Quote:
Originally Posted by Hourglass
Sorry, did I miss something? Didn't the UDP just reject this design?
Your comment at the beginning of the previous page was that "anything is better than that cheap ugly parkade".
So one can only conclude that what you're actually saying is that the UDP is being square-headed for rejecting a mediocre design that is still better than the cheap ugly parkade that is there?
I'm not quite following the logic.
|
Excuse me. My first remark, ways back, about "anything being better than a cheap ugly parkade," was really hyperbole.
My understanding was that the design that the UDP rejected was the one in the renders: the "dumbed-down" design. Did I get that wrong? Sorry if I did, but I remember another person being confused about that, too.
My examples of buildings with more "design" in them, whether one likes 'em or hates 'em, was just a way of saying that more design and interest CAN be put into a building if the willingness is there (although, yes, this is normally compromised by $$$ factors)
The statement I was trying to make was, why can't they put something in that place that is interestingly designed. As another poster pointed out this is "ground zero" of the tourist area of Vancouver.
The examples I used disgusted many posters, including "Easy as Pie" from SF. Maybe he's right. But all I was really trying to say was: if they're going to build something in such a high-profile location, why can't it be snazzy and interesting, and not just infill. Excuse the obfuscation.