buildup
Senior Member
Ok, enough jawboning where do we stand on this?
Last edited:
None of the three choices reflect my view.
I can't agree with the first choice (at least not yet), because we have yet to see an actual working design proposal. It's just a basic concept at the moment. It also reeks of bias (even without referencing the author), because as the only choice positive of the project, it is worded in a manner to make it appear a foolishly hasty position.
I can't see myself agreeing with the second choice, as I don't see the existing buildings being worthy of trying to incorporate into the design in the first place. There's a physical problem, wherein the buildings in question take up practically the entire site (with the exception of POW). Secondly, I don't see anything to be gained by splitting the difference here.
I'm not even sure what the third choice entails.
The first one is basically a bet on Gehry himself
Clarifying the third choice - the project is rejected outright because the buildings are historic and the neighbourhood functions.
I am in favour of this project because it is a mixed-use, (commercial, residential, cultural and institutional) project of great significance (all of the components), that represents a vast improvement over the status quo. And yes, with Gehry as the architect, at least suggests the prospect of great architectural merit to boot.
This project tests my limits of what I think acceptable heritage trade-offs are. I wouldn't sacrifice these buildings for anything less than what's being proposed, and I wouldn't sacrifice a marginally more culturally and architecturally important block for anything in the world.