AlvinofDiaspar said:
One thing I wish the project would flesh out a little better is how the structure will interface with the existing heritage buildings - something more than facadism would add interest.

AoD
Click to expand...
I'm not a fan of how this building relates to the heritage buildings. The old buildings look literally buried under the new one, as if they were half dug out from an avalanche. The original proposal, while conventional, had the high rise form restricted to the middle of the block and the portion on King was respectful of the scale of the streetscape.
 
MisterF said:
I'm not a fan of how this building relates to the heritage buildings. The old buildings look literally buried under the new one, as if they were half dug out from an avalanche. The original proposal, while conventional, had the high rise form restricted to the middle of the block and the portion on King was respectful of the scale of the streetscape.
Click to expand...

It need to be finessed a little more, but honestly I am quite happy to see something that breaks the mould a little and not take the easiest path in this case.

AoD
 
I actually like the way the new structure interacts and incorporates the heritage buildings and doesn't just build something behind them...
 
FMCS said:
I actually like the way the new structure interacts and incorporates the heritage buildings and doesn't just build something behind them...
Click to expand...

Yeah, fully agree with the last two comments—even setting aside the heritage preservation aspect, for just a moment, I think this project is a huge net-positive for the city in important ways (both architecturally and from a pedestrian realm experience standpoint).

And on the heritage piece, I think even as proposed, the development treats the heritage buildings much more sympathetically than many other recent developments in the city have done. The new construction is a fairly drastic departure from most buildings in the city, so it's of course going to be a new look in terms of how it emerges atop the older buildings, but that's not inherently bad.
 
I'm quite fascinated by this proposal. It is so different form the'norm' . It is a little reminiscent of the 60s 70's no? Some of that architecture stood,the test of time ...some well not so much. I agree,the street animation is very important here.
 
The site, starting immediately west of 485 King, from yesterday:

DSC02199.jpg


42
 

Attachments

  • DSC02199.jpg
    DSC02199.jpg
    406 KB · Views: 1,209
I think it was one of the esteemed leaders of UT who commented on the massing along King Street. This could be a very interesting proposal, but right now there might be a little too much of it. And too bad that the heritage component will likely be just facades.
 
I love historic buildings, and typically I am all for saving and incorporating them as whole as possible.

But I'm just gonna say it - I'd rather have a bjarke ingels than these buildings. If the facades can be worked in - great! If the buildings in there entirety can be worked in - fantastic. But I'd rather have an uninhibited bjarke ingels than a desperate attempt at saving a facade.

However I know that BIG does really incredible things and knows how to make everyone happy, so I'm sure there is nothing to be worried about.
 
So…

as mentioned by @AlvinofDiaspar above, this came to the DRP today. We were there and Julian Mirabelli is preparing a report. The plan did not sail through unscathed. It's a tough report for Julian to write because he has to convey a number of criticisms from the panel without making it look like the panel was disrespectful, as they were not. They did challenge the proponents to come back with a design that respects the King Street context better.

That's all I'll say for now, until Julian's front page story is ready for you tomorrow.

42
 
Without scooping the story, 42, anything surface in the meeting you thought might verge on being troublesome for the architects/developers?
 
Our story on the Design Review Panel's look at BIG's King West is now up here.

42
 
This is a case of a project that is rightly setting a new context instead of being subsumed by an old one. It's the right place for what is frankly a level of density that is suitable for somewhere this close to the core.

As to softening the impact of density, it is fairly ironic given the willingness to stick point towers just up the street in the Entertainment District without much by the way of regard to the context - heritage or in built form. Add a few floors up in a fairly classical block sized site w/ courtyard - and everyone is up in arms about context?

AoD
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top