[Tobyoby]

Originally Posted by Arch26

I didn't mean to be condescending, but I really do have to agree with Arriviste. I might not go so far as to say that I hate it, but let's face it, it is not innovative. It's been done. It's recycled. It has been transplanted from other times and other cities into a context that really doesn't particularly suit it. Calgary does not have a long history, and so I don't understand why we try to emulate a past that is not our own instead. So why do we borrow architectural styles from 1920s New York? Why doesn't Calgary want to invent its own contemporary architectural language? Why must it always resort to "emulating". I know this city can do better, and THAT is why I am so critical. It's not because I hate every project that comes out, it's because a lot of these projects are lazy and uninspired as Arriviste has indicated and I think there can be better. Why is it wrong to demand a little innovation? Why is it wrong not to be satisfied with status quo? I have no doubt that La Caille on 4th probably has the potential to be a competent building, but I don't think Calgary's architectural/urban community should simply settle for competent.

I agree on that point. It's great to demand some innovation, but be careful what you wish for, just look to Dubai as an example.