[Stephen Ave]

Some new renderings of the Riverfront project have been released. Here they are. What's the Consensus?

http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/2689/screenshot1402200773754ql1.png

http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/9850/screenshot1402200773518or1.png

http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/8312/screenshot1402200773643dq2.png

http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/39/screenshot1402200773708yi6.png

http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/3191/screenshot1402200773729bt4.png

http://img293.imageshack.us/img293/6415/screenshot1402200773546nm9.png

http://img293.imageshack.us/img293/3874/screenshot1402200773613dy8.png

[Doug]

The closeups look better than the renderings showing the whole project. Overall, it is alright but podium is too imposing and the color scheme too uniform. I'd like to see the towers setback from the podium and greater contrast in colors. Maybe the towers should be all glass. The green roofs are great.

[Wooster]

I really like this project for a number of reasons. It is perfect for its context, it has places retail in the right locations, good interface with the street all around, green roofs, It has a courtyard which is pretty new for Calgary, the base is visually coherent with the tower (not this lame brick, then curtain glass combo we see) it adds about 1700 people to the downtown, It will create a really nice sreetwall etc, etc. I also really like the materials. The stone they use looks really good. Simliar to the Centuria project in this regard.

my only complaint I suppose is that it isn't tremendously exciting looking. It is really, really nice. Very solid design, but when you drive over the centre street bridge, it will not make you say "wow". But how many residential buildings actually make you have that reaction? It will still be quite impressive. It is quite a large scale project and will be a beautiful foreground to the rest of the downtown core.

[murman]

Podiums like this are usually designed to give context to surrounding buildings. In this case, it seems like someone nicked a design originally based on something in Vancouver's Yaletown warehouse district. Beyond that, a conditional thumbs-up.

[Bigtime]

I like the project, dare I say I think it is great at this time. These extra renderings have helped me get a better sense of the scale, particularly at street level where I was a little concerned about the podium being a big scary wall.

The proof will be in the pudding though, materials and quality, especially with regards to the 'greening' on the rooftops.

Also, where is the now mandatory make fun of Feepa poll option? :D

[Distill3d]

not bad...but not great.

[Calgarian]

Podiums like this are usually designed to give context to surrounding buildings. In this case, it seems like someone nicked a design originally based on something in Vancouver's Yaletown warehouse district. Beyond that, a conditional thumbs-up.

Well the lead Architect (Raffi) is from Vancouver as far as i know.

Great project, good to see more residential in Eau-Claire.

[AUM]

Programmatically it has all the elements + amenities to provide for a good development. Architecturally it is weak in my opinion....typical developer stuff. There is nothing unique or insipiring about it visually or formally. I anticipate the day some developer comes in and opens up the industry eyes to what is possible.

[Wooster]

^ There is nothing wrong with it at all. It just doesn't push any boundaries. I don't think that makes it 'weak' it just makes it relatively standard. I think we do need some projects that are different, but it is quite simply impossible to re-invent the wheel with residential projects. This role I think falls with institutional, public or, large-scale commercial projects, where pockets are deep. For example in neighbourhoods in New York or Paris both great cities - how many are really visually 'inspiring' or all that different from the rest?

[AUM]

Here is one example of a modern approach to residential living. But even the MDB poprosed M-Tech residential is definitely a more contemporary approach to the typical model.

Winka Dubbeldam

Practice Associate Professor of Architecture
winka@design.upenn.edu
http://www.archi-tectonics.com
M.Arch., Institute of Higher Professional Architectural Education, Rotterdam[1990]; M.Arch.AAD at Columbia University, NYC [1992] .


Associate Professor of Practice at University of Pennsylvania, teaches advanced architectural design studios and is Director of the Post-Professional Program. Previously taught at Columbia University & Harvard University. Principal of Archi-Tectonics, New York since 1994. Juror and lecturer at several national and international Architecture Schools, including Cornell University, the Architectural Association in London and AIA-NY.
Recipient of numerous grants and awards. Monograph: Winka Dubbeldam Architect, (1996). Archi-tectonics has realized several significant residential and commercial projects in Manhattan. Recent projects include: a private residence & guesthouse in Upstate New York; a new 11-story mixed-use building in Soho, NYC; a residence in Vera Cruz, Mexico; three residential towers in Rotterdam.

