The Terraces on King | ? | 11 fl | Completed

[LikeHamilton]

The 11th floor is on and the building is at its top height. Now we just need the brick.

[SteelTown]

Too bad there's no windows facing at each side on the building facing both sides of King St.

[HAMRetrofit]

^ building code would restrict that. It seems that this building is built very close to the property line. This is in anticipation for a building of a similar height to be built adjacent.

[RePinion]

The Terraces are rather a disappointment in my opinion. I wish the city would take the opportunity to use public housing projects for interesting architecture, as has been done recently in Europe to considerable success.

Here is an example of a recent public housing project in Slovenia of all places:



And here is another from Amsterdam:



Not necessarily to my taste, but certainly more interesting than the banal mickey mouse architecture of the Terraces:



And imagine, all of these approved by municipal councils. Of course one relevant concern is that our shoddy local developers might not know how to build anything other than a concrete box with brick facade haha!

[HAMRetrofit]

It is difficult to get councils, like Hamilton's, to demand higher quality design when they have never seen it before in person. Realistically, they probably would not recognize it if they had. It is the designer's job to educate the public if they want to see this type construction.

[RePinion]

^ Assuredly designers should be making the case for better design. I couldn't agree more. But I certainly wouldn't put all (or even most) of the responsibility on their shoulders. Your expectations of politicians and bureaucrats are pretty low if you think they are justified in propounding mediocrity and the status quo until a designer comes to them with a better idea and sells it compellingly.

In my view, there is a very heavy responsibility on our politicians and bureaucrats to seek out what is best for the community. It's not hard to conduct research into these things, nor that expensive. The problem is complacency and indifference, which is inexcusable. It's never enough to say "Oh look, nothing interesting has been built here before, so I guess there's no need for me to look into the possibility of whether something interesting could be built here in the future. I'll just keep approving and advocating these banal outdated designs which add nothing to the cityscape and make easy work for our local developers ..."

It's certainly the responsibility of us, the citizens, to be pushing for better things in this city too.

I think in terms of advocacy, designers are at the low point of the responsibility scale. They're creative professionals, not lobbyists. And city's usually go to them, not the other way around.

[SteelTown]

Either of those designs would follow with Hamilton's downtown urban design policy. Most of the buildings along the International Village are Victorian design I believe so the guideline states any proposed building has to blend in with the surrounding area, hence why Terraces is designed the way it is.

[RePinion]

^ If so that is a ridiculous guideline.

First of all, the quality of the architecture along that strip is rather low and would benefit from a productive juxtaposition. I'm a supporter of the idea of historic districts, but only when the quality of architecture in said district is consistently high (as in the Durand).

Secondly, any policy which forces new buildings to conform to a style of architecture which went out of fashion over a century ago is hopelessly misguided.

[RePinion]

And besides, the Terraces isn't even Victorian. It's just bland rubbish.

[chris k]

I don't mind the design of this building, It could be improved by making it less boxy but i cant really complain about it. Its better then some otehrs in the area thats for sure.

[RePinion]

^ I'm just tired of being forced to settle for the same middling crap when other cities - including cities of similar size and wealth - get so much better. It's not like we're a city of 20,000. We're a metropolis of over half a million. We've lost the sense of being a real city and that's why we're willing to settle for something as tacky as this. A true shame. I hope things change ...

[DC83]

I actually really like the building, as does everyone I know. It could be better (ie: more, bigger windows on the sides), but this really fits in with the quaint little village feel that the International Village provides.

I wouldn't want to be walking down a row of victorian storefronts and then get blinded by this:



Besides, I'm pretty sure THAT style went out of fashion a long time ago... it's not Expo '67, it's the International Village!

[SteelTown]

Originally Posted by RePinion

And besides, the Terraces isn't even Victorian. It's just bland rubbish.

I'm not sure what design it is, I suck at naming building design of certain eras. RTH probably knows about this a lot more than I do. All I know is that Terraces' design matches the surrounding area which is part of Hamilton's downtown urban design policy.

[raisethehammer]

Originally Posted by DC83

I actually really like the building, as does everyone I know. It could be better (ie: more, bigger windows on the sides), but this really fits in with the quaint little village feel that the International Village provides.

