Quote:
Originally Posted by dleung
The others are all hideous, over-designed, and poorly proportioned with the weird 2-storey setback at the top. The point of a setback is to conceal the extra height from the sidewalk - it doesn't work when it's 2-stories
|
Over-designed is a really good word to describe these buildings actually. I will play devil's advocate for a second and say that the Cambie Corridor is really the first example of large scale medium-density redevelopment in the City, and is not being done by a single developer (ie. Concord, or Aspac for Coal Harbour). Not to say those are shining examples of what to do either, but at least there is some cohesion. Cambie is a different story because it is all individual land assemblies, and sometimes only a couple of single family lots are involved, so you don't get the huge lots to play with. But I agree, that doesn't excuse the bizarre upper floor setback trend, that is entirely avoidable. As for over-designed, I could see the developers trying to give smaller buildings some "flair" to compensate for the size, but it ends up looking busy and cheap. It's also super inefficient to build a condo with like 25 units, which some of the Cambie buildings are. Not surprised they are super expensive! I live on Cambie by 16th, but go walking up to explore between King Ed and 49th quite a bit. Some of the new proposals are rezoning of a single lot! Not even any assembly with other lots, just a SFH turning into 26 condos. And many of these redevelopments are the same. Again, no excuse for the design shortcomings, but the hodge podge and randomness of lots being developed does create some of the lack of cohesion.
Oak St. between 41st and 70th is really starting to ramp up. Mostly townhouses so far, but it's much more pleasant than Cambie at the moment. Closer to 70th, the first couple apartments are underway, but still in the early stages so can't tell how they will look. But certainly a lot of activity now with SFH being replaced with townhomes (again, these are not really affordable but at least it is added density and choice, since many could be rented out).
One thing that
really pisses me off is the lot on the east side of Oak one building south of 70th. This was an older Marpole-style rental building that had a rezoning/development app up for quite some time. Mid-late last year the building was demolished, and they excavated right down to the old foundation and looked like the new building was going up. But then a "For Sale" sign goes up on the property, advertising it's development potential. I was furious when I saw this. The land owner/developer should be made to pay for all of those tenants who were evicted. I have no problem with redevelopment, even though I do have issues with renovations and general loss of affordable older rentals with way pricier ones. BUT... if the developer was in a precarious financial position or whatever, and wasn't able to proceed with the development, they should not have evicted the tenants and tore the building down, that is the disgusting part. I know real estate development and financing, and I have a very hard time believing the owner only realized they couldn't continue the project AFTER they tore the building down. Because the "For Sale" sign appeared within 2 weeks or less of the demolition. So they knew they were not going to proceed with the new building, but they tore the old one down anyways. Now it's sitting vacant collecting rain water with the old foundations still visible in the pit. At least if an old building comes down but is redeveloped right away, there's some consolation. But this I find heinous, I hope the City levies a massive empty land tax on the owner (or a massive fine even better, but don't think they could since what they did is probably not breaking any rules, it's just an a$$hole move.
Threaded Mode