Search results

A shooting in one of the most busy parts of the city that is so out of the ordinary that it made international headlines proves that you were right about this area being dangerous? Try again.

Really loving these condescending remarks polluting half of the threads on this board.

Funny that you go after Steveve for this all the time but ProjectEnd is coddled and validated.

Your low self-esteem and need for exterior validation is showing.

Wow you're really making a good point there...congratulations.

I think it's pretty clear why this isn't an objective issue. It's solely aesthetic based and implied importance.

And again, I bring up context. If the US Capital Building were located in the core of a city full of skyscrapers (which it obviously isn't for security reasons *which is a logical reason, which is my point*) then yes I would say the same thing.

To you. Again, saying how important this building is is fine, but it doesn't explain the merits of keeping it visually isolated. These buildings were symbols of government and power and importance because they were the largest, tallest buildings in the area. That's not the case anymore and I...

"but look at how much worse the tower makes the view of it.." From this one, arbitrary angle in which you stand for maybe 3 seconds. When you're standing in front of these buildings you are in an environment, not a photograph. When you're in that environment you see all of the buildings...

Where does context fit into all of this? How many of these legislative buildings have a dense major thoroughfare directly behind them? It's easy to compare the other provinces when their capitals have a completely different population than us. Victoria, Edmonton, Regina, Winnipeg, Quebec City...

Although I agree with every tower not being a landmark being a good thing, it's when all of the "bland" buildings in one concentrated area come out of the same aesthetic era that it becomes extremely underwhelming. There are many areas throughout the city that have a bunch of decent, but bland...

How about we just build condos that don't rely almost solely on the interior of someone's condo to provide the visual interest.

I was referring to "but a lot of these projects are spread out - if BA / Shagrila (mind my spelling) / Four seasons / throw in a bunch of condos here as well .. were all built in the same location - I agree, we would have had enough, but that's not the case at all!"

Have you been south of the railway tracks lately?

Yes because you can see it from so many angles, right?

Considering it was said that it would be a "missed opportunity to try something different" and not simply a "missed opportunity", then yes it would be applied to any complex of towers. Because it is just that, a missed opportunity to try a new material. This isn't an office complex, it doesn't...

Ah, nothing like some great hyperbole to end your evening. No where did I say that the dirty, falling tiles were what made the building dynamic. And believe it or not, I'm not so mentally deficient that I think this solution is worse than dangerous marble potentially crashing to the ground. My...

I completely agree MetroMan. What used to make the building more dynamic is now being turned into something quite flat and uninspired.

I understand you (we) all have a great interest in architecture and urban development but comments about someone putting up lights on their balcony undermining the "architectural integrity" of the building are sort of comical. This isn't an office building, it is a place that people live. If...

Reminds me of a condo in Florida, "wavy" balconies mimicking the waves of the ocean...not a fan.