What's the consensus?

  • Great

    Votes: 9 16.7%

  • Good

    Votes: 21 38.9%

  • Okay

    Votes: 14 25.9%

  • Not Great

    Votes: 3 5.6%

  • Terrible

    Votes: 7 13.0%
  • Total voters
    54
Chowda7 said:
I appreciate that RNDSQR is trying to do things differently. Obviously its not gonna be a home run every time but I've really liked all their other buildings. If this is the outcome of a failed experiment I'm fine with that. At least they're not using the same boring design over and over again like most developers seem to do in Calgary.
Click to expand...
I agree, I appreciate that their buildings aren't cookie-cutter, which can't be easy when trying to estimate costs/budget for their projects. I'm glad that all of their buildings along this block will be different.
 
Hey all, Lauren here (RNDSQR).

Thought I would explain "the beam" in the bedroom... it's one bedroom in the entire project, and the bedroom is quite large so the beam makes a nice nook for a chair. For me, it would be really awesome from an interior styling perspective. We converted a few 2nd floor commercial spaces to residential units, and therefore some beams were unavoidable. Thought I'd share because it seems to be a recurring comment.

Let me know if you have any questions about our projects moving forward, happy to answer them for you!
 
Disraeli said:
Reminds me of Venice Beach for some reason
Click to expand...
I agree. If this was in LA, I don't think anyone would bat an eye. I think it's a win for the neighbourhood. The units do look like they'll be very dark, though. I'll also have to get a closer look at the "Spanish Steps". They look pretty shadowy and unwelcoming from these pictures.
 
I don't love the finished product so far. Fingers crossed everything comes together. And despite not loving this project I greatly appreciate a developer taking some risks in this city. Good on RNDSQR for going for it. I moved here when the peace bridge was embrioled in controversy with everyone hating on it. Now it has to be one of the most photographed things in the city, not to mention being an excellent piece of infrastructure. Sometimes risk takers win and sometimes they don't but I'm sure glad that someone is doing it.
 
Silence&Motion said:
I agree. If this was in LA, I don't think anyone would bat an eye. I think it's a win for the neighbourhood. The units do look like they'll be very dark, though. I'll also have to get a closer look at the "Spanish Steps". They look pretty shadowy and unwelcoming from these pictures.
Click to expand...
I agree - it's hard for this not to be a win for the community as the key fundamentals remain solid - well thought-out density, good consideration of the ground floor and retail areas, a pedestrian-first building. I am less picky about claddings and materials as lots of that is subjective (but I do like the metal). It's a bonus that this one is trying something new with the courtyard, weird retail configuration etc.

Compare a not dissimilar level of density applied more poorly (and with zero fanfare) and I think CY33 is getting a bit unfair critique that focuses too much on the look than the actual results. Looks rarely will make or break whether a building is a good project for a community, but failing the fundamentals will always be bad or at best, a missed opportunity.

Here's a fewnot particularly good looking buildings that couldn't even get the fundamentals right for what low-midrise density can do to improve an area's vibrancy:

33rd Ave SW - adjacent to the LRT but with a weird parking pad thing, a wild setback and no sidewalk improvements:

1623182772624.png


Saddletowne - adjacent to the LRT with zero interaction and a ugly fence:
1623185983893.png



Memorial Drive in Parkdale - reasonable looking, but insanely large setback and minimal street interaction:
1623186259934.png


Varsity condos across from U of C - great location, but chose to go with an auto-centric suburban design facing north for no reason and fence separating the people from the whole reason they would want to live here (access to U of C).

1623186381468.png


I guess my point is that any of these other examples could have way better materials and stellar designs but would still be failures without the fundamentals of good ground orientation and pedestrian-centric designs. For CY33 it seems to get all the basics right so regardless of subjective tastes, I don't see how it can be detrimental to the community. Will be interesting to make a final call once we see how the courtyard and ground level treatment are done.
 
Well, i'm onboard too, it looks good, they pulled it off. Good job on the execution RNDSQR, was a risky design but it kicks ass, especially considering the conversion to rental. It's a props to the team, but especially Brett Garneau I presume. It's not easy to keep a condo to rental conversion that requires a fair bit of VEing in line with the original vision and intention.

Looks like it came out better than expected Skyrise!
 
Last edited:
Calgcouver said:
Well, i'm onboard too, it looks good, they pulled it off. Good job on the execution RNDSQR, was a risky design but it kicks ass, especially considering the conversion to rental. It's a props to the team, but especially Brett Garneau I presume. It's not easy to keep a condo to rental conversion that requires a fair bit of VEing in line with the original vision and intention.

Looks like it came out better than expected Skyrise!
Click to expand...
This should quiet down some of the haters. I think it's fair to call this project a success and it'll only get better when the tenant line-up moves in! I'll take a CY33 over a hardie board box special any day!
 
CBBarnett said:
I agree - it's hard for this not to be a win for the community as the key fundamentals remain solid - well thought-out density, good consideration of the ground floor and retail areas, a pedestrian-first building. I am less picky about claddings and materials as lots of that is subjective (but I do like the metal). It's a bonus that this one is trying something new with the courtyard, weird retail configuration etc.

Compare a not dissimilar level of density applied more poorly (and with zero fanfare) and I think CY33 is getting a bit unfair critique that focuses too much on the look than the actual results. Looks rarely will make or break whether a building is a good project for a community, but failing the fundamentals will always be bad or at best, a missed opportunity.

Here's a fewnot particularly good looking buildings that couldn't even get the fundamentals right for what low-midrise density can do to improve an area's vibrancy:

33rd Ave SW - adjacent to the LRT but with a weird parking pad thing, a wild setback and no sidewalk improvements:

View attachment 326188

Saddletowne - adjacent to the LRT with zero interaction and a ugly fence:
View attachment 326190


Memorial Drive in Parkdale - reasonable looking, but insanely large setback and minimal street interaction:
View attachment 326191

Varsity condos across from U of C - great location, but chose to go with an auto-centric suburban design facing north for no reason and fence separating the people from the whole reason they would want to live here (access to U of C).

View attachment 326192

I guess my point is that any of these other examples could have way better materials and stellar designs but would still be failures without the fundamentals of good ground orientation and pedestrian-centric designs. For CY33 it seems to get all the basics right so regardless of subjective tastes, I don't see how it can be detrimental to the community. Will be interesting to make a final call once we see how the courtyard and ground level treatment are done.
Click to expand...
Couldn't agree more. For me, a good urban/pedestrian-oriented design comes first, everything else later. This is why I can't stand buildings like Scarbro 17. With a good design that integrates with the streetscape, a building can always be recladded in the future. However, with a horrible design like the 1 block concrete bunker that WV Towers is, that can't be fixed.

I don't mind this project at all. I can see it being an issue for people who had high expectations, but this is still a win for a City playing catch up on pedestrian-oriented developments and density!
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top