SP!RE
°°°°°°
Livability and architectural design is unrelated don't you think?
Probably the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen asserted on this site.
Livability and architectural design is unrelated don't you think?
Livability and architectural design is unrelated don't you think? I also don't find Vancouver more livable either despite every list that says so. It's my preference of course but I'm not that into the resort look for a downtown area. (does every complex need a water feature and garden?) I like the hard urbanism we have here. The alternativel, our greener streetcar suburbs, make everything off the peninsula look like a greener Don Mills..
Vancouver design is based on stringent rules and regulations that simple modernist lines are bad. It's complete forced and usually turns out unnecessarily busy and confused. Too often you see an otherwise exceptional building ruined by fuss and doodads. The Erickson comes to mind with the dozen glass canopies thrown willy nilly. Of course, there are a few around here that would gladly apply this here.
Probably the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen asserted on this site.
Why didn't they put any glazing on the north side of the bridge? Odd.
possibly crash wall ??
Yeah, it's a shame that the view is completely blocked. Pulling into the downtown core is the best part of the train ride. Watching the trains pull in from the street is cool, too.