Canadian City Proposals

[dleung]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

You really want me to post an example of you trolling and not getting bites and then you reposting it?

Not sure what you are implying? You insulted height freaks.

I'm hardly dismissing privacy either. It just isn't that important for a true urban experience which is less about living high in the air and more about social interaction. You would have totally hated my apartments in Europe. No one cared if they were seen naked. There are things called blinds too.

I'm not dismissing the need to regulate the design of dense development so each unit gets its share of light. This is a consideration with any zoning situation. It's not needed for this development and shouldn't even be a topic for the UDP. It's simply not something I would hold up high. It's too restrictive. It creates an overly planned, bland, artificial environment for too few people to partake in. High rise suburbia. It limits developments to towers on lowrise podiums which is an offshoot of tower in a park design. You adore it. I prefer mid rise blocks at that density.

Duh, if you invent accusations out of thin air in lieu of good arguments, at least invent some examples. And of course height freaks deserve to be insulted! No need to feel personally wounded tho

Europe's beautiful cities didn't happen without restrictive urban planning, but moot point anyway, since none of these latest proposals have low-rise podiums, or any podium; this rehashing of outdated stereotypes is up there with the green-glass. The current formula obviously needs work, but I rather refine it rather than romanticize the limitations of some 18th century formula.

Vancouver can add 10 million people without expanding even if built to only 3FSR. High density can and should come at different typologies for all kinds of people. Otherwise good luck ending sprawl trying to convince people they have to see their neighbours naked.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by Beedok

It'll stick out like a sore thumb amongst the McMansions and power centres it's being built in the middle of, sure, but if you accept it's better than isn't that good thing?

No. I'd rather bulldoze the unpleasant and wait for something better. If that takes 20 years to materialize that's still preferable. I realize I'm in the minority but I've always preferred going without than buying something I didn't like looking at.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by thomax

I don't really see it as a theme park, I see it as a master planned community built in a traditional architecture style. Remove the fake windmills and watermills and that's exactly what it is. This SSP thread made me love developments like this ---> SkyscraperPage - New Buildings Built in Traditional Architecture Style

I can understand why people wouldn't like it, but I'm really looking forward to it.

Well cities should meet the needs of all tastes. They shouldn't adhere to one aesthetic or idea about what a building should look like. I'm sure there are buildings I love that others don't. I don't like 90% of the buildings I come across but what are you gonna do?

[sparky212]

[IMG][/IMG]

Another new one for London.

[FrankieFlowerpot]

Student housing tower

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by isaidso

No. I'd rather bulldoze the unpleasant and wait for something better. If that takes 20 years to materialize that's still preferable. I realize I'm in the minority but I've always preferred going without than buying something I didn't like looking at.

Well, if you're willing to stage a coup and freeze all construction in the suburbs you can try, but in the normal world we're just going to see more mcmansions. This is a chance to inspire more.

[TorontoDrew]

An updated design for 217 Adelaide Street West.

Posted by: Victoria123 on skyscraperpcity.com

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by dleung

Duh, if you invent accusations out of thin air in lieu of good arguments, at least invent some examples. And of course height freaks deserve to be insulted! No need to feel personally wounded tho

Europe's beautiful cities didn't happen without restrictive urban planning, but moot point anyway, since none of these latest proposals have low-rise podiums, or any podium; this rehashing of outdated stereotypes is up there with the green-glass. The current formula obviously needs work, but I rather refine it rather than romanticize the limitations of some 18th century formula.

Vancouver can add 10 million people without expanding even if built to only 3FSR. High density can and should come at different typologies for all kinds of people. Otherwise good luck ending sprawl trying to convince people they have to see their neighbours naked.

Of course, you take my European experience to the Nth degree as with everything else. Why do you always view everything as either black or white?

Again. IMO, Height should reflect the density. Towers throwing on podiums has little appeal to me and this sort of excessive planning exercise only encourages this form of development further. I just feel planners in Vancouver are trying even harder to satisfy all typologies with one homogeneous look.



I'm trying to save you from embarassment . You know you troll. Why are you continuing that you don't and just drop the matter.

[niwell]

Wowwww 217 Adelaide is brutal. Talk about a perfect example of why "not a box" can often a bad idea - particularly when it's Kirkor. I don't think it's something that's actually intended to be built though.

[TorontoDrew]

I agree. Much rather stay with a box. the original one looked nice.

[caltrane74]

In the Entertainment District, not offensive really.

[WhipperSnapper]

Yeah, it's brutal.

C'mon, buddy. You don't need to defend this one.

It would offensive in Panama City!! (or Bangkok)

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by niwell

Wowwww 217 Adelaide is brutal. Talk about a perfect example of why "not a box" can often a bad idea - particularly when it's Kirkor. I don't think it's something that's actually intended to be built though.

The "not a box" categorization definitely will keep me tuned in one UT for this one. I'm sure it will poll really well. Yep, I like to torture myself.

**edit. Yep, there at UT forumers absolutely in love with this.

[caltrane74]

If those guys at UT like it, then it must be good.

Those dudes are design snobs.

[BretttheRiderFan]

It has the potential to be good if it were toned down, like, umm, a lot.

[koops65]

It looks to have lost plenty of height too. The renders are rare, showing other unbuilt proposals, like M & G, and right beside 217 Adelaide is 19 Duncan. That's supposed to be about 190 metres tall, and 217 Adelaide W was about 180 metres, but this looks far more than 10 metres shorter. It looks about 8 floors shorter, or about 20 - 25 metres shorter in fact. I counted approx. 50 floors on the new render.

[Martin Mtl]

Originally Posted by TorontoDrew

An updated design for 217 Adelaide Street West.

The podium is pretty nice. It would have make a good mid-rise just by itself.

[isaidso]

^^ Agree. I'm assuming it's conceptual but they'd be more successful if they stuck with one idea, refined it, and carried it up the whole way. As is, the design looks like 3 towers in one. It can't decide what it wants to be.

Originally Posted by Beedok

Well, if you're willing to stage a coup and freeze all construction in the suburbs you can try, but in the normal world we're just going to see more mcmansions. This is a chance to inspire more.

I've accepted that there's tons of stuff that I won't like but concentrate on what I do like. I avoid suburbia or just squint if I absolutely have to pass through one. There are some suburbs I enjoy and overall I do like Hamilton a great deal.

[Gresto]

Originally Posted by Beedok

Well, if you're willing to stage a coup and freeze all construction in the suburbs you can try, but in the normal world we're just going to see more mcmansions. This is a chance to inspire more.

McMansions are an absolute plague where I live. Some streets are infested with them. Not only are they socially deplorable, but most of them are tacky and built on the ultra-cheap (to recoup the cost of the lot), and their construction results in aggravation and inconvenience for residents (noise, dirt, bulldozers all about, torn-up roads from all the utility cuts).

Here's a street not too far from where I live that is almost 100% McMansion infested: https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.7276513,-...S_1wDrj494fXqj1chE3QQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

[trueviking]

That's the worst tower design I've seen posted here in a very long time.