225 - 6th Ave: Like it, love it, hate it, meh?

[Surrealplaces]

225 - 6th ave seems to be a polarizing design. Some love it, other don't. It seems like one camp likes the simplicity of the design and the materials, while the other camp wants something more unique. What camp are you in?


Sorry to add another thread regarding 225 - 6th ave. I meant to add a poll in the other one, but accidentally created the thread without putting in the poll to so I'm creating this thread. Perhaps the mods can add the posts from the other thread into this one?

The rendering. Keep in mind there are more renderings to come out later that show more of the street level winter garden design.


225 - 6th Ave by Calgary Renders, on Flickr

[MonctonGoldenFlames]

meh. fairly uninteresting boxes. the client obviously has cost issues and the architects hands were tied. i would take this over nothing.

[drto]

I voted against it, not because I don't think it's a nice proposal, but because I think something better HAS to go here. As they state in the article, it is the "geographic" center of downtown, and we only get one chance to do this and get a truly magnificent design. I'm also getting so sick of twins in Calgary, it's comical. We might become the laughing stock of the skyscraper world. Can't come up with different and unique designs so just double the plan, one higher than the other, maybe twist one tower so it's reversed or at a right angle from the other and be done with it! Certainly there has to be something better than the current proposal. I'm all for two towers on the block but I want more height on the first-built tower, even if that means we have to wait for the second.

[Deepstar]

Yeah, I'm sick of twins too. It seems Calgary is cursed in that regard. we can only hope that some day in the future some of the twin complexes might turn one tower into a condo or something, and a few changes get made to the building.

Regarding the design of the building. It is the geographical center of downtown, but that doesn't change my vote. I'm voting strictly on the design itself.

Originally Posted by drto

I voted against it, not because I don't think it's a nice proposal, but because I think something better HAS to go here. As they state in the article, it is the "geographic" center of downtown, and we only get one chance to do this and get a truly magnificent design. I'm also getting so sick of twins in Calgary, it's comical. We might become the laughing stock of the skyscraper world. Can't come up with different and unique designs so just double the plan, one higher than the other, maybe twist one tower so it's reversed or at a right angle from the other and be done with it! Certainly there has to be something better than the current proposal. I'm all for two towers on the block but I want more height on the first-built tower, even if that means we have to wait for the second.

[Cowtown_Tim]

I don't love it, but I do like it. I give it a 7.5 out of 10.

[elconsulto]

I like the idea that if it were a bit taller (10-20%) then it would make a really nice backdrop to the Bow especially when you're looking at the city from Bridgeland. The city should offer them slight tax deduction or construction tax reduction in exchange for at best improving the design and height and at worst just increasing the height. Remember, our skylines best feature is how it steps back from the river, it would be great if we could maintain this effect.

[333609543]

Originally Posted by drto

I voted against it, not because I don't think it's a nice proposal, but because I think something better HAS to go here. As they state in the article, it is the "geographic" center of downtown, and we only get one chance to do this and get a truly magnificent design. I'm also getting so sick of twins in Calgary, it's comical. We might become the laughing stock of the skyscraper world. Can't come up with different and unique designs so just double the plan, one higher than the other, maybe twist one tower so it's reversed or at a right angle from the other and be done with it! Certainly there has to be something better than the current proposal. I'm all for two towers on the block but I want more height on the first-built tower, even if that means we have to wait for the second.

Calgary is unique in that way, a few taller singular buildings like The Bow would be nice, but twins is what makes Calgary, Calgary. I voted that i liked it, needs some improvements, to make it unique, but it's a fairly good design.

Originally Posted by MonctonGoldenFlames

the client obviously has cost issues and the architects hands were tied.

How much does this affect cost, compared to a "complicated" building like EAP? Would a 247 metre EAP cost more than this HS rendering because of its various setbacks, despite less square footage?

Awesome work with the renderings! Added my thoughts.

Originally Posted by CtrlAltDel

I voted "Meh". Nice enough towers, wrong location.
Agree with others about not being "Calgary" enough. These towers could be plopped down on any block in the world.

What about actual tapered towers that narrow towards the top?
Love these... build em. Maybe stretch the taller one to 270 metres to make up for the taper?

Or what about scrap the smaller twin, and make 1 larger tower? Turn the other side into a museum, convention centre or theatre.
When we get a building that tall, it really needs to have some variation in it. At 250 m, I don't mind the current rendering.

Take it one further, and add a true twin (in a creepy, modern WTC way):
Can you imagine the sh!tstorm if they built "WTC clones" here. Oh man, a whole lot of people would be butt hurt.

Or what about move them to the railroad tracks, and put a grand single tower in their place, a la Transbay Tower from San Francisco?
Fits much better in SF than it would here, methinks. Also has some issues with its usable floor space as you get high, a lot of unnecessary cost.

