Quote:
Originally Posted by Harrison
^I find it quite attractive actually. Better to have architectural diversity than having all the same stuccoed boxes with punched windows on block after block.
On another note, I highly suspect that s211 moniker to be the reincarnation of that troll Tony(whatever was after the "tony").
|
Interesting and valid point. Diversity is always better than too much of any one type of design. That being said though, many of us on this forum beg for more glass curtain/facades and 'simple, hot' designs with higher quality materials. However, wouldn't too many of these designs create the same monotony as well? I guess we don't know because we don't have to look at them every day, but that fact alone must be one of the reasons we beg for these types of proposals in the first place.
I'm about to wander onto a long tangent here, bear with me...
Looking at another city like Vancouver--where 'average infill' condos in that city often look like they would stand out if hypothetically transplanted in Edmonton--could it perhaps be that Vancouver can afford to build more of these buildings in a way that Edmonton can't? Glass buildings built in Edmonton must be engineered to insulate well against harsh winters, but in a place like Vancouver that doesn't get cold temperatures, they must be able to use glass with lower R-values, and is likely much more affordable, right? I wonder if that variable can bring the overall cost of a Vancouver building down into the same ballpark as many of Edmonton's stucco 'wonders' (unless seismic-sensitive engineering affects costs that much more out there...)?
I understand that population demographics (average income, etc.) might also push the standard of condo designs into more expensive territory as Vancouver real-estate can sell at a premium already. I just wonder aloud if our buildings
including new proposals are much more of a reflection of our geographic location than we'd care to admit...
Prev
Linear Mode
