maestro
Senior Member
It looks awful to me. That counts as a significant negative effect.
- Thread starter Surrealplaces
- Start date
CBBarnett
Senior Member
44 homes, 12 classified and below-market affordable (with 10 being fully accessible) is worth the trade of 3 houses. It's not pretty, but probably doesn't have to be - although there is nothing inherent about affordable buildings that require them to look cheap (as this one does). The street design is highly questionable but obviously not the developer's fault.
Generally I rank projects like this in order:
Generally I rank projects like this in order:
- Does this increase density in an location / design that supports a more "urban" form and lifestyle such as walkability, transit usage?
- Is this project attractive looking?
Alex_YYC
Senior Member
Couldn’t agree more. If this building was down on 10th street or in the Beltline I’d feel differently, but given it’s use and location I’m fine with it.
Often good urban neighbourhoods are a collection of multiple individual buildings with many of them banal or average mixed in with a few stand out buildings.
Often good urban neighbourhoods are a collection of multiple individual buildings with many of them banal or average mixed in with a few stand out buildings.
haltcatchfire
Senior Member
Calgcouver
Active Member
Very cohesive design, understated and sophisticated.
Seriously though, if you are going to build a cheap building, you could have just went with all brown siding and left it boring like a 70s apartment building. Why keep tacking shit on? Red squares of varying sizes, multicoloured WTF stone, white vents, orange over hangs over some decks, all sorts of shapes of windows, a "cornice".
I want to buy the architect a beer and ask him what informed his design decisions and what his vision for this thing was.
Something like this thing; cheap to construct and not an eyesore.
Seriously though, if you are going to build a cheap building, you could have just went with all brown siding and left it boring like a 70s apartment building. Why keep tacking shit on? Red squares of varying sizes, multicoloured WTF stone, white vents, orange over hangs over some decks, all sorts of shapes of windows, a "cornice".
I want to buy the architect a beer and ask him what informed his design decisions and what his vision for this thing was.
Something like this thing; cheap to construct and not an eyesore.
Last edited:
gsunnyg
Senior Member
Vinyl is probably the biggest eye sore anyone can use on a midrise
haltcatchfire
Senior Member
haltcatchfire
Senior Member
Definitely not the belle of the ball, but good density on a street that isn't on a main drag. All the projects along 17th seem to be less than stellar. I hope that if they re-zone a street like 20th ave they raise the bar.
Last edited:
Social Justice
Active Member
Mountain Man
Senior Member
Architects sometimes have limited input on buildings like this, Clients have a design vision that the Architect has to work around. Not sure if this was the case here, but it wouldn't surprise me given that the client is a homebuilder.
Calgcouver
Active Member
That is almost certainly the case here.
Oddball
Senior Member
I wouldn't call it playing "devil's advocate," but I will say it did end up exceeding my expectations. I was expecting it to look far worse. I doubt it will age well though.
Ouch. Sometimes it hurts to know what could have been done.
Very cohesive design, understated and sophisticated.
Seriously though, if you are going to build a cheap building, you could have just went with all brown siding and left it boring like a 70s apartment building. Why keep tacking shit on? Red squares of varying sizes, multicoloured WTF stone, white vents, orange over hangs over some decks, all sorts of shapes of windows, a "cornice".
I want to buy the architect a beer and ask him what informed his design decisions and what his vision for this thing was.
Something like this thing; cheap to construct and not an eyesore.
Ouch. Sometimes it hurts to know what could have been done.