. I certainly am not going to keep arguing in circles with you, but rather will leave it with what I said earlier, which has been proven time and again by cities all over Canada and North America:

If you settle for —, you will get —. If you demand better, you will get better.

[Boris2k7]

Calgary's West End started filling out around 2003. Lots of stuff that went up there is pretty horrible looking shite. Filled up the (geographically small and isolated) community with plenty enough condo dwellers, but it's still pretty terrible twelve years later. Far from being a thriving neighbourhood, the area is little more than a vertical suburb where the street life is pretty much nil. And you were still paying over $250,000 for a 500 sqft box in an ugly tower back then.

[Daveography]

Similar to wondering about Regina's civic pride as I did earlier, the question too remains: Is Regina really hurting that badly for new development that they should even be willing to consider compromising good design just to get some new units built? I was under the impression that the economy in Saskatchewan has been doing quite well these days.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Daveography

Similar to wondering about Regina's civic pride as I did earlier, the question too remains: Is Regina really hurting that badly for new development that they should even be willing to consider compromising good design just to get some new units built? I was under the impression that the economy in Saskatchewan has been doing quite well these days.

It is. However Edmonton's economy was doing well in the early 2000s when a large amount of urban residential development came on stream. It takes a while for good economic fundamentals to trigger the chain of events that leads to excellent architecture. If it keeps going at its current pace, Regina will get there too soon enough.

[TorontoDrew]

Originally Posted by dleung

AndrewJM3D/whistlerinmuskoka is back! Knew there was something off bout this torontodrew guy lol

dleung thinks he's the most clever forumer to grace the Internet. Nothing ever changes. But you'd be wrong.

Chadillacc, that Calgary proposal looks great. Developers in this country really seem to be doing a better job these days of coming up with designs that focus on the public realm and not just living space.

[biguc]

Originally Posted by Daveography

^ I thought we already discussed about how good design doesn't have to cost more

Good design in and of itself does cost more. If it didn't nobody would pay a premium to great architects.

As far as construction costs though, there are cases where a better design may cost as little as a — design, but those cases are rare. This building will probably be made with EIFS, which looks like — no matter what you do with it. Look no further than Winnipeg's Alt Hotel, which looked ok in renderings but is one of the ugliest buildings in the city when you see it in person.

But I'm curious, what would you do to make this building look better that wouldn't cost extra?

And I should point out, a building that — honestly usually looks better than a try-hard that embarrasses itself.

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by biguc

Good design in and of itself does cost more. If it didn't nobody would pay a premium to great architects.

As far as construction costs though, there are cases where a better design may cost as little as a — design, but those cases are rare. This building will probably be made with EIFS, which looks like — no matter what you do with it. Look no further than Winnipeg's Alt Hotel, which looked ok in renderings but is one of the ugliest buildings in the city when you see it in person.

But I'm curious, what would you do to make this building look better that wouldn't cost extra?

And I should point out, a building that — honestly usually looks better than a try-hard that embarrasses itself.

Excellent design costs more, maybe good design does too, but decent design isn't hard. Just add a little bit of colour to the building or something and it would probably have a negligible impact on price. Is a red or green panel more expensive than a white one?

[Innsertnamehere]

Gone rather unnoticed in Toronto considering it is 3 floors above ground, a 6 floor flagship Audi dealer is being constructed on the north east corner of the 401 and 404/DVP. Its a bit of an odd spot as most other companies flagship dealers are their downtown locations lining the DVP, and there are actually a couple of development applications to construct some more along that stretch where the DVP parallels the Don River (one of which has some condos on top).

The south elevation is the one that will face the highway.

[esquire]

^ I saw something like that on the Southwest Freeway near downtown Houston. I have to admit, it looks pretty cool lit up at night... certainly stands out from the typical roadside clutter.



Source: dealer.com