Development Concepts and Ideas - Page 17

PoscStudent · #**321** Posted **Mar 25, 2013, 2:52 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Architype

Some of you have been talking about a gas tax of only 1 cent per litre; I should point out how low this would be compared to Metro Vancouver's transit tax which I believe is 17 cents per litre. Of course it is a different thing when it goes to providing an actual rapid transit system.

Well I'd need to see the numbers I guess to know what could be raised. My thought on having a gas tax has been that it could stabilize property taxes for those living in St. John's, while also bringing in revenue from the suburbs.

mrjanejacobs · #**322** Posted **Mar 25, 2013, 11:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by PoscStudent

Well I'd need to see the numbers I guess to know what could be raised. My thought on having a gas tax has been that it could stabilize property taxes for those living in St. John's, while also bringing in revenue from the suburbs.

I think you make a good point (I never thought about it stabilizing property taxes). But Architype is right that such a high gas-tax is really only justifiable when a rapid-transit system is being offered in its place (the perfect irony).

SignalHillHiker · #**323** Posted **Mar 31, 2013, 12:48 PM**

I am in love with the proposal in this link. Check it out!

Quote:

Originally Posted by someone123

Lots of stuff happening around the Cable Wharf area of the Halifax waterfront. The left crane is for the TD building. Right now they are building an addition in front of it that will be connected to the existing tower. It's going to get a few floors taller and will have much nicer cladding with windows facing the harbour.

There are also plans to do some work along the waterfront itself. It will be interesting to see what happens with some of these proposals: http://breakhouse.ca/33839/248238/al...suite-proposal

Source

Marty_Mcfly · #**324** Posted **Mar 31, 2013, 1:52 PM**

Nice infill proposal! Simple, yet elegant. I love Halifax

Copes · #**325** Posted **Apr 1, 2013, 10:55 AM**

Yeah, that's a very neat proposal. Will be perfect in that area. What's more, it seems quite well thought out, and actively tries to engage pedestrians.

I'm a fan. Let's get Breakhouse over here.

A325 · #**326** Posted **May 17, 2013, 12:22 PM**

What is peoples opinion on the use of multi-color facades on large projects immitating DT row houses?

I think it works really well on Star of the Sea and Bennett House but, do you think we are going to see too much of it? The Marriot Exanpsion on Duckworth and Convention Center follow the same pattern. I think it looks great in 'one-off' buildings but its a concept that, in my opinion, gets old fast and can look a bit foolish if we try and incorporate it on more buildings

Copes · #**327** Posted **May 17, 2013, 12:46 PM**

I like it, but I like it on shorter buildings. One of the reasons I think it works on Bennett and Star of the Sea is that they aren't stretching too high into the sky. 4-storeys and 6-storeys respectively. I also think that each does the idea a bit differently, and they do it well. There would be plenty of ways to butcher it.

I think it would look pretty stupid on a 12-storey building. I also think that ten buildings in a row using the idea would be overkill and make an area look bad.

I think it is perfect for mid-rise St. John's infill. However, that's about as far as I would like to see it go.

Townie709 · #**328** Posted **May 17, 2013, 2:27 PM**

I agree with copes

mrjanejacobs · #**329** Posted **May 19, 2013, 11:37 AM**

I'm going to be the voice of the hate-parade, because I know the average forumer likes these designs.

To be fair, it is, at least, an attempt on behalf of the developer to do something with a more local presence/influence. For that, I give kudos and it shows we're moving in the right direction.

However, honestly if I ever proposed something like this in Architecture School citing the rationale that "the local context also varies in colours and that dynamism is continued in my design", our professors wouldn't be happy. They would call it naive, superficial and kitsch. And for the most part, I think I agree.

Architecture shouldn't copy, mimic or imitate. This strategy is actually an uncreative way of responding to the context. It is taking exactly what we are seeing (with row-houses) and extrapolating the idea onto larger scale projects. It's decoration - it's not architecture.

The convention centre example is the best example of this being done horribly. It's like "oh, our city is colourful, so it makes sense that our building be colourful too" - I think it's a naive/superficial assessment of the context and it's a lazy design.

If it was done once, that's fine, but I can only pray this trend comes to an end soon because it's really thoughtless designing.

