[Downtown Victoria] The Cosmopolitan | Rental, commercial | 5-storeys | Canceled
#21
Posted 08 December 2010 - 11:23 PM
Also, don't know if this has been said yet but this building would be all batchelor suites (rentals) with one larger suite for a caretaker, and there would be no parking.
In this rendering the black box on top of the building is the Sovereign in behind.
_
- - -
btw, Toronto is currently building a 41 storey residential building with no parking! http://www.mycondoli...g_with_RCMI.JPG
#22
Posted 09 December 2010 - 06:59 AM
Aastra - I would bet that the Bard and Banker has at least 20foot ceilings. The Tabaconnist has decent ceiling height.
In the other direction the td bank has double height ceilings and that building is of course on the heritage registry.
I would hope that it would be more than coloured paint on the wall. The best blank wall in the city is still the Soho on Mason which has bricked in false windows. This would be acceptable in this location too.
#23
Posted 09 December 2010 - 10:14 AM
That said, I am do like the look of the building
#24
Posted 09 December 2010 - 03:05 PM
#25
Posted 09 December 2010 - 06:34 PM
So you have never been to Europe or have seen a picture of any city in Europe but know that communist era eastern block housing was ugly?
Actually I spent October/November in Europe. I can send you thousands of pics of "old" apartments that aren't bad, I stayed in one for two weeks, but it was built in the 1600s.
The majority of "modern" apartments look like the sample I posted. Butt ugly!
#26
Posted 09 December 2010 - 07:34 PM
I will just go and take three random street views and see if I can find by chance anything nicer than what you have selected and I won't choose near city centres...
Paris
Didn't even have to move the angle on this one
Berlin
Actually or this one
And just to be fair I will choose a real eastern block city... let's say...
Kiev
Alright you may have me on this last one
Anyways this was actually random, I just chose spots that were not the city centre from the 5km height on satellite and just dropped the yellow guy in.
Just to be fair to Kiev here is one I actually went and looked for:
Rundown but still nice
#27
Posted 10 December 2010 - 07:10 PM
If that was the case then they would all be beautiful, they aren't.
You can find examples of great buildings, I can find examples of ugly buildings.
Europe, like NA, has built some fine buildings, others not so fine.
#28
Posted 10 December 2010 - 09:42 PM
#29
Posted 10 December 2010 - 09:58 PM
What was meant was that Europeans do better than we do when it comes to putting maximum density into short buildings in a relatively nice package.
#30
Posted 10 December 2010 - 10:08 PM
#31
Posted 11 December 2010 - 10:42 AM
The downtown core is know for its heritage buildings-this is what sets us apart from other cities-the fact that we have been able to preserve some beauty and finery of architecture of the past is a testament to the history of Victoria and the people that planned and built it.
This building is cookie-cutter and bland. There are all sorts of these building popping up around Victoria and they are god awful ugly.
The monster of them all is Shutters *shudder*
#32
Posted 11 December 2010 - 10:49 AM
There's nothing wrong with modern design.
#33
Posted 11 December 2010 - 11:03 AM
The monster of them all is Shutters *shudder*
I am going to assume you are joking, since Shutters is pretty much the only piece of decent architecture in the abomination that is the Songhees.
#34
Posted 11 December 2010 - 11:33 AM
Here's a fairly simple new building that still looks pretty good:
http://www.ironandwhyte.ca/
I like the setback on the topmost floor, the tall windows, and the Juliet balconies. The cozy little storefronts are pretty good, too. Put a double-height ground floor on this one and I'd be happy to have it on Fort Street in downtown Victoria.
Or on Fisgard Street in Chinatown, for that matter. You could have a standard-height ground floor there.
#35
Posted 11 December 2010 - 12:54 PM
- The Federal Building was a slap in the face to Government Street and a kick in the nuts to Langley street (although the Government Street side was later improved mightily when the ground floor was remodeled into the decent storefronts that are there now)
- Harbour Square did just about everything wrong, especially those long horizontal windows on the upper floors along Government Street (although once again the subsequent changes to the ground floor along Government have helped it to fit a little better)
- The Salvation Army's building? The Regent Hotel? The Yates Street parkade? The Broughton Street parkade? Centennial Square? 'nuff said.
I suppose the Magnolia Hotel is okay. And I suppose Mermaid Wharf is also okay. At least it works on Swift Street. But it would need a lot of changes to work on Government Street or Fort or Yates.
