, whereas City Planning at least acknowledged that the waterfront isn't living up to its design potential.
These people clearly don't care about what the public thinks and are only focussed on furthering their aesthetic agenda and the interests of their clients.
In the video recordings on WT's Youtube, you can see a draft list of upcoming items for the next meeting. On December's meeting, they anticipated that all those projects would return to the panel in January but they're not included in the agenda that was released today.
Spot on. Other people also complained about the aesthetics but they were met with the same response. I was mentioning projects like Aqualuna that I, and most other people on this forum, think is appropriate for our waterfront and encouraged them to try to evoke a waterfront language (not style, it's about advancing a certain identity) and to focus more on the public realm. I also asked them to consider materials that aren't glass.Any comments on aesthetics and preferences by anyone (me, you or Peter) are subjective in some measure. You can objectively discuss what a material is; or what a height is; but not so much one's preferences for one or the other...
That said, the idea than a subjective preference on architecture should be disregarded; by an architect no less, is concerning.
Just look at the whole Château Laurier fiasco. Since 2016 (for five years), architectsAlliance has been going through a long process of submitting and resubmitting outrageous designs that ended up sparking actual protests and became one of Ottawa's biggest news stories. He knew no one liked the design, but insisted on making it stand out as much as possible, because apparently completely ignoring the Chateauesque aesthetic is actually the right way to conserve heritage. The people of Ottawa wanted an hotel addition that either had a respectful contemporary addition or one that continued the existing hotel's playful style. What struck me even more was why they were doing this. Wouldn't they want to get on with building the addition, instead of waiting so many years for it to finally get approved? Of course, there are other issues at play such as the alteration of a National Historic Site, which apparently don't have any legal protections and, even though Liberals promised to change this as a result of this very project, the laws weren't changed. After all this time with so much controversy, they ended up with a design that uses limestone and a copper roof... but that's it. Peter Clewes explained that "fear" was why people didn't like his masterpiece, not because people want to preserve the character of our capital. Maybe he does care but that only extends to his minimalistic approach.I might say some of his passion contributes to some serious blind spots; and that he may at times be too dismissive of those who critique his firm's offerings.
East of this site is Lower Sherbourne Street & Sherbourne Common so I assume you mean WEST of this site. That is Quay House and has its own thread. https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threa...15m-21s-empire-kirkor-architects.29486/page-8 I think it is proceeding as planned.There's digging continuously happening in the site directly east to this (which is also not part of Lakeside). It seems to be very slow progress, but at least the machinery is moving and doing something there. Not sure if it's the same developer/owner though.
With this never-ending building boom, firms are busy whether they produce good work or not and it's really starting to show.Can't find my puke gif... anyone seen it?
This remains aAbsolutely terrible, particularly at grade. Hope no-one got a hernia at the firm adding those repetitious balcony wiggles.