Projects include:

http://www.design.upenn.edu/new/imagesdyn/faculty/CCA%20builidng%20copy.jpg

http://www.design.upenn.edu/new/imagesdyn/faculty/Vestry%20Street%20project%20copy.jpg

[Wooster]

Although I am big fan of modern architecture, this is a perfect example of how architects never seem to translate the design into a very realistic rendering. Everything is very abstract and transparent. It rarely ever looks anything like it does when executed in reality. The concepts often look fantastic and different but much, much worse when actually built.

I'd really like to see some examples of projects already built with this kind of programming (large scale mixed use residental, retail) that you would like to see.

[AUM]

Here is there weblink.


http://www.archi-tectonics.com/


If you look at the Q-Tower project in Philly it is currently underconstruction. As well there are some that have been completed. The one I had illustrated above is currently in construction documents. The one located at 31 Vestry is also U/C.

[Kevin_foster]

A little on the LARGE side - but other than that 1.8 thumbs up...

[Hardhatdan]

Its alright, but I can't its really attention grabbing or anything special.
It won't ever look dated or out of place, so thats a good thing.

[Claeren]

I think it will look better in person than in renderings, and design-wise will hold up well over time.

Much like Stella (/Nova/Luna) of the same architect.


One word to describe it? 'Subtle' maybe? The slightly over-done terraced gardens are the only thing keeping 'subtle' from being the perfect word for it...



Claeren.

[vid]

Take offe thate e, ite doesn'te belonge there. :rolleyes:

[trueviking]

i agree, that extra e is so annoying.

nice project...great density...huge eh? damn.....how many units?

[Boris2k7]

i agree, that extra e is so annoying.

nice project...great density...huge eh? damn.....how many units?

The 'e' is annoying indeed... it is no longer in the project's name however...

[Wooster]

nice project...great density...huge eh? damn.....how many units?

The first phase (3 towers) is just under 600. The total project I believe was slated to be about 990. Not sure if that has changed.

[Zilla]

I would have preferred they incorporate the facade of the old moderne Greyhound bus barns, but so much for that...

[Calgarian]

I would have preferred they incorporate the facade of the old moderne Greyhound bus barns, but so much for that...

we have enough brick facades under construction in the beltline, go for something different in Eau Claire

[Arriviste]

^ There is nothing wrong with it at all. It just doesn't push any boundaries. I don't think that makes it 'weak' it just makes it relatively standard. I think we do need some projects that are different, but it is quite simply impossible to re-invent the wheel with residential projects. This role I think falls with institutional, public or, large-scale commercial projects, where pockets are deep. For example in neighbourhoods in New York or Paris both great cities - how many are really visually 'inspiring' or all that different from the rest?


I too would have to go with weak. AUM made a great point about this project having all the checklist requisites that supposedly make up a good project. It's like getting a B in an important class. They met the requirements, but did not show initiative in progressing the art in any way. Passable is not good enough for my tastes. Such a prime location deserves something a little more appropriate to what architcture is capable of. It's better than Oscar though.

At least one member of council is utterly opposed to the relatively complacent attitude towards architecture in this city which is promising, but we need the consumers to demand architecture on par with the best in the world. Great architecture enriches the city. 20 years from now projects like this will be just another footnote in Calgarys architectural history, whereas the likes of The Bow will be respected for it's advancement of the City's capabilities for accepting and constructing the best of contemporary architecture. Much like what HSBC did for Hong Kong in the early 80's. Of course I am not implying Calgary is of will be on par with HK, just giving a comparison.*


*I hate having to write exemption of liability statements into my posts so other forumers dont get all uppity. You guys know what I'm saying.

[Claeren]

I too would have to go with weak. AUM made a great point about this project having all the checklist requisites that supposedly make up a good project. It's like getting a B in an important class. They met the requirements, but did not show initiative in progressing the art in any way. Passable is not good enough for my tastes. Such a prime location deserves something a little more appropriate to what architcture is capable of. It's better than Oscar though.

At least one member of council is utterly opposed to the relatively complacent attitude towards architecture in this city which is promising, but we need the consumers to demand architecture on par with the best in the world. Great architecture enriches the city. 20 years from now projects like this will be just another footnote in Calgarys architectural history, whereas the likes of The Bow will be respected for it's advancement of the City's capabilities for accepting and constructing the best of contemporary architecture. Much like what HSBC did for Hong Kong in the early 80's. Of course I am not implying Calgary is of will be on par with HK, just giving a comparison.*


*I hate having to write exemption of liability statements into my posts so other forumers dont get all uppity. You guys know what I'm saying.


