UrbanAffair
Senior Member
I believe that's an old model and is similar to the current one, minus adding the definition.
yeah I have the same question because with these models one is not able to understand the shape, material and other things about the building. renderings give more details about the project.One thing that always puzzled me about Gehry and his firm is that for an office so dependent on technology, why do they never produce any renderings?
The models are fabulous, but real images showing these buildings in their context would be far more interesting.
(I guess you could count the animation in the promotional video, but even that is limited to the general outlines of the towers…)
as has been said before it sets a precedence the city isn't likely to want to set.
What precedence might that be....something unbelievably great? I agree....setting the bar that high would make everything else look bad.
However, you can also see where my road-trip vs "bored are-we-there-yet kid in the back seat" metaphor comes about. That is, reading my posts may very well be like that proverbial several-hour self-indulgent drudge to Niagara via back roads and sprawl vs. the quick one-hour QEW jaunt.
The models are fabulous, but real images showing these buildings in their context would be far more interesting.
yeah I have the same question because with these models one is not able to understand the shape, material and other things about the building. renderings give more details about the project.
Setting the bar high does not automatically translate into good. It just means high. The issue in this instance is not about the architecture, it's about the precedent-setting heights for the area and the heritage impact the development would have.
Sounds like some people remain unaware that this the core, a stone's throw from 1CP. and the site is completely surrounded by towers - Festival, Theatre Tower, Metro Hall. SO what if these towers are taller than other towers?
Setting the bar high does not automatically translate into good. It just means high. The issue in this instance is not about the architecture, it's about the precedent-setting heights for the area and the heritage impact the development would have.
I basically had the same reply but the forum ate my post. It baffles me that some so-called heritage warehouses of dubious architectural importance are more important than possibly the most interesting condos ever built, anywhere.
What baffles me is how nobody is really batting an eye at Restaurant Row being under siege despite it bringing far more vibrancy and character to the area than this block. And there, all we're supposedly getting in return is three architectural clunkers.
For the record I don't think development on the south side of King should be permitted, at the same time Restaurant Row did benefit from Festival Tower. Personally, I don't find any of these restaurants interesting or authentic, but it is a vibrant area that should be protected.
I'm not familiar with the clunkers you're referring to - are they being built on the south side? Perhaps no-one is interested because its so much more thrilling to attack greatness. I recall sitting beside some drunk-ass at a Leaf game who rose up to yell "Gretzky! You're a bum" every time he touched the puck. Its was ironic because, obviously, every OTHER player on the ice was a bum.