LaCaille on 4th Consensus - Page 4

The Chemist · #61 Posted **Aug 3, 2007, 8:05 PM**

This building is obviously influenced by Bankers Hall, which is consistently rated as one of the favourite buildings of Calgarians in yearly opinion polls. So nothing wrong there.

The spire and colouration is far better than Trump Toronto, IMO - I dislike the green/blue colour of Trump, and I think the stronger blue here is FAR better. And I hate Trump's stupid spire- the spire on this one is much less ostentatious.

Arch26 · #62 Posted **Aug 3, 2007, 8:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tobyoby

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.

haha... true true. But I wouldn't worry. Dubai's architecture (innovative or not) is allegedly suited to the time, geography and culture unique to that place, and so, I would think, that unless we go emulating them too, Calgary has little to fear...

Wooster · #63 Posted **Aug 3, 2007, 8:10 PM**

Yeah. I lean on the side of Arch26 and Arriviste. There is NOTHING innovate or avante garde about this design. It is recycled, and does nothing to push architecture forward. Arriviste explains it very well.

However, I am not necessarily offended by that as much.

It WILL be loved by a lot of people, which is a good thing. I just hope we get an equal number of truly progressive and INNOVATIVE projects as well that serve a forward-thinking purpose. I'm hopeful with the library coming up, several of Torode's projects (from what I've heard about who's being hired on) and others.

There is nothing I find particularly unattractive about it, to me it is a rather pedestrian design. It does the post modern thing well, it is not overly adorned by doo dads, and it is pretty clean which is a plus. If you're into that kind of thing then it will be good.

Perhaps I'll also post what I think Calgary needs a bit more of as well.

Time for a thread about "your personal ideal in architecture" thread.

Surrealplaces · #64 Posted **Aug 3, 2007, 8:11 PM**

I like it. It's just my opinion, but it's a nice looking project. The best features are:

-the height
-great mixed use

There are some pomo aspects to this, but to me it doesn't look like a pomo building. There are other aspects that are quite nicely modern. If you consider only the top half of the building it doesn't look pomo at all. The glass on the upper portion will look great with the evening sun reflecting off of it.

Me&You · #65 Posted **Aug 3, 2007, 8:12 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arch26

haha... true true. But I wouldn't worry. Dubai's architecture (innovative or not) is allegedly suited to the time, geography and culture unique to that place, and so, I would think, that unless we go emulating them too, Calgary has little to fear...

So you like the buildings in Dubai because they suit their time in their location?

Everytime a new rendering is released for a building in Calgary, Arriviste and you comment on "not for its time" "nothing innovative"... which is fine. I (for the sake of broadening my architectural knowledge) would for once like to see a visual example of what you (or Arriviste) would prefer, without the contrived babble. Please, help me learn!

Surrealplaces · #66 Posted **Aug 3, 2007, 8:18 PM**

Actually, I quite enjoying this thread. Everyone is really into this, and something may come out this. Arriviste and some of the others seem to want more innovation, which is fine. I can't argue that. I'd like to see some examples of more innovation, and perhaps we can have a thread on that, as Josh has suggested. If we can see, and have a consensus on some examples of better designs, it might somehow filter it's way into the industry. If you want to get people on side for better designs, they need to see some examples.

Arch26 · #67 Posted **Aug 3, 2007, 8:22 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Me&You

So you like the buildings in Dubai because they suit their time in their location?

Everytime a new rendering is released for a building in Calgary, Arriviste and you comment on "not for its time" "nothing innovative"... which is fine. I (for the sake of broadening my architectural knowledge) would for once like to see a visual example of what you (or Arriviste) would prefer, without the contrived babble. Please, help me learn!

Whoa!!!! I never said I liked Dubai's architecture. I will rack my brain for some interesting tower proposals in other cities.

Beltliner · #68 Posted **Aug 3, 2007, 8:23 PM**

Anyone up for this example of what not to do?

Arch26 · #69 Posted **Aug 3, 2007, 8:28 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arch26

Whoa!!!! I never said I liked Dubai's architecture. I will rack my brain for some interesting tower proposals in other cities.

I have noted a couple along with Arriviste's in the main thread.