Yeah, i see what you are saying.... but sometimes the flashiest building that SEEMS the most cutting edge ends up being the tackiest over time, and the simpler and more straightforward form that was overlooked in its day ends up being a timeless classic.

It can be pretty hard to say - especially from an early 'artist rendering'. But if it has all of the needed design elements at ~8 out of 10, then maybe just maybe it is one of those cases... ?




Claeren.

[shappy]

what's with that corner extension above the roof-line (visible in the 2nd pic)? Elements like that seem to be very popular in Calgary... they were popular elsewhere as well, 15 years ago. Pointless additions like that irritate my Torontoneomodernist eyes. Good street presence though.

[ScottFromCalgary]

^ There is nothing wrong with it at all. It just doesn't push any boundaries. I don't think that makes it 'weak' it just makes it relatively standard. I think we do need some projects that are different, but it is quite simply impossible to re-invent the wheel with residential projects. This role I think falls with institutional, public or, large-scale commercial projects, where pockets are deep. For example in neighbourhoods in New York or Paris both great cities - how many are really visually 'inspiring' or all that different from the rest?

I wonder why that is. You would think that corporations would tend to focus more on building something functional and cheap, whereas people would be willing to pay up for something that they would actually live in. Personally, I consider my home to be more representative of who I am than where I work.

[Thinner6]

For the area I think it works. Good color scheme and it's a great area. A step in the right direction in my opinion.

[Wooster]

I too would have to go with weak. AUM made a great point about this project having all the checklist requisites that supposedly make up a good project. It's like getting a B in an important class. They met the requirements, but did not show initiative in progressing the art in any way. Passable is not good enough for my tastes. Such a prime location deserves something a little more appropriate to what architcture is capable of. It's better than Oscar though.

At least one member of council is utterly opposed to the relatively complacent attitude towards architecture in this city which is promising, but we need the consumers to demand architecture on par with the best in the world. Great architecture enriches the city. 20 years from now projects like this will be just another footnote in Calgarys architectural history, whereas the likes of The Bow will be respected for it's advancement of the City's capabilities for accepting and constructing the best of contemporary architecture. Much like what HSBC did for Hong Kong in the early 80's. Of course I am not implying Calgary is of will be on par with HK, just giving a comparison.*


*I hate having to write exemption of liability statements into my posts so other forumers dont get all uppity. You guys know what I'm saying.

Then again, The Bow is costing well over $500/ sq. ft to build architectural history. I see this building as a relatively standard residential project. Perhaps its location warrents something a little more daring, but that does not make the design, as proposed, bad. It is a pretty high standard regular building. If every building was a stand out, none would. It is the special buildings out there that make the others ordinary. Cities are 95% ordinary building, with that special 5% that stick out. Again, almost always major landmark institutions or come out of some crazy corporate ego an extraordinarily deep pockets that can afford to pay one of the greatest living architects to design their building.

Don't get me wrong, I am all for the avant-garde, but good quality ordinary buildings like this one don't distress me. Incidently, the Councilor you are referring to is a big fan of this project.

[Sacamano]

At least one member of council is utterly opposed to the relatively complacent attitude towards architecture in this city which is promising, but we need the consumers to demand architecture on par with the best in the world. Great architecture enriches the city. 20 years from now projects like this will be just another footnote in Calgarys architectural history, whereas the likes of The Bow will be respected for it's advancement of the City's capabilities for accepting and constructing the best of contemporary architecture. Much like what HSBC did for Hong Kong in the early 80's. Of course I am not implying Calgary is of will be on par with HK, just giving a comparison.*


Honestly, I think you maybe expecting too much for a residential complex

[Arriviste]

Then again, The Bow is costing well over $500/ sq. ft to build architectural history. I see this building as a relatively standard residential project. Perhaps its location warrents something a little more daring, but that does not make the design, as proposed, bad. It is a pretty high standard regular building. If every building was a stand out, none would. It is the special buildings out there that make the others ordinary. Cities are 95% ordinary building, with that special 5% that stick out. Again, almost always major landmark institutions or come out of some crazy corporate ego an extraordinarily deep pockets that can afford to pay one of the greatest living architects to design their building.

Don't get me wrong, I am all for the avant-garde, but good quality ordinary buildings like this one don't distress me. Incidently, the Councilor you are referring to is a big fan of this project.

