[Downtown Victoria] Centro condos | 54.4m | 19- & 14-storeys | Canceled
#41
Posted 07 November 2007 - 05:10 PM
#42
Posted 07 November 2007 - 05:59 PM
#43
Posted 07 November 2007 - 06:20 PM
#44
Posted 07 November 2007 - 06:24 PM
This proposal in Kitchener (of all places) has a better taller tower, in my opinion. Still a bit slabbish, but it has enough angles and edges to keep me happy.
#45
Posted 08 November 2007 - 08:38 PM
#46
Posted 12 November 2007 - 10:52 AM
#47
Posted 13 November 2007 - 10:11 AM
#48
Posted 13 November 2007 - 10:28 AM
#49
Posted 13 November 2007 - 11:17 AM
#50
Posted 13 November 2007 - 11:51 AM
One tower could be light blue as seen in the renderings and the other turquoise/aqua (or pinkish, greenish, or what have you). It's the twinning of the design that I don't particularly like but if each tower was to be differentiated in some way that'd win me over.
I made this comment about Hudson's towers during one of the presentations but I don't know if different palettes for the (now) two towers is in the works.
#51
Posted 21 November 2007 - 10:27 PM
#52
Posted 21 November 2007 - 10:54 PM
I am not crazy about the design. Its unfortunate that there is no connection to the former use of the site (no not a parking lot, but the old interurban station site), and you are probably getting sick of me saying that. The buildings look like glass versions of the appartment towers in James Bay. Why cant we approve tall buildings that arent just rectangular glass boxes? Look what is happening in Vancouver, at least many of the buildings there have some interesting shapes.
Amen!
#53
Posted 21 November 2007 - 11:37 PM
Why cant we approve tall buildings that arent just rectangular glass boxes? Look what is happening in Vancouver, at least many of the buildings there have some interesting shapes.
I can understand that. That drawing though shows the one side that looks all the same. The eastern side has the setback.
#54
Posted 22 November 2007 - 12:59 AM
It doesn't really matter what the architect does with the roofline because it will be soon be covered by an antenna farm, such as Camosack Place. All spiky and stuff, like this...I would be in favour of an interesting roof element atop the tallest tower. This is a signature downtown location, and, as per a discussion we had a while back about Victoria's boring "roofline" and the need to design attractive crowns on buildings, it must reflect that in its entire design. I want to see an attractive crown or spire here!
#55
Posted 23 November 2007 - 08:44 AM
Will whatever goes up be worthy of the site - - - ?
Do you think it will happen in our lifetime - - - ?
Standing by!
#56
Posted 23 November 2007 - 09:49 AM
It doesn't really matter what the architect does with the roofline because it will be soon be covered by an antenna farm, such as Camosack Place. All spiky and stuff, like this...
I don't think it's that easy to erect antennae. They need approval from City Hall, don't they?
The Sussex has a nice spire and it's been left alone for over a decade. I think a crown or spire here would be excellent.
#57
Posted 23 November 2007 - 11:47 AM
#58
Posted 23 November 2007 - 11:50 AM
#59
Posted 23 November 2007 - 11:58 AM
I don't object to antennae, I object to the unsightly way they are installed.
#60
Posted 23 November 2007 - 12:01 PM
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