Nov 25, 2006, 4:43 PM
Please rate this building
Nov 25, 2006, 6:31 PM
a bit too busy design with too many lines.
other than that the overall homage to trad design is great.
just needs some simplification.
the old - less is more deal.
To summarize - its trying harder than it needs to.
Nov 25, 2006, 6:34 PM
^Not sure what you mean?
Looks to me like a fairly decent attempt to incorporate some artdeco stylistics into something of the new era. I like it.
Nov 25, 2006, 7:42 PM
It's not as nice as other projects going up within the city, but it is still a fairly decent design.
Nov 26, 2006, 11:12 PM
looks good, i like the variety of projects going up right now, no more glass boxes, and precast condo buildings.
Jan 3, 2007, 5:32 AM
it could be worse ie/ anything from POV
it will be interesting to see it completed if it gets approved
Jan 3, 2007, 3:08 PM
Jan 3, 2007, 7:34 PM
i like it okay.
Jan 5, 2007, 5:01 AM
I'm on the edge about this one. The crown isn't very good, but without the crown it would just be another boring old condo tower. So I don't know if it's better with or without the crown...
On a scale of one to 10, I'd give it about 6.5. Go ahead and build it, it's not scary or ugly, but it's nothing special either.
Jan 9, 2007, 5:45 AM
I wish this were not going up in my city. Such crap.
We get such a mixed bag here in Calgary, this being at the lower end of the spectrum in my opinion.
Jan 16, 2007, 3:45 PM
Not bad. 7/10 It's design represents quality. Hopefully it will be built that way. Good detailing. Crown is weak.
Jan 17, 2007, 4:01 PM
The design is bland but it looks like it will fit in well w/ its surroundings. Another highrise - lucky Calgary!
Mar 19, 2007, 10:40 PM
i honestly dont mind the design. i think it is starting to grow on me
Mar 24, 2007, 10:59 PM
i really like this design - its nice to have various types of architechture - I would hate to see all modernism or all traditional styles.
Mar 24, 2007, 11:46 PM
where is the photo?
Mar 24, 2007, 11:48 PM
I'll just post another, since the first seems to have gone amiss...
NOTE: The weird townhouse thing on the left portion has disappeared in the final rendering... we think.
Mar 24, 2007, 11:54 PM
Why the hell did you have to repost that embarrassment?
Mar 24, 2007, 11:58 PM
LOL, because he asked for it... :)
Mar 25, 2007, 1:40 AM
I think it's pretty bad. I'd give it a 5/10.
I don't like it...
Mar 25, 2007, 3:36 AM
Bleh, 3.5/10 could be worse, but not much.
Mar 25, 2007, 5:17 AM
Want my honest opinion? It is "1980's Suburban PoMo"... plain and simple. Swiping the Astoria name from New York in an attempt to sound "posh" is crass. I think historical reference can be well done, and poorly done. This ghastly pile falls into the second category. I know nothing about the architects, but they seem to be stuck in an 80's mindset. This reminds me of some frightful architectural catastrophes up in North York.
Aug 20, 2009, 8:12 AM
I think the style of this building calls for something inthe 50-story range.... "buld it and they will come"... maybe.
Aug 21, 2009, 4:47 AM
Chicago has been on the receiving end of a couple dozen (no offense) uglies like this over the past boom. Most of them turned out awful. We've got so many of them that we invented a term for them: Vertical Turds. The only saving grace of this design, in my opinion, would be absolutely excellent materials and execution.
I'm sorry but I'm just not a fan of cheesy POMO residential towers that are just bristling with balconies (something that would never be found in a traditional design) and capped by an ill proportioned pointy roof.
Sep 30, 2009, 3:14 AM
not great. too old fashoned looking.
Sep 30, 2009, 4:18 AM
Supremely tacky. Astoria? That just makes it all the more pretentious and embarrassing.
Nov 16, 2012, 6:14 PM
I wonder what's happening with this? I see it's still capped at grade, but no activity.
Most recent rendering?
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2013, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.