In person, if you look carefully at the building the panels do have imperfections. I don't mind it, it gives the facade an almost hand-crafted look. Now, I will say, that's probably not what they were going for and sleep and modern maybe shouldn't look hand-crafted, but it is what it is.
 
B79B2CE9-68E9-44CB-90A2-F7E7FF88EB6D.jpeg
75A772A8-2889-4F7B-B7D3-B91168F4701D.jpeg
C686D657-D2EA-47BD-9898-59C414BA1A17.jpeg
A1849CF6-6665-42D3-81B2-94A9047159E5.jpeg
 
This isn't perfect but is 1000x better in my mind. That whole area was just precast concrete, and covering more of it up is a major win in my eyes. This will contrast nicely with new Arts Commons and the classic facades of Teatro and the Jack Singer. I like variety, not uniformity.

Has there been any talk of recladding the Marriott? or at least the ground level? I thought there was some talk a couple years ago but can't quite recall.
 
I think this could have looked 10x better with the following changes:
1. The gap between the exterior tiles is too big. The ripples lose their effect with the wide spaces. Not sure if they could have been squeezed any closer together. I was hoping the tiles would also be a little brighter white, but it could be the pictures/sunlight throwing it off.
2. The grey aluminum cladding around the windows should have aligned better with the white tiles so that all the seams lined up better. Again not sure if that is totally feasible, but it looks like they could have been cut and matched a littler better.
3. I was hoping the entire top window was translucent like the main floor (the rendering suggested it would). The choice of spandrel colour is throwing me off. Maybe should have went more grey?
4. The half windows/half grates that ring the top floor look terrible. They did not appear in the renderings and throw off the cohesion of the building.
5. Finally, my biggest pet peeve is the random grate tiles (the perforated ones) that appear randomly around the building. Why are they there and why couldn't they be located in less conspicuous locations?

As the exterior is almost complete I am giving it a 7/10. The old building was a 3/10 so this is a big improvement, but like I said earlier, lots of shortcuts and small things holding this back from being better. A little more glass would have lightened it up as well, it still appears heavy and bunkerish. Hopefully the new streetscape and some trees can help out as well.
 
On the topic of the joints between the panels, wouldn't they need to be sealed to prevent moisture or ice build up? Will they apply caulking or something?
 
The Familia said:
As the exterior is almost complete I am giving it a 7/10. The old building was a 3/10 so this is a big improvement, but like I said earlier, lots of shortcuts and small things holding this back from being better. A little more glass would have lightened it up as well, it still appears heavy and bunkerish. Hopefully the new streetscape and some trees can help out as well.
Click to expand...
That's kind of where I am landing with this one too. It's clearly better, but doesn't quite pass the bar to be a really stand-out development.

Of course, the real test is how the building will be used, particularly after the "new and shiny" effect wears off about 5 years after reopening. Attendance was about 150,000 / year previously, so with a refreshed physical structure, all the internal improvements, plus a hopefully refreshed approach to exhibits and programming, would be good to see the Glenmore become more of a major destination in the coming years.

For comparison, here's some rough attendance numbers from a quick google. Not trying to be very scientific here , just trying get a sense of scale of attendance of the Glenbow v. other well museums out there:
  • Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto: ~1.5 million / year
  • Calgary Zoo: ~1.5 million / year
  • Royal Alberta Museum, Edmonton:- ~600,000 / year
  • Royal Tyrell Museum: ~525,000 / year
  • Heritage Park: ~500,000 / year
  • National Music Centre : ~150,000 / year
  • Head-Smashed-in-Buffalo-Jump: ~60,000 / year
 
CBBarnett said:
That's kind of where I am landing with this one too. It's clearly better, but doesn't quite pass the bar to be a really stand-out development.

Of course, the real test is how the building will be used, particularly after the "new and shiny" effect wears off about 5 years after reopening. Attendance was about 150,000 / year previously, so with a refreshed physical structure, all the internal improvements, plus a hopefully refreshed approach to exhibits and programming, would be good to see the Glenmore become more of a major destination in the coming years.

For comparison, here's some rough attendance numbers from a quick google. Not trying to be very scientific here , just trying get a sense of scale of attendance of the Glenbow v. other well museums out there:
  • Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto: ~1.5 million / year
  • Calgary Zoo: ~1.5 million / year
  • Royal Alberta Museum, Edmonton:- ~600,000 / year
  • Royal Tyrell Museum: ~525,000 / year
  • Heritage Park: ~500,000 / year
  • National Music Centre : ~150,000 / year
  • Head-Smashed-in-Buffalo-Jump: ~60,000 / year
Click to expand...
Was the National Music Centre mostly privately funded? Seems odd to me that is one of our major museums when we don't have a natural history museum. I think good museums can actually do well in Calgary with the number of visitors the city gets. The Calgary Zoo has higher visitor volumes than Toronto despite a much smaller population.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top