- Thread starter MichaelS
- Start date
Mountain Man
Senior Member
Needs more random boxes and lines!
1875
Senior Member
The Sudoku
haltcatchfire
Senior Member
This, I do not approve.
CalgaryTiger
Senior Member
I just don't get why you do the red rectangles. Just build a slightly more boring building, it is okay, nobody cares.
I think the random rectangles would look better if they were a similar color to the rest of the building, acting as more of an accent instead of a statement.
Urb
Active Member
Ooof
potatopizzafan
Active Member
haltcatchfire
Senior Member
As my mother used to say, "If you don't have anything nice to design, it's better to design nothing at all."
CBBarnett
Senior Member
Not sure what's the idea inspiring what's going on here from a design perspective, but glad everyone seems to have figured out that Shaganappi Point Station is a brilliant place for apartment buildings.
As the random rectangle critique is well covered, my critique goes to the site plan. I think we got to get a bit deeper in revisiting all of our design conventions, standards and rules for setbacks and landscaping for this kind of project. Some of this is a developer choice, others are weird interpretations of rules, others seem to be blind adherence to anti-urban building and land use policies. Everyone has a hand on the ball here.
The result is a bizarre and overly complex building shape that's pretty inefficient. There's that weird walkway that will never integrate to the surrounding development to the south. Lawns and shrubs that will be silly to maintain in perpetuity and offer minimal water retention benefits. A building shape and profile that reduces amount of units and makes apartment layouts inevitably weird.
It seems buildings like this get caught in some sort or weird hybrid world - where if you really wanted to build and urban, transit oriented apartment building it wouldn't look anything like this. It's got weird stuff as a hangover from a suburban methodology around housing setbacks and buffers.
For a metaphor - someone can be very ugly but still live a long healthy life as a productive member of society; this building is both ugly and out of shape.
As the random rectangle critique is well covered, my critique goes to the site plan. I think we got to get a bit deeper in revisiting all of our design conventions, standards and rules for setbacks and landscaping for this kind of project. Some of this is a developer choice, others are weird interpretations of rules, others seem to be blind adherence to anti-urban building and land use policies. Everyone has a hand on the ball here.
The result is a bizarre and overly complex building shape that's pretty inefficient. There's that weird walkway that will never integrate to the surrounding development to the south. Lawns and shrubs that will be silly to maintain in perpetuity and offer minimal water retention benefits. A building shape and profile that reduces amount of units and makes apartment layouts inevitably weird.
It seems buildings like this get caught in some sort or weird hybrid world - where if you really wanted to build and urban, transit oriented apartment building it wouldn't look anything like this. It's got weird stuff as a hangover from a suburban methodology around housing setbacks and buffers.
For a metaphor - someone can be very ugly but still live a long healthy life as a productive member of society; this building is both ugly and out of shape.
Albertasaurus
Senior Member
Hoping for some major changes to the design through the DP process, because I agree this is pretty bad, but happy to see more multi proposed by a station.
The thing for me, with its location being out of the core and near an LRT station. I’m not too concerned about how it looks. It’s ugly, but I don’t find it offensively ugly.