Today:
Screen shot 2016-08-23 at 7.43.23 PM.png
 

Attachments

  • Screen shot 2016-08-23 at 7.43.23 PM.png
    Screen shot 2016-08-23 at 7.43.23 PM.png
    1 MB · Views: 1,422
Most buildings look like they're from the era in which they were built, and by extension, dated. Royal Bank Plaza looks dated ...circa 1979. It looks good, but not something that was built recently.
 
Last edited:
I'll go out on a limb and say we both know that by 'dated' one doesn't just mean 'from a particular date in the past,' but 'hasn't aged well.'

But if more clarity is needed: I don't think that in twenty years this building will have aged well.
 
I'll go out on a limb and say we both know that by 'dated' one doesn't just mean 'from a particular date in the past,' but 'hasn't aged well.'

But if more clarity is needed: I don't think that in twenty years this building will have aged well.

I'll take the opposite view and argue that with its attractive and unique architectural features and high-quality materials, it will still be an interesting and attractive tower in 20 years' time. The towers that don't age well are those that are bland, cheaply finished or ugly from day one.
 
Alright. I've always found the word a bit ambiguous. Sometimes there's no negative connotation intended, only that something doesn't look current.
 
I'll take the opposite view and argue that with its attractive and unique architectural features and high-quality materials, it will still be an interesting and attractive tower in 20 years' time. The towers that don't age well are those that are bland, cheaply finished or ugly from day one.
I think my concern is that the design on the balcony is too bold and unsubtle, and that's why in years' time it'll look dated. So it's not about materials per se, but about design for me. Compare the purple-ish glazing on I believe it's 1001 Bay. Does it look bad? No, not overly. But it does look dated, namely to the 80s. I think Five will be similar.
 

Back
Top