Stephen Ave · #70 Posted **Aug 3, 2007, 8:36 PM**

I voted 'great', because I really do like, but I don't think a new bar has been set. The Bow is still heads above this one. If they got rid of the pomo style base of the building it would be much better.

DrJoe · #71 Posted **Aug 3, 2007, 8:38 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeffwhit

oh please.

What? For the most part the PoMo is left in the burbs.

I will use Spire as an example of what gets built here. Obviously not ground-breaking but it is modern, reminiscent of the era in which it is built, works well in it's surroundings, etc. It is not trying to be an historical play on anything. I am not saying that this is the best building around, it is not, but it is a good example.

Me&You · #72 Posted **Aug 3, 2007, 8:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arch26

Whoa!!!! I never said I liked Dubai's architecture. I will rack my brain for some interesting tower proposals in other cities.

Didn't mean to say you liked it, but fitting in with its time seems to be a huge factor in your opinion.

Thanks, I look forward to any examples you can provide!

Arriviste · #73 Posted **Aug 3, 2007, 8:41 PM**

I'm a fan of Spire as well. Not the greatest, but its a step in the right direction. I am a big fan of a simple box, but I do like dynamic forms as well as long as they are sensitive to the environment. I disagree with adding surface area to a structure for aesthetic reasons alone. Thats why I hate Gehry.

Bigtime · #74 Posted **Aug 3, 2007, 8:42 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrJoe

What? For the most part the PoMo is left in the burbs.

I will use Spire as an example of what gets built here. Obviously not ground-breaking but it is modern, reminiscent of the era in which it is built, works well in it's surroundings, etc. It is not trying to be an historical play on anything. I am not saying that this is the best building around, it is not, but it is a good example.

I like that Spire! Would be nice to see a couple of that look in Calgary as well, but then we would just be unoriginal yet again!

roman · #75 Posted **Aug 3, 2007, 8:47 PM**

I absolutley love this building. I guess that I'm one of those who likes classic architecture and who doesn't really want to see a building that looks like a big easter egg or that leans over or has funny shapes. You may tell me that we should not copy architecture from the past and that its boring and that we should be building towers that are new and innovative but I see some of the designs that are considered to be "leading edge" and I think they are ugly. When I look at buildings like the chrysler tower in new york or bank of china in Hong Kong - they are timeless and eye pleasing. This new building for calgary is very eye pleasing!

jeffwhit · #76 Posted **Aug 3, 2007, 8:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrJoe

What? For the most part the PoMo is left in the burbs.

"For the most part" is hardly the same as "Toronto doesn't do PoMo." These blanket statements just make you sound ridiculous. After all, where is this Trump Tower that this project is being compared and contrasted with in 6 separate fucking threads?

tony0911 · #77 Posted **Aug 3, 2007, 9:00 PM**

Good on you Calgary......I think it looks great.

DrJoe · #78 Posted **Aug 3, 2007, 9:03 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeffwhit

"For the most part" is hardly the same as "Toronto doesn't do PoMo." These blanket statements just make you sound ridiculous. After all, where is this Trump Tower that this project is being compared and contrasted with in 6 separate fucking threads?

I'm sorry that you took my words 100% literal.

Trump BTW is a poor example, after years on the market and a height reduction it might finally get built. Design and location have been 2 of its biggest struggles.

Big Sky · #79 Posted **Aug 3, 2007, 9:05 PM**

I like it. Not the best building being proposed in Calgary but looks good.

Arriviste · #80 Posted **Aug 3, 2007, 9:10 PM**

This is the last I have to say on the topic of LaCaille*, and I'm going to make it situational: It seems to me as if enjoying LaCaille is commensurate to sleeping with a blow up doll. It may seem as though it has all that is necessary in the way of physical appearance, but as time goes by you start to feel dirty, and ashamed. Those once attractive physical features now mar your memory... Curves, bright red lips, dinner plate eyes, blond hair, and as tall as any skyscraper fan could hope for (at least in Calgary). Your guilt stems from a knowledge that it was all an illusion! A facade! It's easy to see through the classical good looks and see her/him for what he/she is... A cheap knockoff of some antiquated ideal of the perfect bit of eye candy. Time is unkind to apish knockoffs of any variety. Why plasticize your reality? Thats really my question...

*Probably not even close