FCC1982
Active Member
Really?
I much prefer modern style buildings than a new building built to look old.
I much prefer modern style buildings than a new building built to look old.
|
|
|
General Construction Updates
- Thread starter Surrealplaces
- Start date
cameronhowe
Active Member
I like modern too but I also feel like neighbourhoods can benefit from the look and feel of the brick aesthetic. Especially this example feels like a more modern take with the windows and the retail treatment.
Calgcouver
Active Member
This is just my opinion, but I think some of the issue comes from many of the 'modern' styles using materials and designs that lack any basis in proportions or good design from the past. And a lot of the modern materials really degrade the look. Vernacular architecture and having a building that is informed by a real or traditional style is important even if it is contemporary.
Modern:
Modern:
Modern:
A design that uses proportions and elements that are informed by the past:
I know which one I prefer.
Here are some other new buildings that I think would be cool to see in Inglewood from other cities.
Some are contemporary, some are neotraditional, but all are informed by a style and respond to there surroundings.
Better yet give me details as sick as this from one that I posted above:
Last edited:
For both straight up modern or modern made to look old, it's a fine line. There are lots of good examples of modern buildings, and also bad, same for buildings that are modern but meant to look old. So much depends on the details and the materials.
Bad modern with a nod to old. The design can't figure out what it's supposed to be.
Calgcouver's example of good modern with a nod to old. It uses similar materials to the one above, but they pull it of properly, by keeping the cornices subtle, and adding in some materials that are very modern.
Another good modern with a nod to the old.
Calgcouver's example of bad modern. The building shape and street level are actually good IMO, but materials exterior materials on upper floors kill it. Modern usually needs good materials to pull it off.
Good modern, only a few blocks down the street.
Attachments
O-tac
Active Member
That Seton one makes me wince every time I pass by it. To make matters worse it sits across from the soon to be central park and the architecturally noteworthy highschool and the ymca. Makes its hideous cheapness all the more glaring. Cedarglen builds awful multi family.
maestro
Senior Member
I would call most if not all of these designs contemporary. Replacing the Hardie Board with corresponding brick colours wouldn't change the architectural style. Glazed lime brick would look awesome. The lentils and cornices are contemporary in design and could be a practical reason to include them too. They aren't attempting Streamline Modernism which is arguably the most minimalist of the traditional styles.
haltcatchfire
Senior Member
You also find Elveden and Petro Fina to be ugly so I'm not sure if you're able to be rehabilitated.
adamyyc
Active Member
The Certus building at 14 Ave & 34 St SW, which is basically a copy of the building above, is another good example.
Mountain Man
Senior Member
You can find really nice buildings in the modern style and ugly ones in the old style, and vice versa. It all comes down to execution. Every city should have a healthy mix of both, though it becomes harder in a newer city like Calgary.
CBBarnett
Senior Member
Unfortunately the quality design on the front really gives up the win on the back side, with a inordinately large surface parking lot and generally poor interaction with the community considering it was in an era of construction we should have known better.
Last edited:
FCC1982
Active Member
Haha - that’s true.
I also have no love for the Barron building.
Last edited:
O-tac
Active Member
Landmovers on site at Shepard Station north of the PBS building at Deerfoot and 130th. Phase 2 underway?
Nimbus
Active Member
Gresham Block all gone:
