The Terraces on King | ? | 11 fl | Completed

[chris k]

Buildings styles i think are very personal, and i personally would take the classical "boring" terraces over that slovenian building anyday. I can see buildings like those becoming the ellen faircloughs of the future. I dont think you can really get sick of a general building such as the terraces. It would be nice for them to experiment a bit more but not to that extent and not in INtl village. I like the feel there. i think they should experiment more around city hall area with newer different buildings.

thats just my 2 cents

[RePinion]

To some extent architectural style is just a matter of personal taste. But on the other hand, there is an ongoing architectural discourse and a building can either add to it or not.

In terms of contributing to this discourse, the Terraces adds about as much as this building:



The Slovenian building may be ugly by many standards, but it certainly adds something to the discourse. Simple as that.

I want to live in a city which contributes to the discourse (and not just in terms of architecture), not one which remains in obscure irrelevancy.

[HAMRetrofit]

The previous posts represent my point of people not knowing what to ask for. The city in the 60-70s attempted achieving higher design standards. Unfortunately, what erected was often half-assed. Native Hamiltonians seem to believe that because this was unsuccessful settling for mediocrity is the next best thing.

[RePinion]

Originally Posted by HAMRetrofit

The previous posts represent my point of people not knowing what to ask for. The city in the 60-70s attempted achieving higher design standards. Unfortunately, what erected was often half-assed.

I'm afraid I have to agree with you. I think architectural tastes must be particularly poor in Hamilton. I'm quite confident that any of the buildings I cited could find sufficient public support to be built in Toronto or Montreal.

Just because progressive thinking isn't popular doesn't mean it isn't the best path to follow. I think things may be particularly challenging in Hamilton, as we will need politicians and public officials willing to take the risk of offending the tastes and prejudices of a regressive-minded voter base. Maybe it means progess will never be possible here ... I sure as hell hope not.

Here's another social housing infill project from the same firm that did the ugly Slovenian building. I probably should have cited this one, as it is rather easier to stomach:

[chris k]

I agree fully that last photo changed my perception abit, i jus think the other one was too ugly and the giant silver one looked like a jail but this one is rather nice. I just dont think it would fit in with Intl village. I would love to see that on James north or Locke or basically anywhere else downtown.

[RePinion]

Originally Posted by chris k

I agree fully that last photo changed my perception abit, i jus think the other one was too ugly and the giant silver one looked like a jail but this one is rather nice. I just dont think it would fit in with Intl village. I would love to see that on James north or Locke or basically anywhere else downtown.

I don't think it would fit in either. That wasn't my point. The buildings I showed were clearly designed for their respective urban environments, and who can say how well they fit in there ...

My point was only to show that other municipalities are willing to use public housing as an opportunity to further architectural design while we here in Hamilton are content to let architecture stagnate. I'm not here advocating aggressive architecture, just something better than what we got with the Terraces ...

[raisethehammer]

Originally Posted by RePinion

I'm afraid I have to agree with you. I think architectural tastes must be particularly poor in Hamilton. I'm quite confident that any of the buildings I cited could find sufficient public support to be built in Toronto or Montreal.

Just because progressive thinking isn't popular doesn't mean it isn't the best path to follow. I think things may be particularly challenging in Hamilton, as we will need politicians and public officials willing to take the risk of offending the tastes and prejudices of a regressive-minded voter base. Maybe it means progess will never be possible here ... I sure as hell hope not.

Here's another social housing infill project from the same firm that did the ugly Slovenian building. I probably should have cited this one, as it is rather easier to stomach:

frig. now that is cool.
for the record, Terraces on King isn't being done by the city. it's a private development that received some government money to help out.
I'd like to see a mix of both in Hamilton. I personally like Terraces as well as the 5-storey building going up right now at King and John. it'll add to the heritage feel of the area.
Having said that, I would love to see some unique pieces like this one above in some of parking lots downtown.
I'm hopeful that the Tivoli and Hamilton Artists Inc might bring us a step forward on James North with their unique glass building proposals.

[flar]

There are no Victorian elements in the Terraces rendering, it doesn't really adhere to a style, it's very bland. If I went to a city for a phototour, it would likely get cut from the tour unless it was the only large building.

I actually like that crazy pod building.

[RePinion]

Yeah, the project wasn't straight city housing I know. The project cost is $17m of which the city is ponying up 4.7 and the province 8.6. The design was brought forth by Rudi Spallaci, a local developer, but had to be approved by the city and province. So I guess I can blame our shitty local developers (yet again) as well as incompetent bureaucrats at the city and province ...

[RePinion]

Originally Posted by flar

There are no Victorian elements in the Terraces rendering, it doesn't really adhere to a style, it's very bland. If I went to a city for a phototour, it would likely get cut from the tour unless it was the only large building.

I actually like that crazy pod building.

Haha that's exactly what I said. It doesn't even qualify as architecture in my opinion!

Time for the city to wake up and realize that better is out there and that there's no good reason it couldn't be here too!

[RePinion]

It seems to me that the Terraces is yet another example of an opportunistic developer taking a ton of public money and offering only the absolute minimum in return.

[RePinion]

Originally Posted by flar

I actually like that crazy pod building.

Those pods are actually balconies, with the top coloured parts being canopies which can be pulled down. Very smart design.

Imagine that sort of nifty design on a low-income housing project in Hamilton? Good luck!

[LikeHamilton]

Originally Posted by RePinion

It seems to me that the Terraces is yet another example of an opportunistic developer taking a ton of public money and offering only the absolute minimum in return.

I don't know how opportunistic they are. It only took them 15 years to build the building. I am just happy that there is something going in there. It is not like we have them lined up to build buildings.

[RePinion]

Originally Posted by LikeHamilton

I don't know how opportunistic they are. It only took them 15 years to build the building. I am just happy that there is something going in there. It is not like we have them lined up to build buildings.

Commit a huge chunk of public money and guarantee a certain return on the private part of the investment and watch 'em line up ...

Sure we don't have developers lining up to build downtown, but that's because they usually can't get into the public purse.

[chris k]

Originally Posted by raisethehammer

I'm hopeful that the Tivoli and Hamilton Artists Inc might bring us a step forward on James North with their unique glass building proposals.

I think you read my mind here.

I was hoping that the James North area could become the home to Hamiltons architectural masterpeices.
It all depends on these first few projects.
I could see lots of cool buildings there and maybe them spreading over to the parking lots towards John
I have my fingers crossed on this one

[JT Jacobs]

Originally Posted by flar

There are no Victorian elements in the Terraces rendering, it doesn't really adhere to a style, it's very bland. If I went to a city for a phototour, it would likely get cut from the tour unless it was the only large building.

I actually like that crazy pod building.

Both examples of European social housing submitted by RePinion are--far and away--vastly superior to the Terraces, which is quintessentially Hamilton: bland, boxy, beige, and boring.

Hamilton, unfortunately, has been stuck in the mediocrity rut for so long that we are all ga-ga anytime we see a crane on the Hamilton skyline. Yes, we should be excited at what's going on, but at the same time we should never cease to demand excellence in our municipal projects. We will have to live with these buildings for a long time, after all.

At the very least, and I dread to use this hackneyed word, why can't we demand more sustainable design and practices? Many cities productively juxtapose, as RePinion rightly states, the old and the new. This is part of the creative tension that makes urban areas dynamic: mixed-use buildings and neighbourhoods; a diversity of commerce; a wide array of citizens, races, ethnicities, and classes in dense areas; and a complex, interesting, vibrant pattern of architecture.

[flar]

Originally Posted by JT Jacobs

Many cities productively juxtapose, as RePinion rightly states, the old and the new. This is part of the creative tension that makes urban areas dynamic: mixed-use buildings and neighbourhoods; a diversity of commerce; a wide array of citizens, races, ethnicities, and classes in dense areas; and a complex, interesting, vibrant pattern of architecture.

That would be the way to do it.

I absolutely hate it when new buildings are designed to look old. They almost never fit in with the surroundings. We just have different building methods and materials than they did a hundred years ago, and obviously architectural styles constantly change. Contemporary buildings should use contemporary designs, not try to emulate (poorly in most cases) older architectural styles.

The worst example right now is Amica at Dundas, which is supposed to "fit in" with Dundas' "Victorian" architecture by emulating a "Victorian streetscape". Some people like it, I hate it more each time I see it.



Aside from the ugliness, the other problem with this "Victorian streetscape" is the wall of cement blocks and windows it presents to pedestrians on Hatt and Ogilvie.

[JT Jacobs]

Agreed.

I love heritage buildings and carefully, thoughtfully, lovingly restored buildings, but this kind of faux-emulation is insulting to the eras of true craftsmenship.

I could handle this project a bit more if they'd used the first storey for commerical use--restaurants, shops, coffee houses, etc.

This city still has no feel for pedestrians, and treats them like second-class citizens. Developers don't realize that they could make way more money if they devoted the first floor to commerce. Besides, if you build a large condo, the inhabitants will use the first level's commerce.

The first floor--like the City Centre in Hamilton (a true design disaster)--alienates pedestrian traffic.

[the dude]

anyone have a recent photo of this bad boy? is it hideous or what?

[realcity]

I don't have a photo but saw it last week... chillin at 316. The cladding/facade treatments aren't on it yet, so it's still cinderblock. But I absolutely love how it fills in King East. It's not imposing on the street at all, but 'comforts' the street. Having said that, I'm not against imposing buildings, if the building deserves to be.