IMG_0846.JPG
IMG_0847.JPG
 
Looks like they’ve poured the last setback and are working on the final portion. I haven’t made up my mind on this one yet, so far 6.5/10. I agree the precast could be brighter, but it could also be a lot worse. Mostly I’m confused as to why there’s not anything interesting to do at the base of the building, but that critique applies to pretty much every new build in this area.
 
This looks like the big monster they build on parliament dt. That brick is...well I guess alright. Nothing special, at least not so many birds will die.
 
mav_86 said:
This looks like the big monster they build on parliament dt. That brick is...well I guess alright. Nothing special, at least not so many birds will die.
Click to expand...
I believe glazing is an issue for birds only up to about 3-4 storeys. That's why glass on lower floors has frit. @Northern Light would know best on stuff like this.
 
Undead said:
I believe glazing is an issue for birds only up to about 3-4 storeys. That's why glass on lower floors has frit. @Northern Light would know best on stuff like this.
Click to expand...

Truthfully, bird-friendly glazing is outside of my expertise, except tangential awareness.

That said, you are correct that the most important area on a building is that which aligns w/the present or forecast tree canopy height.

The height at which birds most commonly fly short distances.

The City generally imposes the toughest rules for 12M up or the projected or real tree canopy height, which ever is greater.

For the record.....if your mature canopy, in most cases, is only 12M (about 40ft) you're doing something wrong. The principle is correct, but should probably regulate to double the height as-of-right.

Their are optional and some mandatory requirements higher up, as well, but they are less stringent.

The guidelines are here:

 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top