General rating of the project

  • Great

    Votes: 53 72.6%

  • Very Good

    Votes: 16 21.9%

  • Good

    Votes: 4 5.5%

  • So so

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Not Very Good

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Terrible

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    73
A long while. Doesn't mean we don't wanna see pics of it :)
 
176895

www.instagram.com

Don Rawson (@donrawson403) • Instagram photos and videos

729 Followers, 493 Following, 1,074 Posts - See Instagram photos and videos from Don Rawson (@donrawson403)
www.instagram.com www.instagram.com
 
Mountain Man said:
There are enough people there that the homeless kind of just get lost in the shuffle I think.
Click to expand...

Now that its warm out, the front patios are getting filled with occupants from the directly adjacent Salvation Army. The drop in centre and salvation army locations made sense decades ago but the gentrification is going to cause some increased overlap and future questions for the city and social housing/support.
 
Richard White has an editorial dumping on the new Central Library today:

Richard White on NCL

I usually agree with his perspectives, but this has to be his dumbest take I’ve read.

The criticisms seem to be:
1) Accessible entrance is on the back and there are stairs up to the single main entrance
2) Lower part of some facades are blank
3) Site is challenging

The design rationale of the central raised entrance is fairly clear: jobs number 1-10 for the entry point of the building is security. It is very very hard for an urban library to avoid becoming a scary homeless shelter and one way this is achieved is having a visible security presence that can scan people for fitness to enter. So they have to have one entrance that can be accessed from either side, which means elevating it above ground level. Then the choice is how to get elevator access to the raised area. They put the elevator on the east side, which makes sense to me because if you need to use the elevator you may also need to be dropped off by car, and the curbside drop off is right next to the elevator. Could they have done a second elevator on the other side? Maybe, but I’d rather they focus on maintaining one to a high standard, which isn’t easy to do.

With respect to the lower blank facades, I find that they serve to draw your eye up to the beautiful superstructure above. Cropping the second to fourth stories out of the photo in the article is just dumb. Maybe some murals will make sense over time, but I find the ground level does its job and I’d rather they let the building age a bit before tarting it up with extra colours just to fill space.

I take his point that some of these challenges are due to the challenges imposed by the LRT tunnel, but great buildings often come from unique responses to unique circumstances, and a flat level site, while easy, is not as interesting or inspiring as trying to make something new and different. Plus this is metres from the central hub of our whole transit network - are we really going to put a dog park there?
 
Last edited:
I used to read his stuff 10 years ago, but find today he's mostly irrelevant and out of touch. What's annoying is the Herald and CBC still post his articles, it would be nice if they could find someone young with a fresh perspective.

zagox said:
Richard White has an editorial dumping on the new Central Library today:

Richard White on NCL

I usually agree with his perspectives, but this has to be his dumbest take I’ve read.

The criticisms seem to be:
1) Accessible entrance is on the back and there are stairs up to the single main entrance
2) Lower part of some facades are blank
3) Site is challenging

The design rationale of the central raised entrance is fairly clear: jobs number 1-10 for the entry point of the building is security. It is very very hard for an urban library to avoid becoming a scary homeless shelter and one way this is achieved is having a visible security presence that can scan people for fitness to enter. So they have to have one entrance that can be accessed from either side, which means elevating it above ground level. Then the choice is how to get elevator access to the raised area. They put the elevator on the east side, which makes sense to me because if you need to use the elevator you may also need to be dropped off by car, and the curbside drop off is right next to the elevator. Could they have done a second elevator on the other side? Maybe, but I’d rather they focus on maintaining one to a high standard, which isn’t easy to do.

With respect to the lower blank facades, I find that they serve to draw your eye up to the beautiful superstructure above. Cropping the second to fourth stories out of the photo in the article is just dumb. Maybe some murals will make sense over time, but I find the ground level does its job and I’d rather they let the building age a bit before tarting it up with extra colours just to fill space.

I take his point that some of these challenges are due to the challenges imposed by the LRT tunnel, but great buildings often come from unique responses to unique circumstances, and a flat level site, while easy, is not as interesting or inspiring as trying to make something new and different. Plus this is metres from the central hub of our whole transit network - are we really going to put a dog park there?
Click to expand...
 
I cringe every time I see an article written by Richard White. Most of his takes are pointless, and he doesn't really understand today's urban issues. His blog is a joke.

The funny thing is I submitted a couple of counter opinion comments in the comment section on the CBC website, but they never let the post through (they mentioned that they reserve the right to post comments they want to post.. Seems they're only allowing comments that agree with the article lol.

zagox said:
Richard White has an editorial dumping on the new Central Library today:

Richard White on NCL

I usually agree with his perspectives, but this has to be his dumbest take I’ve read.

The criticisms seem to be:
1) Accessible entrance is on the back and there are stairs up to the single main entrance
2) Lower part of some facades are blank
3) Site is challenging

The design rationale of the central raised entrance is fairly clear: jobs number 1-10 for the entry point of the building is security. It is very very hard for an urban library to avoid becoming a scary homeless shelter and one way this is achieved is having a visible security presence that can scan people for fitness to enter. So they have to have one entrance that can be accessed from either side, which means elevating it above ground level. Then the choice is how to get elevator access to the raised area. They put the elevator on the east side, which makes sense to me because if you need to use the elevator you may also need to be dropped off by car, and the curbside drop off is right next to the elevator. Could they have done a second elevator on the other side? Maybe, but I’d rather they focus on maintaining one to a high standard, which isn’t easy to do.

With respect to the lower blank facades, I find that they serve to draw your eye up to the beautiful superstructure above. Cropping the second to fourth stories out of the photo in the article is just dumb. Maybe some murals will make sense over time, but I find the ground level does its job and I’d rather they let the building age a bit before tarting it up with extra colours just to fill space.

I take his point that some of these challenges are due to the challenges imposed by the LRT tunnel, but great buildings often come from unique responses to unique circumstances, and a flat level site, while easy, is not as interesting or inspiring as trying to make something new and different. Plus this is metres from the central hub of our whole transit network - are we really going to put a dog park there?
Click to expand...
 
Anyone know what's going on at the lot to the immediate NE of the NCL? I'm hoping a park, but it doesn't seem like it. Really hoping not a friggin parking lot.

Gw3buvjTR2y3UaNHXB%Drw.jpg
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top