SP!RE
°°°°°°
Well, this is Pam McConnell's baby. And an excellent example of her ineptitude.
Very descriptive and good use of sources.
Well, this is Pam McConnell's baby. And an excellent example of her ineptitude.
Well, this is Pam McConnell's baby. And an excellent example of her ineptitude.
Because she is the major advocate of this, and has failed to deliver.
Agreed. I live in Markham and haven't had a chance to go visit St. Lawrence for a while and wanted to go in the near future. Was excited about the development and would probably have brought me there more often - but now... totally different story; just another boring building.... Hard to find an upside with where this once-promising development has ended up.
You may not like Cllr. McConnell as a person
IMO the design can still be salvaged:
1.) Bring back the wooden louvres (maybe as metal ones)
IMO the design can still be salvaged:
1.) Bring back the wooden louvres (maybe as metal ones), which added a level of complexity and depth to the facade that the current lacks.
2.) Bring back the setback on the south-eastern wing of the building, which helped prevent the building from imposing itself too much onto the corner.
3.) Get rid of the 80s-esque blue paint on the beams and go for something more subtle and reflective like in the orignal renders
4.) Some decorative columns vertically linking the floors above should help retain some sense of verticality in the atrium.
- The new roofline is much less complex, but will handle rain and winter better than the original one, which seemed more suited for a warmer and drier climate
- The atrium looks a bit different, but I think that the original had a fair amount of artistic liberty in its angles
- This building will still be better finished than half the buildings being built today
- The original building cost was likely low-balled, considering that this is a Rogers design
- Pam should see if someone is willing to drop some money on this in exchange for naming rights
- Overall, it's not a bad building, just not as interesting as the original
Why would they bring back elements which were eliminated because of cost, not artistic or sustainable merit? You've surely read the part where either RSHP or Adamson indicate that 'no further cuts can be made.(?)'
I think it's time to ditch that Rogers Stinky Harbour design ... for a Retro Post (and Beam) Modern design?
I envision: concrete "post & beams" with fritted glass "barn board" glazing for a fully transparent court & market, sliding "barn" doors at street level, a circulation (elevator, stairs/ramp, bicycle parking) "silo" and more.
From farm to table indeed!
Crazy?