If You Could Build ONE Highrise Downtown.... - Page 3

s211 · #41 Posted **Nov 17, 2009, 5:22 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigcitydude

i would sure like to see a mini style, maybe 40 story copy of that here!

No, you wouldn't. Calgary dodged that bullet a few years ago. It looked HORRIBLE. You can't properly copy this project on a smaller scale without losing the harmony and proportions of the original.

Can't recall the developer (might be land JVd with CF), but it was proposed for the site east of E&Y Tower. I'm sure there's old rendering lurking about somewhere here in SSP.

kcantor · #42 Posted **Nov 17, 2009, 7:38 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by s211

No, you wouldn't. Calgary dodged that bullet a few years ago. It looked HORRIBLE. You can't properly copy this project on a smaller scale without losing the harmony and proportions of the original.

Can't recall the developer (might be land JVd with CF), but it was proposed for the site east of E&Y Tower. I'm sure there's old rendering lurking about somewhere here in SSP.

true enough that it's virtually impossible to copy a building but there's no need to "put away the style forever" as a result:

from emporis

from merrick architecture

canucklehead2 · #43 Posted **Nov 17, 2009, 11:49 PM**

I agree, what the Edmonton skyline needs is a tall, thin tower with jaw-dropping crown and spire. I've always thought the cities tallest building should go up at Jasper Avenue and Rice Howard Way on the Telus parkette next to the Union Bank Inn... I've drawn up a few sketches over the years for a mixed-use tower of offices, a luxury hotel/condos, observation/entertainment floors, telecommunications equipment and a cool spire, just for kicks, and of course height/bragging rights...

It might look a bit bizarre at first, but it would look good once the skyline grew up around it... I've also thought about towers for the Eaton Centre, sorry, City Centre West parkade, the Carma-Bowlen site next to the convention centre, the WTC/CIBC bank site and yes, even above the MacLeod Building. I've always thought it could use an animorphic blob of a glass tower rising above it like a cloud. Apparently, the foundation for the existing building was designed for the weight of a 50-floor tower, so it might be possible to tie into that existing infrastructure for a complementary tower above it...

kcantor · #44 Posted **Nov 18, 2009, 12:14 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by canucklehead2

I agree, what the Edmonton skyline needs is a tall, thin tower with jaw-dropping crown and spire. I've always thought the cities tallest building should go up at Jasper Avenue and Rice Howard Way on the Telus parkette next to the Union Bank Inn... I've drawn up a few sketches over the years for a mixed-use tower of offices, a luxury hotel/condos, observation/entertainment floors, telecommunications equipment and a cool spire, just for kicks, and of course height/bragging rights...

It might look a bit bizarre at first, but it would look good once the skyline grew up around it... I've also thought about towers for the Eaton Centre, sorry, City Centre West parkade, the Carma-Bowlen site next to the convention centre, the WTC/CIBC bank site and yes, even above the MacLeod Building. I've always thought it could use an animorphic blob of a glass tower rising above it like a cloud. Apparently, the foundation for the existing building was designed for the weight of a 50-floor tower, so it might be possible to tie into that existing infrastructure for a complementary tower above it...

you mean something midblock and cool like this?

image courtesy of emporis and fosters

although i think it may well still be on the cancelled or hold list at the moment, hole in the ground notwithstanding...

as for more height on the macleod block, even if the foundations were there for what might have been built a half century ago, there's no way they would be "in the right place" or sufficient for current core requirements for elevators and stairwells etc. even if you could punch them in to the exisiting floor plates...

bigcitydude · #45 Posted **Nov 18, 2009, 1:16 AM**

something midblock and cool like this?

image courtesy of emporis and fosters

^^^man, that would look sweet in downtown E-Town!

