maestro said:
^Are you serious?!? Personally, I think some generic modern, glass towers are much more complimentary to the Distillery than a PoMo windowless box. (forgetting what 500 more people to the local population will do for the Distillery and surrounding neighbourhood) Of course, you aren't suggesting that Rackhouse M would of been better transformed into a Pomo Box but I don't know either how anyone can still lament its loss. It was a windowless brick box that overpowered the surrounding Victorian architecture. Everything has potential to be more than it is with unlimited resources as well.
Click to expand...

Like you said, I didn't suggest that it be transformed into a Pomo Box, so I'm not really sure about your first comment. I found that the rack house did quite a nice job of framing the complex. I don't see how a set of windowed glass boxes ten times the height of the rack house won't also overpower the surrounding Victorian architecture and make the Distillery District into an overgrown condo amenities complex and retail podium. As for the unlimited resources argument, it can be used to justify anything.
 
How did Rack House M '"frame" the complex? It was a large, windowless brick box, inserted in the 1920s with no aesthetic thought between a group of lower and lighter Victorian structures that were related to one another in design. Now it is being recycled as a lower podium building with windows and ground floor access that is in harmony with those Victorian buildings and the rest of the complex.
 
There is no harmony of design, as pointed out earlier, because Rack House 'M' formed no aesthetic link to the smaller Victorian buildings it looms over - though aA's replacement will be a smaller podium building more in scale with them. There is no harmony of purpose since the site is no longer a working distillery and has been reinvented as a cultural/residential/retail pedestrian complex, a purpose to which Rack House 'M' proved ill-suited. There never was a harmony of era since it was built in the 1920s, considerably later to the rest of the complex. All you're left with is the harmony of the red brick ... and that's being recycled in the new building, to much better effect.
 
They do it in Europe. I think its great that they introduced some modern elements into this part of town. It shows that this is an active neighbourhood, not just a tourist site.
 
So you need modern architecture to prove a neighbourhood is active? I don't think so.

Anyway, there's nothing wrong with having modern glassy architecture at the DD. In fact, glass is a great material to use when adding to a heritage neighbourhood. The main problem is the scale. A big glass phalus looming over this valuable heritage district ruining the views and the atmosphere. Had they added a bunch of Mozos, I would have no problem with it.
 
Last edited:
Desired neighbourhood. That would of been better to stay.

But this building is beautiful, it respects the neighbourhood and helps bridge the 21th century with the 19th century. If anyone hates the building, give it 100 years and it will be 'historic.'
 
Indeed, they're making history with this development - the addition of the new to the old creates an entirely new entity.
 
The bastardization of the distillery district continues. Such a shame. I would've loved to have seen some new low/mid-rise brick buildings instead of these boring aA monstrosities. I fear aA are gonna scar this city with their "creations", and in 30 years time we will look back with horror.
 
This has nothing to do with 30 years time, and there is no collective "we". This has only to do with those who believe that modern buildings can only intrude, versus those who believe that modern buildings can be sensitively inserted into settings from an earlier age.

42
 
It's also about scale though

Maybe there are some places that retain their character and charm better when they aren't consumed by a rising tide of 45 storey glass skyboners.
Contemporary architecture can and should be integrated into historic cityscapes, but towers are not always the best solution... Look at SoHo in NY, Butler's Wharf in London, Central Paris... there's a reason that laws prevent new builds from being simple pack 'em and stack 'em condoboxes in these areas.
 
When one talks of scale, one must also take into account what amount to space is zoned for any given area: if a developer is allowed 500,000 square feet of space on one property, they are going to build it. It can either go up or sideways (and with podiums usually goes in both directions to a degree).

If wmedia, for example, believes that low/mid-rise brick building would be better suited to this site, then he/she needs to consider how big a slab those low/mid-rise buildings would be to contain the zoned space. Putting these two new towers on their side would put the area around them into near perpetual shadow. By going up instead of wide, the shadow of these two towers becomes something more slender that moves across the site during the day, affording more sunlight to the areas around them.

If it's the total amount of space that's allowed that's an issue, and not the form of the buildings, then it's the City's zoning rules, or the OMB's rulings that should be targeted by the offended party.

I assume that for wmedia it's a bit of everything, but to a great degree just a dislike for modern architecture, at least in a setting such as this.

42
 
Excuse my collective "we", but surely "we" have a duty to consider how future generations will view the development of an area like this, just as "we" now have regrets about some of the mass-demolition that went on in city's past.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top