Quote:
Originally Posted by connect2source
Fascinating!! Had no idea IM Pei had anything to do with the conception of PC, even more exciting to know that today it emulates much of his influence.
I think we've all been too quick to jump on the eaton's/sears 'urinal' reference bandwagon. Growing up in Vancouver, there was little if any resistance to the EATON'S building in the days when it was immaculately maintained including the geometric roof ( gravel ) design. Initially it was a beautiful, simplistic, modernist building, as was the TD Tower.. simple and elegant.. a vertical black structure and a matching horizontal version in white. Both complimented each other perfectly.
Things began to deteriorate when EATON'S added the 'cap design' 6th and 7th floors in the late 70's, I believe... but it really went south during the 'eatons' ( 2000 ) redesign of the Robson and Granville entrances, the moving of the blade signs so that they no longer integrated with the Granville and Robson entries... and finally things bottomed out when Sears failed to maintain the building or even clean it.
I firmly believe that IM Pei's ( and Cesar Pelli's ) vision should have been fundamentally preserved by James Cheng, instead we settled for short term gratification with 'trendy condo style' cues, which IMO already look dated and short sighted. Sadly.. another missed opportunity for the most prominent structure in our city centre.
|
Agreed.
I think the point of no return was when Abbarch added the oversized banner frames to the Robson & Howe corner, as well as the shifting of the entrances to the corners. Agreed on the useless shifting of the blade signs and installation of aluminum cladding to fill the gap.
It was a real missed opportunity in that they didn't focus on the existing back-lit spandrel panels above each entrance alcove. If they had highlighted each alcove entrance with modern lighting, it would have been spectacular at night.
It's unfortunate that the Cheng design doesn't move the Robson & Howe entrance away from the corner to its original location, to make the facade of the building more relevant for display windows, etc. It's also a shame that they are eliminating the store entrance from Howe street (eliminating the need for sense of "place" created by the alcove). The Granville entrance is being shifted closer to its original location, but the alcove is being filled in (likely due to homeless / busking issues). The alcoves are really a distinctive architectural feature that, from a very far distance, denote "entrance" (unlike the proposed differentiation in cladding and minor variation in an otherwise continuous canopy). In that way, it's being more of a box.
The report says the roof canopy references the Central Library roof - but that's the wrong modernist era - 20 years before this building's time. It's a bit like adding Georgian heritage elements to an art deco building.
Of course, the change in use to the upper floors seals the current facade's fate.
But it would have been nice if the lower half of the new design had retained a 70s modernist form, with entrances at deep alcoves and colour changing LEDs lighting up bands above each alcove (like the as built), with added modern lighting in the alcove ceilings. The glazing at grade could be lightened up (clearer) and the horizontal band display windows could be heightened while retaiing the banding theme. i.e. Keep it simple. The alcoves and lighting would just scream "ENTER HERE".
The top floors could still be treated separately and still have the changes in glazing and canopy, etc. (i.e. in the report, there was a 1966 concept for a hotel on the upper floors, so a differentiation between upper floors and lower floors could still adhere to the original concept for the building)
Here's a pic with some of the original backlit spandrel lighting scheme shown circled:
Uploaded with
ImageShack.us
Prev
Linear Mode
