Quote:
Originally Posted by grooveduster
Hey Urbanarchit. Excellent reply....you raise some good points, but I might counter-argue that if we had ANY great new architecture in this city, height might not be an issue (I'm looking at you, Paris). In reality it's just building after building of shoddy design and uninspiring vision. I am fully aware that building a high rise is not like landing on the moon, but it's the vision and the drive for greatness, and the "not settling for second best" I was was alluding to. I find this city and it's leaders lack this. We accept poor design and the lowest common denominator. It's so frustrating.
|
Increased height doesn't make up for poor design. That's a lesson we learn from
Hong Kong. The fact is Brigil is the same sort of developer as Claridge, and whether it goes for a highrise or lowrise, they produce the same boring crap because that's what sells. Check out their website:
http://www.brigil.com/index-en.php Instead, we would be rewarding the people responsible for these terrible buildings by saying, "Yes, build as high as you want," so that they can make money as possible while clearly never investing it in the design. Instead, we'll be left with even more of an eyesore, just one that's taller. A taller building will never make up for that shortcoming.
I used to support tall buildings whenever, wherever; but my position has become more nuanced. I think that there are certain locations for heights over 15 floors, but primarily the architectural design is the greatest justification for buildings taller than that. The urban design is mandatory. I also supported 1451 Wellington because the site was contaminated and the developer would have to clean it themselves. Brigil has never once proven to be capable of doing anything that would be good to justify an increased height. The only reason they got this height in the first place is because another developer, Attica, proposed a building called
the Rhombus that was striking architecturally. This justified the height, but once awarded it they sold it to Brigil who disappointed us with this current proposal. They got away with an already tall building (the tallest within a 2km radius, and the 2nd tallest within 5km and is visible from as far away as Baseline). They wanted a taller height without any improvement to design and no reason other than thinking they could get it because other developers did. Sorry, no. This proposal did not warrant a height increase, and building taller will not make up for Ottawa's current shortcomings (which I lay squarely on the developers we would be rewarding with more height). Tall is not better, any if we even look at urban planning and the planners/ architects like Jan Gehl, we might even argue that highrises are worse for cities - which is exactly what he says after his years of studying urban patterns.
Quote:
|
As an example, the Gherkin in London is not really ground-breaking in its design, or height, but now it's a hallmark of the London skyline. Somebody took a huge risk and rubber-stamped this. Why can't we aspire to such greatness? Why do we accept those horrible Claridge buildings on Rideau St? Why not two Gherkins, or similar vegetable, instead? Think of what that would look like and how it would define our skyline. I recognize that the 121 Parkdale is not great architecture, but it's even less great architecture in its current proposed state.
|
Um... Are you kidding? The Gherkin IS ground-breaking both for its design and engineering, which has made it
the important building in London's skyline. Even
London City Hall is an important building in London for it's design despite not being tall, more so than any of the buildings at
Canary Wharf that make up one of London's skylines but aside from being quite tall are utterly unremarkable. The problem isn't that Ottawa is too worried to approve Gherkin-like buildings - the developers never propose it because those buildings are too expensive for them to build. They're not in the market of architecture in Ottawa, they're in the market of making as much money with the cheapest buildings they can. Hence why buildings are so disappointing in this city.
Quote:
|
"How a building contributes to the skyline is ultimately unimportant". As a member of this forum, surely you can't believe this!
|
I do. "Skyscraper Page Forum" is just a name. This forum is primarily dedicated to construction project in Ottawa, be them highrises, midrises, lowrises, infrastructure or urban planning.[/quote] If any building should be prominent enough to be considered in our skyline, the architecture becomes the most important thing. But it's not an important thing in the long run, as it's just a superficial thing that people will see from a distance. It's how we live in the spaces between those buildings that matter most.
Quote:
|
It's not about small dicks as you put it. A city's skyline boasts it's confidence, it's bravado, it's willingness to take risks and attract business, and arts, and welcome newcomers. Ottawa's skyline speaks nothing to this, and another 32 story nonsense "highrise" won't help matters one iota.
|
Neither would approving this project at 42 storeys either. Skylines contribute somewhat to a city's "confidence", but what people and businesses care most about are the lifestyles and opportunities in these cities, which exist independent of its skyline as is often the case in most cities around the world. Having tall buildings (even the tallest) don't make cities great. Many cities in China/ Asia have gone with this penis-measuring contest with buildings the tallest buildings and as many of them as they can. Yet, their cities remain soul-less and miserable. Turns out, highrises are meaningless for a city. It's all show - no substance.
Quote:
|
A couple of days ago I was on Preston and I saw a couple of people taking pics of Icon. Not because of its "groundbreaking design", but because it's tall and sexy and fun and it's exciting (by Ottawa standards). People love tall buildings...we all do on this forum. We were excited that 121 was going to be 55 storeys because we love tall buildings. Now that it's been truncated to 32 it's like taking the wind out of our sails.
|
Truthfully, some people on this forum liked it at 55 storeys or whatever, but not everyone, and not everyone with good reason. The increased height was just a rumour some people got excited for, and so if the wind was knocked out of anyone's sails it's frankly their own fault for getting excited for something that didn't deserve such anticipation to begin with. I understand why people would be in awe of Claridge Icon, as it's quite striking for its height and the area. But Brigil's 121 Parkdale is not one of those awe-inspiring buildings.
Great architectural design can be done at any height, but it has more of an impact in low- and mid-rise buildings. With high-rises, the design can only be appreciated at a distance, which is why renderings often show them at a distance. And even then, the design is usually just overly repetitive as you go up as there isn't much that can be done.
-----------
I would also add Ottawa's downtown skyline may seem disappointing from certain angles due to the uniformity of height, but the bigger issue is that most of the buildings on the West side are made of grey or beige concrete, that makes it more depressing. Architectural design is far more critical to have an impact on a city's skyline than the height of the buildings. It's better to have short and ugly buildings than tall and ugly just for the sake of it being tall.
Prev
Linear Mode
