News   Dec 20, 2024
UrbanToronto Year-End Poll: Vote on the Best Buildings of 2024, presented by Sapphire Balconies
 1K     5 
News   Dec 20, 2024
UrbanToronto's Social Media Presence Skyrocketed in 2024
 767     2 
News   Dec 20, 2024
Mattamy Homes Records A Year of Accomplishments
 1.4K     0 

Niagara Falls Hilton Phase II (53s, 172m, Stanford Downey Architects)

yep, it is a huge complex of gambling, entertainment, shopping, dining and of course parking!

As the photographer explained in the accompanying article , the image is a panorama made from 6 images. There was some difficulty during the stitching process that made several of the yellow barrier bars in the foreground vanish in certain spots and line up incorrectly. Actually it was partly his own fault as he should have aimed clearly over them while taking the originals...
 
Last edited:
he should have aimed clearly over them while taking the originals...
Click to expand...

Anyone can take a picture standing 10 feet away from the edge. Clearly he was too scared to get any closer.
Simply put, the man has no balls.
 
As 'plain' as they were though, they had power, at least an outward one if not, as it turned out, in their core. Despite being derided by some New Yorkers for the banality of their design, no one exactly welcomed their destruction, nor have they been unmissed since their disappearance from the skyline. Does the skyline of the tip of Manhattan look 'right' to you anymore?

'Plain', when it is considered to have been done right, is referred to as 'less is more'. One wouldn't find unanimity on whether the World Trade Centre had achieved 'more': not the way that the average Mies or Pei building seems to achieve that duality.

To bring it all back to the Niagara Falls Hilton (shudder - had to be done), here we have the classic case of more being less, and the unexpected twist, less being less too. More is less: a peaked pediment up here, an unrelated Tuscan street presence down there. Less is less: the building says to the bulk of the city of Niagara Falls 'you don't matter', so there are next to no windows on the city side, just a giant turned back instead. Finally there's the lack to coherence to the whole scheme. In a city where the big buildings should defer to the natural beauty they overlook, this thing says 'look up at this bit', and 'look down at this bit'. The Niagara Falls Hilton would be much better were it still in its box.

42
 
Last edited:
interchange42 said:
As 'plain' as they were though, they had power, at least an outward one if not, as it turned out, in their core. Despite being derided by some New Yorkers for the banality of their design, no one exactly welcomed their destruction, nor have they been unmissed since their disappearance from the skyline. Does the skyline of the tip of Manhattan look 'right' to you anymore?

42
Click to expand...

I completely agree. I in fact visited the WTC and toured the top viewing deck on August 11th 2001. I remember being extremely impressed by the scale and finish of the buildings and their place in the city. I was particularly shocked at the destruction, having just experienced all of the anti bomb/gun gadgetry that I had just passed through, while visiting the buildings as a tourist. All these gadgets made the buildings seem invincible to me at the time, but in the end, they were of little help.

The Twin Towers should definitely still be standing today for us to be able to criticize.

I for one am happy that we are getting such massive developments in our own neighbourhood that we can comment on. I do not think the Hilton building will be out of place in Niagara Falls.
 
Here's a more-recent rendering, from the Niagara Falls Blog (http://accessniagara.com/blog/)

20081124_hilton_rendering.jpg
 
I've definitely seen SketchUp models look better in detail than this 'rendering'
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top