Kevin_foster · #46 Posted **Nov 19, 2009, 11:28 PM**

Jameson place is a Norman Foster, right?
Damn Calgary and their 2 damned Norman Fosters!!~~

Daveography · #47 Posted **Nov 20, 2009, 3:37 PM**

^ Jamieson Place was designed by Gibbs Gage.

s211 · #48 Posted **Nov 20, 2009, 4:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by RTA

^ Jamieson Place was designed by Gibbs Gage.

Kevin, you're confusing projects with similar names. The Vancouver project is Foster. The Calgary one is Gibbs.

Kevin_foster · #49 Posted **Nov 20, 2009, 5:45 PM**

Ugh, I knew Jameson place was Vancouver.. the one in Calgary is much much different - my bad

SHOFEAR · #50 Posted **Nov 20, 2009, 5:55 PM**

build one tower? might as well build the most beautiful building ever.

Kevin_foster · #51 Posted **Nov 20, 2009, 6:11 PM**

^ mmm I love the Seagram building, neat that it was a Canadian company it was built for (Seagrams)

kcantor · #52 Posted **Nov 20, 2009, 6:11 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SHOFEAR

build one tower? might as well build the most beautiful building ever.

if that's "the most beautiful building ever", what would you call this one:

Kevin_foster · #53 Posted **Nov 20, 2009, 6:17 PM**

^ IBM tower in Chicago was built 20 years after Seagrams.. same architect though, Ludwig Rohe. Seagrams had influence in new york.... where IBM seemed to be status quo.

Almost identical, but IBM is taller I believe.. never been in IBM, but the finishings in seagrams is outstanding

kcantor · #54 Posted **Nov 20, 2009, 6:38 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin_foster

^ IBM tower in Chicago was built 20 years after Seagrams.. same architect though, Mr. Ludwig Rohe

i know. the question wasn't "what building is it", it was what how it should be described given the initial descriptive...

and we're both presuming that the accolade was being given to mr. rohe's buidling and not some of the other prominent work that is also apparent in the initial photo...

personally, i think lever house just down the street is more successful than seagrams (and it predates seagrams by most of a decade) although some of that is personal and related to the urban edges as well as the building. i was never a fan of rohe's use of plazas to distance his buildings from the street rather than choosing to engage the street.

as far as modernism goes, i think even the best examples are probably more accurately described as "striking" than "beautiful".

canucklehead2 · #55 Posted **Nov 20, 2009, 10:55 PM**

Actually I was thinking more 7 South Dearborn, Four First Union (Charlotte), London Shard or Grollo Tower (Melbourne). Something very tall, very slender and needle like...

bigcitydude · #56 Posted **Nov 21, 2009, 12:50 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by cdnklc

if that's "the most beautiful building ever", what would you call this one:

hate to be a stick in the mud, but i find this building boring, bland and boxy.

bigcitydude · #57 Posted **Nov 21, 2009, 12:51 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SHOFEAR

build one tower? might as well build the most beautiful building ever.

sorry, but boring, bland and boxy

noodlenoodle · #58 Posted **Nov 21, 2009, 1:19 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigcitydude

sorry, but boring, bland and boxy

Yet you like the Icons...

mcc16 · #59 Posted **Nov 21, 2009, 3:33 AM**

Bigcitydude, you have to realize that people on this website don't actually like buildings for how they look. Skyscraperpagers only like buildings that are designed in a way that let's them show off their architectual savvy (or in other words, how much time they have spent researching it on wikipedia)

kcantor · #60 Posted **Nov 21, 2009, 4:04 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcc16

Bigcitydude, you have to realize that people on this website don't actually like buildings for how they look. Skyscraperpagers only like buildings that are designed in a way that let's them show off their architectual savvy (or in other words, how much time they have spent researching it on wikipedia)

it's a lot more interesting doing that research in person in the field and some of us are lucky enough to be able to do more of that rather than less...

how design "works" - or how it "doesn't work" - and whether you'll like how it works or not can't be done on wikipedia alone but it is one of the tools available and sometimes a quicker source of a photo to post than your own files.