She does in fact like the project, but didn't seem sold on it's design.

I agree with most of what you said though. Definately valid.

[Arriviste]

Honestly, I think you maybe expecting too much for a residential complex

Honestly, I think that you expect too little for a residential project. I'm just saying, why not make such an expansive, and high profile project a little more daring.

[AUM]

Honestly, I think you maybe expecting too much for a residential complex

I think we should expect the best out of any project....if we don't demand better from residential projects....the places we live in.....how can we demand better from the places we work...play...shop....experience for that matter in the rest of our daily activities? Giving leanency to one typology of development will push others to expect the same leanency. I think we should demand the most of developement as we the public are the ones who engage these places day in and day out. In the same way that many fight to preserve the heritage in this city I am a strong proponent for our new architecture being the best it can be.

I don't want to go on and on but I think if we settle on what developers are proposing in this city in some of the new developments then no one is ever going to push further to give us great architecture and great places in our city. If is up to us to demand more and that is the only way we are going to obtain world classes urban environments and architecture in Calgary.

[The Chemist]

Is this Riverfront Pointe (i.e. Pointe of View) or is it something else,because I'm confused.

I think it looks great, personally. I really like the green roofs.

[Wooster]

^ No. Anthem. 222 Riverfront is what it has been called so far. On the greyhound site.

[Sacamano]

how can we demand better from the places we work...play...shop....experience for that matter in the rest of our daily activities?

how can you possibly make a determination on this particular development from a few artistic impression of the exterior?

anyways, how it interfaces with its environment is of greater importance to me than boldness in design or how tall it appears in the skyline from a distant suburbs. I've concluded on my travels that streetlevel/ urban interface is near the bottom of the lists for most 'star'itecture and/or creative design.

And this is a step up from the incoherent brick podiums, cheap curtain glass towers and goofy over-designed crowns/penthouses

[trueviking]

its a very vancouveresque design.

i love that it fills the block completely....makes a great urban edge...a very urban response....i like that a lot....great contribution to the urban quality at street level...i wish all high rise development was that senstive to the street.

i wouldnt count on the green rooves however...they are easy to render...difficult to get built....same goes for the big trees.

nonetheless, it is a handsome project...would kill for it in winnipeg....maybe not kill, but mame at least.

[trueviking]

shit...i just wasted my 5000th post talking about a building in calgary....dammit.

[AUM]

how can you possibly make a determination on this particular development from a few artistic impression of the exterior?

anyways, how it interfaces with its environment is of greater importance to me than boldness in design or how tall it appears in the skyline from a distant suburbs. I've concluded on my travels that streetlevel/ urban interface is near the bottom of the lists for most 'star'itecture and/or creative design.

And this is a step up from the incoherent brick podiums, cheap curtain glass towers and goofy over-designed crowns/penthouses

My comments are not specifically directed at aesthetics only. There is much more to design than just looks or providing a shell for specific programs. Demanding more from designs is not just about their appearence. We are comimg into a time in society where our environement, health, wellness and resources are of great importance. I do applaud the notion of green roofs if they actually become a reality as they appear in the rendering. (as a quick aside...if you are going to put for the renderings and exude that much detail then people will expect what they see to be put forth. If not then it is nothing more than false advertising.)

Does this design take into account the use of light in the best possible manner to minimize the need for artificial lighting? Does it make use of natural ventilation in its design to lessen the impact of mechanical loads on the building? How is the orientaion make best use of the sunlight and natural air flow.

When I issued my comment demanding more it applies to more than visual elements. Innovation stems beyond appearence. I'm not insuing they implement LEED....but there are basic design principles that can be beneficial to a design and ensure that the impact of the design is minimal on our environment and ensures the best possible living environment. I am more concerned with design creating healthy environments for people to experience and live in. The artistic quality of architecture is only a part of the desing process. The most successful designs not only appeal to us visually but provide us with a full sensual experience. It is for the same reason that new hospitals today are moving back towards allowing fresh air through operable windows.....providing patience with views to the outdoors....and creating environments for healing. So our residential developements should therefore in the same respect provide us with healthy living environments. Architecture does not stop at the external appearence....the design should carry through from outside to inside and vice versa.

So when I look at projects I dont' just take a quick look at their appearence and make my judgment and comments solely on that basis. Rather I look at the project in its entirety and base my decision on many of the points discussed above. Much in the same way as you, I have also learned from my travels...and the experiences that I have gained both positive and negative with respect to architecture and design stem from looking at things in their entirety.

