229 replies to this topic

[G-Man]

I knew it looked familiar! I mean.. err... Well anyways I give this building so far a 7 which is kind of disappointing for me to say... Hopefully as it finishes I can raise that to an 8.

[hotdoglegz]

I saw you snapping this shot, but I don't know who you are....

The Lung Kong Kung Shaw building is having some cosmetic work done to it. I think the roofline is under repair. The back of the building was finished by the developers of 601 Herald to improve the view for their new tenants.

[Sparky]

I saw you snapping this shot, but I don't know who you are....

Caught .....red handed...

[Linear Thinker]

[quote name='hotdoglegz']I saw you snapping this shot, but I don't know who you are....

I took the same picture ~8am Tuesday(?), but it was with my work blackberry, so the quality wasn't post-worthy..

I think if thin black trim were added to the vertical portions of the residential level windows it would help.

[yodsaker]

It could have been a lot worse. IMO its not as good as the bay window design but its decent overall. A few years of wind and rain and the brick will mellow out. Beige casings can be changed, I would prefer black.

[gumgum]

It blends in. Doesn't make a statement or standout. It's plain and uninteresting.
Exactly what our council thrives on.

[Nparker]

It blends in. Doesn't make a statement or standout. It's plain and uninteresting...

I don't think that is a fair statement. I think "601" got the design right for this location. I am the first one to berate Council for ther general lack of vision and excessive conservatism when it comes to approving new buildings in the downtown core, but in this case I think they got it right. Also, the finish detail has been done very well, beige window casings nothwithstanding.

[sebberry]

Bay windows or even balconies would have been nice.

[aastra]

Looks pretty good to me. The ground floor seems a bit short and dark window frames would have been better, I agree. But it still looks like a pretty good fit for the area.

In my ideal word the brickwork wouldn't have extended right down to the sidewalk. But I can live with it. Some old buildings are like that so my personal preference is my only grounds for complaint.

So are those little windows the only windows that actually open? If I was planning to live there I think I'd have a tough time with that.

[gumgum]

I tend not to be happy with "pretty good".

[aastra]

You must be unhappy a lot.

I like it because it looks less faux than this other building by the same developer:
http://maps.google.c...303.13,,0,-3.28

[jklymak]

Bay windows or even balconies would have been nice.

The balconies are not attached yet, nor are the awnings. I'd not worry too much about the window trim until the rest of the trim is installed.

[D.L.]

There won't be balconies, just metal things hanging off the side. Can't even be called planters because there is no way to access them.

[gumgum]

I find it discouraging how council seems to be shaping our perception (including mine) of what is acceptable in this city. Have we all gotten that desperate point where we should just be happy with this design; one that designed never to be noticed?
Here's my take on the situation: We get slim pickings at best from council, therefore when something somewhat passable such as this project comes to reality we are all very happy because at least it's something, and it's not offensive.

I agree that his building is OK and I would be proud as the builder. My gripe is that developers feel they must conform to the city's camouflage in order to exist.

No developer is its right mind would waste time and money in proposing something bold and distinct in this town. Pushing the envelope is not only risky here, it is darn right fatal.

[aastra]

But what sort of wow factor are you expecting a small building in the old town to deliver? You could build a brand new Adelphi Building or a brand new Temple Building (spend a fortune, in other words) and I still doubt that you'd blow very many people away. People would look at your fancy building and say it was pretty good. Next.

I think with these small infill buildings in the old town that it's less about the individual buildings and more about how all of the pieces fit into place. As long as a new little building gets the fundamental things right, and as long as it doesn't look exactly the same as every other new little building, then maybe we shouldn't get too hung up on over-analyzing it.

I love to over-analyze, don't get me wrong, but this is how I've been feeling lately about these sorts of really small projects. The one that didn't happen on Fort Street, for example. The folks in charge said it wasn't right, that it wasn't good enough. Again, I have to wonder what it is that we're really expecting from these smaller projects.

[G-Man]

^ Actually I think that the original design was better. If remember correctly. My only real gripe is with the colour of the frames the rest is pretty good.

[G-Man]

Compare for yourself:

[Nparker]

No developer is its right mind would waste time and money in proposing something bold and distinct in this town. Pushing the envelope is not only risky here, it is darn right fatal.

On that point I must agree with you gumgum. Evidence: the pyramid proposal for the Admiral's Inn site. Pam must have been birthing puppies over that one.

[aastra]

The bay windows turned out to be really faux looking on the Vancouver building so I'm actually glad that they didn't happen on Herald Street.

[Mike K.]

I'm looking forward to Kunju immediately to the east of of this project. 601 has the faux heritage thing going and Kunju will dish up some modernism.

Now if only someone were to do something with that horrid Fountain Tire location immediately across the street.