I wouldn't want to be walking down a row of victorian storefronts and then get blinded by this:



Besides, I'm pretty sure THAT style went out of fashion a long time ago... it's not Expo '67, it's the International Village!

Haha...yea, that is brutal. wow.

[HAMRetrofit]

Originally Posted by RePinion

^ Assuredly designers should be making the case for better design. I couldn't agree more. But I certainly wouldn't put all (or even most) of the responsibility on their shoulders. Your expectations of politicians and bureaucrats are pretty low if you think they are justified in propounding mediocrity and the status quo until a designer comes to them with a better idea and sells it compellingly.

In my view, there is a very heavy responsibility on our politicians and bureaucrats to seek out what is best for the community. It's not hard to conduct research into these things, nor that expensive. The problem is complacency and indifference, which is inexcusable. It's never enough to say "Oh look, nothing interesting has been built here before, so I guess there's no need for me to look into the possibility of whether something interesting could be built here in the future. I'll just keep approving and advocating these banal outdated designs which add nothing to the cityscape and make easy work for our local developers ..."

It's certainly the responsibility of us, the citizens, to be pushing for better things in this city too.

I think in terms of advocacy, designers are at the low point of the responsibility scale. They're creative professionals, not lobbyists. And city's usually go to them, not the other way around.

I agree with you 100% but we are not in Europe where the general populous has an engrained sense of good design. Our politicians represent the general populous and have a similar sense of design. If you were to speak to people on the street I believe they would tend to like the Terraces (although I think they are awful). Citizens won't know how to ask for the right things if they have no understanding or taste in it. Politicians will represent this collective group's idea of 'good design'. Politicians really don't have any sense of this because they have not been professionally trained unlike designers.

Personally, I wish the designers here (Ontario + GTA + Hamilton) were more of lobbyists. We need them more then ever right now and they tend to sit in front of their computer screens waiting for their phone to ring. The biggest advocates for construction are developers who unlike designers are in it to make money. So I would actually respect designers that are lobbyists (who are citizens too). They are the ones that should be assembling the public to ask for better because politicians are not educated in what better is.

[RePinion]

Does no one bother to actually read the posts here?

It is clear from my posts that I was not advocating the particular buildings I cited. I'm not very fond of the Slovenian building. But it is more daring and more interesting than the Terraces by far (not that all new architecture needs to be daring, but it should be interesting).

And besides, Safdie's Habitat at Expo 67 was vastly ahead of its time and is generally regarded as timeless in the architectural community. Hardly "out of fashion". This Slovenian building might be inspired by it somewhat ... That's not the point.

Just because a building makes a self-conscious attempt not to clash with its surroundings doesn't mean it "matches" in a meaningful sense. My contention is that Terraces adds absolutely nothing. It is certainly possible to do very interesting, very competent contextual architecture.

Here is a perfect example, Pater Noster Square in the City of London:



The buildings on the left are old; the buildings on the right are new.

Terraces is crap. So much better could have been achieved. Thank god it wasn't that big of project.

[Berklon]

Originally Posted by RePinion

Here is an example of a recent public housing project in Slovenia of all places:

This has that outdated 60's/70's futuristic feel to it. It really is an eye-sore.

The problem with being daring and "now" is that it doesn't take long until the novelty wears out and it winds up being very outdated.
It's best to stick to a classic look that never goes out of style.

[RePinion]

I can't believe people are defending the horrid Terraces and attacking a building which won awards in Europe for both for design and sustainability. Again, I'm not a fan of that Slovenian building personally and I never suggested it as an slip-in alternative to the Terraces, but it is objectively superior to Terraces. Without a doubt. No question about it.

Part of our problem in this city - a very big part of the problem I'm beginning to realize - is the ubiquity of bad taste.

[RePinion]

60's futurism was a great era in design.

[RePinion]

If we choose only buildings of "classic design" architecture will never develop. People always reject certain aesthetics a few decades after they were popular. But then people a little further down the road see their virtues.

For the longest time the clean lines of high modernist and internationalist architecture were derided as sterile and inhuman. Now the architectural establishment has switched its tone and these buildings are recognized as classics. Brutalism, one of the most derided of all architectural styles, is now, amazingly, starting to get a lot of good press in architecture circles. Things turn around. No architectural period can ever be written off permanently as a mistake.