Seriously, if the reviled Eaton's Centre's Fort Street storefronts are the best modern work that's ever been done in the old town then what the hell have we been thinking for all of these years and decades?
There just seems to be a lot of resentment towards Victoria's traditional built form, and a refusal to come to terms with the obvious attributes that make the old town what it is.
My recipe for the old town -- keep it simple:
- tall windows and/or tall arched windows
- tall ground floors
- setbacks should be 100% consistent with adjacent buildings (no jarring setbacks!)
- narrow, divided storefronts (or at least the suggestion of narrow, divided storefronts, if a single tenant happens to occupy the entire space)
- traditional cladding (brick & painted brick in most instances, with snatches of terra cotta, limestone, and marble where it's feasible to use more expensive stuff)
- colour. Is there a reason why a brand new building's bricks can't be painted in Victoria?
- no cheap faux-historic frills (no silly hats on the roof, if you get my meaning)
- Juliet balconies are perfectly fine. Extended balconies are also okay but they should be few and far between and they should be enclosed by balustrades or iron railings, but not by glass
But just one time I'd like to see somebody propose something in the old town that includes most (if not all) of those ingredients.
That "Iron & Whyte" building in Vancouver hits pretty much all of my points above, which is probably why I like it.
#36
Posted 11 December 2010 - 12:57 PM
#37
Posted 11 December 2010 - 12:58 PM
Reminds me somewhat of the beaches of Honululu. A great way to house lots of people...but not so nice. Is this the future of the Victoria skyline too?
I can only imagine that it looks like the American Psycho movie inside..lol!
[Images removed: please credit all images posted to the forum to comply with copyright regulations]
#38
Posted 11 December 2010 - 01:18 PM
I'd say there's more Hawaii or Miami in these old buildings:
picture by The Great Scaper at www.flickr.com
http://www.flickr.co...N00/2538560576/
...than there is in this new one:
picture by The Great Scaper at www.flickr.com
http://www.flickr.co...N00/2538561868/
Anyway, we're going really off track here.
#39
Posted 11 December 2010 - 01:30 PM
My recipe for the old town -- keep it simple:
- tall windows and/or tall arched windows
- tall ground floors
- setbacks should be 100% consistent with adjacent buildings (no jarring setbacks!)
- narrow, divided storefronts (or at least the suggestion of narrow, divided storefronts, if a single tenant happens to occupy the entire space)
- traditional cladding (brick & painted brick in most instances, with snatches of terra cotta, limestone, and marble where it's feasible to use more expensive stuff)
- colour. Is there a reason why a brand new building's bricks can't be painted in Victoria?
- no cheap faux-historic frills (no silly hats on the roof, if you get my meaning)
- Juliet balconies are perfectly fine. Extended balconies are also okay but they should be few and far between and they should be enclosed by balustrades or iron railings, but not by glass
I pretty much agree with your criteria here aastra, however why restrict to cladding listed? I see not reason why more modern exterior materials couldn't be used. I think we should allow for what materials are available today. Doesn't disallowing for modern looking materials only contribute to the faux aspect many of us hate so much?
I guess I'm asking why buildings must blend into the background in Old Town? Why can't we use aluminum cladding, or bright colours, or glass walls?
I want any building to look proud.
Too often people think design amongst a historic setting needs to "respect" the era in which their neighbours were built. But that "respect" passed on to these historic buildings only lessens the potential of current proposals.
#40
Posted 11 December 2010 - 01:40 PM
Correction: the 601 Herald project hits many of those points and thus gets high marks from me for being a great project for the old town area. Put something like this on the corner of Government and Fort and nobody should complain.
I like this building, I don't love it. It misses the mark on the texture of the brickwork, imo. I think it should be more elaborate, more visually interesting.
This is the problem with modern buildings that are made to fit within an historic setting. They can't do the elaborate, intricate brickwork of the past - I'm guessing because of budget/ time constraints. So we end up with a plain Jane version of yesteryear.
This is why I think going the opposite route makes more sense. We can make modern looking building look good in the now because the design itself lends itself to fitting within budget and time. You can make a fantastic/ striking looking modern structure with more ease that you can a striking looking historically themed building built right now.
Use the page links at the lower-left to go to the next page to read additional posts.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users