SignalHillHiker · #**330** Posted **May 19, 2013, 2:34 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrjanejacobs

I'm going to be the voice of the hate-parade, because I know the average forumer likes these designs.

To be fair, it is, at least, an attempt on behalf of the developer to do something with a more local presence/influence. For that, I give kudos and it shows we're moving in the right direction.

However, honestly if I ever proposed something like this in Architecture School citing the rationale that "the local context also varies in colours and that dynamism is continued in my design", our professors wouldn't be happy. They would call it naive, superficial and kitsch. And for the most part, I think I agree.

Architecture shouldn't copy, mimic or imitate. This strategy is actually an uncreative way of responding to the context. It is taking exactly what we are seeing (with row-houses) and extrapolating the idea onto larger scale projects. It's decoration - it's not architecture.

The convention centre example is the best example of this being done horribly. It's like "oh, our city is colourful, so it makes sense that our building be colourful too" - I think it's a naive/superficial assessment of the context and it's a lazy design.

If it was done once, that's fine, but I can only pray this trend comes to an end soon because it's really thoughtless designing.

I could agree with your post if you were talking about something like this:

Google Street View

But Star of the Sea is an excellent, contemporary design. It "has a conversation" with our heritage, as you say, but doesn't mimic it to the point of being kitsch.

I'd rank Star of the Sea up there with the Bluedrop Building and others that flawlessly blend our heritage with contemporary design.

It's definitely not a Bowring Downtown Centre.

mrjanejacobs · #**331** Posted **May 19, 2013, 4:10 PM**

We can agree that it's a "contemporary" design, otherwise we'll have to agree to disagree.

It's a box. The design is a box. It has some decorative colours spicing up the facade - the space created is null. It's not mimicking, it's mocking.

All I know is that my profs would fail me if I ever presented SoS.

PoscStudent · #**332** Posted **May 19, 2013, 4:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker

I'd rank Star of the Sea up there with the Bluedrop Building and others that flawlessly blend our heritage with contemporary design.

I agree, I think they're both great.

Marty_Mcfly · #**333** Posted **May 19, 2013, 5:01 PM**

I typically don't like trying to mimic row-houses in larger developments just as much as I dislike trying to mimic "heritage structures" in new developments. I think the new buildings on Harvey Road are insanely tacky.

jeddy1989 · #**334** Posted **May 19, 2013, 5:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by PoscStudent

I agree, I think they're both great.

I agree I think they look great

SignalHillHiker · #**335** Posted **May 19, 2013, 5:56 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marty_Mcfly

I typically don't like trying to mimic row-houses in larger developments just as much as I dislike trying to mimic "heritage structures" in new developments. I think the new buildings on Harvey Road are insanely tacky.

I genuinely didn't even realize they weren't heritage buildings. I can't even remember what was there before. I wouldn't change those buildings for the world. I LOVE how they have that small scale density, and how they come to a point, and maintain the same height (relatively) downhill.

I LOVE that development, LOVE, LOVE, LOVE. SO much.

SignalHillHiker · #**336** Posted **May 19, 2013, 5:58 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrjanejacobs

All I know is that my profs would fail me if I ever presented SoS.

Well you tell them there's this guy on the internet who says otherwise.

Architype · #**337** Posted **May 28, 2013, 12:48 AM**

Maybe it's been mentioned before, but for anyone who hasn't seen it, it's worth a look at the RBC Waterside Centre project in Halifax.
(A 9 story 37m development which retains the existing heritage façades.)

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...33#post6142633

ed0797 · #**338** Posted **May 28, 2013, 12:57 AM**

One of the pictures Signal posted today got me thinking;

It'd be great if they redeveloped the Parking Lot/Garage in the lower half of the picture and extended it to Water Street. It'd give a big bonus to some of the demand for parking in the east end of downtown. Even putting a few storeys of shopping on top to create a small shopping center would benefit the area as well.

Architype · #**339** Posted **May 28, 2013, 1:08 AM**

There is not a lot of space there but it could probably double the existing capacity.

http://binged.it/11sWHUY

mrjanejacobs · #**340** Posted **Jun 12, 2013, 3:59 PM**

http://www.pps.org/blog/citizen-plac...-public-space/

Check out this article on placemaking through low-cost retrofits of abandoned parcels of land by implementing semi-public public spaces, aka. social clubs!