[Calgarian]

I vote meh.

I think we can probably delete the other thread...

[Surrealplaces]

I voted 'love it'. This is my type of building. It could have had a little more imagination, but I like the simple sleek designs.

[Radley77]

100% thumbs down on this one. Calgary has already mastered the "Super Transnational United Amalgamated Corporation" look. I would rather see Calgary's skyline to take cues for example from things like First Nations or the Rocky Mountains (things that make Calgary distinct), rather than global architectural trends. Great cities aren't defined by world-architecture, they define it.

[Deepstar]

Originally Posted by Radley77

100% thumbs down on this one. Calgary has already mastered the "Super Transnational United Amalgamated Corporation" look. I would rather see Calgary's skyline to take cues for example from things like First Nations or the Rocky Mountains, rather than global architectural trends. Great cities aren't defined by world-architecture, they define it.

It's a privately funded building so it has to work for the developer also. Sure it would be cool to see a building shaped like a lizard but in a free enterprise market it ain't gonna work.

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by Deepstar

It's a privately funded building so it has to work for the developer also. Sure it would be cool to see a building shaped like a lizard but in a free enterprise market it ain't gonna work.

EAP is a great example of a simple building that makes a nod to the local geography. That building get's +1 for being distinctly Calgarian.

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by Deepstar

It's a privately funded building so it has to work for the developer also. Sure it would be cool to see a building shaped like a lizard but in a free enterprise market it ain't gonna work.

Also: the Bow!

[patm]

Originally Posted by Radley77

100% thumbs down on this one. Calgary has already mastered the "Super Transnational United Amalgamated Corporation" look. I would rather see Calgary's skyline to take cues for example from things like First Nations or the Rocky Mountains (things that make Calgary distinct), rather than global architectural trends. Great cities aren't defined by world-architecture, they define it.

No.

No. No. No.

I've had enough "local" and "faux-heritage" shoved down my throat in this city.

[Radley77]

Originally Posted by patm

No.

No. No. No.

I've had enough "local" and "faux-heritage" shoved down my throat in this city.

I think it's important for developing cities to be contemporary to be viewed as an open place to do business. Yet at the same time, buildings like Eighth Avenue Place take cues from the Rocky Mountains, Cantos National Music Centre which takes cues from the hoodoos, and The Bow which takes cues from the Bow River say to me that they respect individuality. In my opinion, it's this quality that makes Chicago have a better skyline (and economy!) than say Detroit. Calgary is continuing to grow from a place that is "tolerant" to a place that is "accepting." To that end, I hope that in these modern times that architecture will opt towards adding variety and spice to the Calgary skyline.

[fusili]

Has anybody considered that the 2nd Street subway would be directly adjacent to the west tower?

Should they rough in a station connection?

[CtrlAltDel]

I voted "Meh". Nice enough towers, wrong location.
Agree with others about not being "Calgary" enough. These towers could be plopped down on any block in the world.

What about actual tapered towers that narrow towards the top?


Or what about scrap the smaller twin, and make 1 larger tower? Turn the other side into a museum, convention centre or theatre.


Take it one further, and add a true twin (in a creepy, modern WTC way):


Or what about move them to the railroad tracks, and put a grand single tower in their place, a la Transbay Tower from San Francisco?

(I'm obsessed with this tower).

Original image from Brookfield, hacked up by me.

[Innersoul1]

You know I love you bro, but then you go do that and I can't help but hate you!

Originally Posted by CtrlAltDel

I voted "Meh". Nice enough towers, wrong location.
Agree with others about not being "Calgary" enough. These towers could be plopped down on any block in the world.

What about actual tapered towers that narrow towards the top?


Or what about scrap the smaller twin, and make 1 larger tower? Turn the other side into a museum, convention centre or theatre.


Take it one further, and add a true twin (in a creepy, modern WTC way):


Or what about move them to the railroad tracks, and put a grand single tower in their place, a la Transbay Tower from San Francisco?

(I'm obsessed with this tower).

Original image from Brookfield, hacked up by me.

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by CtrlAltDel

I voted "Meh". Nice enough towers, wrong location.
Agree with others about not being "Calgary" enough. These towers could be plopped down on any block in the world.

What about actual tapered towers that narrow towards the top?

Or what about scrap the smaller twin, and make 1 larger tower? Turn the other side into a museum, convention centre or theatre.

Take it one further, and add a true twin (in a creepy, modern WTC way):

Or what about move them to the railroad tracks, and put a grand single tower in their place, a la Transbay Tower from San Francisco?
(I'm obsessed with this tower).

Original image from Brookfield, hacked up by me.

Now that you've shown me that, I must admit I feel worse about their design.