February 26:

1000003515.jpg


1000003514.jpg
1000003513.jpg
20240226_121226.jpg
 

Attachments

  • 1000003516.jpg
    1000003516.jpg
    199.1 KB · Views: 9
I may be the minority here, but I don't mind how this is turning out. Not the best in the city by a long shot but not as bad as some say. This is a project that should not be judged until it is complete.
 
Civdis said:
I may be the minority here, but I don't mind how this is turning out. Not the best in the city by a long shot but not as bad as some say. This is a project that should not be judged until it is complete.
Click to expand...
Concord touted this as a signature project, so most people were expecting spectacular architecture, or at least something strikingly different from the rest of CityPlace towers. Instead what we're getting is more of the same, just taller. Concord did include some features that are not available in the other towers though: bigger, partially enclosed balconies with heating. I guess to them those features plus the height are enough to make these towers 'signature'.
 
Rascacielo said:
Concord touted this as a signature project, so most people were expecting spectacular architecture, or at least something strikingly different from the rest of CityPlace towers. Instead what we're getting is more of the same, just taller. Concord did include some features that are not available in the other towers though: bigger, partially enclosed balconies with heating. I guess to them those features plus the height are enough to make these towers 'signature'.
Click to expand...
The name 'Signature' is something that appeared on UT 16+ years ago and has taken on a life of its own. Here's a site plan from 2010. I don't see the word "Signature".

1709919497703.png


This jpg from 2008 is titled "Signature2", does that make the building depicted a 'signature'?

Signature2.jpg


The notion of a 'signature' is so tired. You can like or hate this project, but if your primary complaint is that it doesn't match your interpretation of an unofficial moniker from a decade and a half ago, I don't know what to tell you.
 
In some ways these belong in CityPlace ... they fit in and maybe not the spot for a so-called signature project, in a forest of underwhelming architecture.

Concord has one chance to do something approaching a signature building ... it has their name on it, it's one of tallest projects in the country and has a pretty good AOR on board (a-A).

Concord Sky will redefine the skyline forever (especially from the west and east). Will it end up the tallest skyscraper embarrassment on the continent... or will we be shocked with decent cladding and execution?

It's a crap shoot right now and I'd wager I'm not the only 'scraper geek here that is very, very worried. I think Concord owes the city one very good tower... "signature building" is too much to hope for. 🥹
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top