Quote:
Originally Posted by PoscStudent
So what do people think of the design and what could be changed, if anything?
|
Today I've had time to write a few thoughts here. I took the time to do this because many of these points are typical in these types of developments in Atlantic Canada, and probably elsewhere too. Some of them are subjective, but most are examples of inherent problems and weaknesses often found in this type of design. The repercussions are sociological just as much as they are architectural.
First of all, this is a large project, 252 condos, which might contain a population of about 400 (same as a Nfld. small town or village). Think of this as a horizontal highrise, a highrise flipped on its side. As a real highrise it might consist of two 16 story buildings, with about 8 units per floor. Again, think of such buildings as highrises with a parking lot of about 200 spaces surrounding them, and not much else being offered to enhance the lives of its residents or the surrounding community.
The design, while conventional, is actually a repetitious series of contradictions, supposedly modern in style (ie. the glass balconies), it features traditional heritage style windows and doors which might be more in place on a heritage home. This is an attempt to make the design appear domestic, comfortable and inviting. However, this is cancelled out by the over scaled sterile glassed in areas around the entrances, a feature typically found in office buildings. The simple rectangular form of the building is not friendly or domestic, it is oppressively institutional (long unbroken straight façades). In an attempt to soften this, besides the glassed in central feature areas, the roof line (phase 3) is cluttered with fake gables that are too shallow to have any contrasting impact, so they don't accomplish much to provide visual relief of the monotonous length of the building. Some stone features will also be used to break up the façades.
One big faux-pas; the elevations which face the street contain no windows, providing no interaction between the buildings and the street. Windows, or fenestration, are the architectural eyes to the soul of a building, indicating it's use and purpose; generally some life inside and some connection between it and the rest of the world. Therefore, without them there is no active contribution to the identity of, or "conversation" of friendliness with, or recognition towards the existence of the neighbourhood and the outside world. The small commercial building by itself looks silly and out of context, like a loiterer in the parking lot, (even with windows); the commercial spaces would be better if integrated into the designs of the larger buildings.
The focal center of the entire development will be a parking lot, a total homage to the automobile putting it at the center, and nothing for the human being (or dogs and cats either) - the only way to soften this reality is with landscaping, and lots of it. There doesn't appear to be much green space on the site, only minimal buffers and two patches of leftover grass at the rear of the property, with nothing indicating any actual function of the spaces. To be fair, there is some public recreational space just outside the site, thank god for that.
So, yes, this is not a development to be judged by the same standards as one in an urban oriented downtown, so that is to say, apparently, that the suburbs don't deserve just as much thought, care and sensitivity of design as the downtown does . . . is this really true though? (Sorry if my thoughts are incomplete, I'm sure I've probably missed some even more important points - all for now.)
Prev
Linear Mode
