Quote:
Originally Posted by Drybrain
The treatment of the Champlain Building is nice in terms of the restoration work, but it will commit the classic facadectomy crime of totally overshadowing the massing of the old building with a sheer wall directly behind it, like this, where you practically have to squint to notice the old building in the streetscape. There really isn't a contrast between old and new here--the new building looks like it's one step from bludgeoning the old ones out of existence (which it is, basically). I'm also a bit torn on cutting off the top two floors of Champlain. I know the top floors were added later, but why not just leave them?
Part of the problem is how overwrought and busy the overall design is, like four entirely different towers all stacked on top of one another, plus the historical streetscapes below. It's a bit intense, and not in a goo way. And the architectural integrity of the heritage structures (designated years ago in order to be preserved in their entirety) gets totally subsumed under the new structure(s). A setback would go a long way to addressing this problem--and hey, if the tower needs to go taller to make up for lost square footage, I've got no problem with that.
I think it's important to note that the Heritage Advisory folks aren't voting to reject the project, but to reject the degree of alteration to the heritage structures--which leaves room for the city and developer to work together to a better compromise, which hopefully will result in a better project. It really does feel like, what's the point of designating heritage structures if we're just going to reduce them all to one wall attached to a bigger wall behind them? Facadism has its place, but it's getting to be a crutch for developers who can then claim to be preserving the old buildings, rather than more imaginatively re-use them or better incorporate them into new developments. (Props to them for the full preservation of the Merrill Lynch Building, however.)
Besides implementing a step-back, retaining the old structures as actual entry-points with storefront retail would also go a long way to maintaining the streetscape and still creating an impressive new structure. (Founders Square would be an example of a good project marred by an unfortunate decision to turn the old storefronts into mere decoration.)
|
I don't know. You're making the HAC people sound more reasonable than they really are on this. There are a lot of heritage properties being altered to greater and lesser extent in this development and they reject ever.single.one.of.them. I find them hard to take seriously, if there isn't a single alteration they can approve here.
Even the Merrill Lynch proposal, which proposes to PRESERVE IT IN ITS ENTIRETY, is rejected because:
Quote:
"...the south tower would be idiosyncratic and would not respect the Bank of Commerce Building, making it appear tiny and insignificant..."
|
Well, *of course* the 1 story bank is going to appear "tiny and insignificant" as what is being built is a four-tower high rise development, FFS.
IMHO, the reason we've had such boring and unimaginative developments over the years-- the ones that got built anyways-- and nothing unique or creative or even marginally different, is because of these clowns promoting ideas like this; that anything "idiosyncratic" is bad and should not be approved.
I don't necessarily disagree with your suggestions, but I feel like we pretend there is some kind of chronic plague of facadism in this city, like we're being overrun by high rise developments, all running roughshod over heritage property and proliferating facadist strategies everywhere.
But we know this isn't true. What other examples of facadism do we have? Founders Square, ok. TD Tower? Not really. The new Waterside Centre? Erm. The Roy? Maybe, but it's not even built.
So, maybe two or three developments?
Certainly, facadism can be taken too far, but I just don't see that's happened at all in our city more generally, and not here, specifically.
I like the contrasts, and cantilever (which preserves the Merrill Lynch) and on the massing, we don't have anything to compare it with. As RyeJay pointed out, a set back requirement may make this development a no-go financially. I would rather an instance of facade preservation, than another 20 years of dead development. Things are happening now, because Heritage groups were finally reigned in by HRMxD, so I would prefer not genuflecting to the same crap in HAC that these folks used to spout in court challenging new DAs before HRMxD.
Now, I know Drybrain you're much more reasonable about heritage issues than the HAC crowd, but my views on these things are interminably colored by their past actions.