I do agree that starchitecture and the like are not the solution. But I think it is up to 'us' (the public) to demand more from design to ensure we continue to have healthy, experiential and quality design in our cities.

[Just Build It]

Looks good to me. I don't mind the fact that it's not architecturally stunning, and not too surprised either. It's not easy trying to make a residential building architecturally stunning and still affordable. Grwat podium and inner garden area.

[SHOFEAR]

I love it. It's not perfect, but when you start to find to much to complain about in projects of this caliber your getting way to spoiled. I don't think there is a city in North America that wouldn't love to see something like this.

I love how the people who say it sucks never say why...

http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/215/pollmt3.png

[Surrealplaces]

^Yeah I know what you mean. I can understand someone saying it was not great or not bad. I don'y understand how it can be seen as terrible :shrug:

[Arriviste]

Those of us whom don't find it all that good however have been reasonably vocal as too our opinions. But I see your point.

[vid]

Well it isn't the best looking project, but it's probably because of the renderings. When looking at it a second time, it really isn't that bad. But at first I didn't like it, because of the colours.

It's kinda growing on me now, though. I hardly ever vote off the bat on these things, I need time to think about it. I'd say it's good, not great, not bad.

If someone puts through a building request I might try to draw it for the diagrams, it has lots of lines, I like lines.

[Doug]

i wouldnt count on the green rooves however...they are easy to render...difficult to get built....same goes for the big trees.

Very true. It is hard enough finding vegetation that doesn't winter kill in arid, Chinook prone Calgary at ground level, forget exposed on a roof top.

[AUM]

Very true. It is hard enough finding vegetation that doesn't winter kill in arid, Chinook prone Calgary at ground level, forget exposed on a roof top.

It can be done however, I believe Jeremy Sturgess has used green roof technology on a couple of projects in the Banff area. New York for instance has also undertaking implementing green roofs onto many existing buildings. Their winters are not that favorable either yet they have made an effort and I think it is fair for us to expect developers and designers to make that same effort here.

[Doug]

I'm sure it can be done, but it will be a challenge. Calgary's climate is like no place else.

[Surrealplaces]

I'm sure it can be done, but it will be a challenge. Calgary's climate is like no place else.

You're absolutely right. Calgary problem is it's dryness, and warm spells throughout winter. Still stuff does grow here, and interestingly enough if you look at old pictures of Calgary it really looks sparse, partly because it was generally believed that nothing would grow. When my grandmother was a child people thought you could only plant poplars, carrigana or spruce. Today people plant all kinds of varieties. Swedish or columnar aspens would probably do well on green rooftops.

[Claeren]

^ The Barron Building won the Vincent Massey Award back in 1951(?) in part because of a roof top garden and lawn (and because it was mixed use back before 'mixed use' existed). So it can certainly be done today...

I have heard that early Calgary had a very vibrant and well recognized gardening and arborist community?

Does anyone know a good online resource for figuring out which plants would do well in Calgary, and on our roofs?



Claeren.

[freefarezone]

What's the zoning on the lot(s) directly south of this parcel (or north of Livingston Place)?

Along with this project, I think this other lot could have a large impact to the local area... tying the pedestrian traffic between Eau Claire and Chinatown.

[trueviking]

It can be done however, I believe Jeremy Sturgess has used green roof technology on a couple of projects in the Banff area. New York for instance has also undertaking implementing green roofs onto many existing buildings. Their winters are not that favorable either yet they have made an effort and I think it is fair for us to expect developers and designers to make that same effort here.

it certainly is possible, but i can tell you from experience that the cost is very difficult to justify...hopefully it works out here, but green roof technology is still very much a luxury and on developer driven residential construction it is a tough sell, because there is very little long term pay back or return on investment and maintenance is something that most dont want to deal with long term.

energy efficiency and water conservation is something that can be easily quantified....reducing heat islands in the downtown core and reducing the amount of water put into the storm sewers, are not as easy to sell, because they are more hollistic approaches to sustainibility and carry a substantial investment, both in capital cost and long term effort to maintain.

[CtrlAltDel]

I voted terrible, but if there was a choice for "better than an ambandoned building," I would have chosen that. It's in such a prime location, it could get top dollar, and should be a top notch design. But instead we get a bland, been there, done that design. It's just my opinion, and like I said, it's better than an abandoned building.