Quote:
Originally Posted by Metro-One
And there is room for a variety of opinions, and my opinion is that this "winner" is a terrible choice. There were many great submissions made though, and this is not one of them.
The water acts as a barrier, as do these towers, it will be terrible for traffic flow (especially for East Hastings, Water street, etc...), there is an extreme overkill in plain open grassy fields (a lot of more of the same for Vancouver), etc...
That is my opinion [...].
Again much oft his proposal could even be built with the viaducts still in place, that is the funny point. They seem to be removed just because here.
And yes, i would miss the road winding through the back side of the stadiums, a very cool urban part of Vancouver. Taken away for more repetitive development.
|
I kind of agree with the opinion above (more especially that the proposal could be build as well with the viaduct in place)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr.x
...
The waterway idea would work well, without the absurd green spaces. Having canals right up to buildings or a pedestrian-only street next to these buildings could build a really interesting urban vibe, you could even have boats moored to the edges of canals. Imagine turning Carrall Street into such.
...
|
What you says seems to be pretty much like it:
(that is submission
109 via this
blog)
(Ok, you will find it pretty much too green...). Personally I think the mountain view is iconic enough, and don't see the need of an "iconic building" which has all the chance to turn out bland if not more after a couple of year, to hide a mountain which we know will not turn out of fashion in couple of year or so (like most of the "iconic" building) and hard to copy cat even in Dubai or Shanghai
Threaded Mode