Delaney | ?m | 5s | Trico Homes

General rating of the project

  • Great

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Very Good

    Votes: 4 17.4%
  • Good

    Votes: 7 30.4%
  • So So

    Votes: 6 26.1%
  • Not Very Good

    Votes: 3 13.0%
  • Terrible

    Votes: 3 13.0%

  • Total voters
    23

maestro

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
7,169
Reaction score
1,958
It looks awful to me. That counts as a significant negative effect.
 

CBBarnett

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 22, 2016
Messages
613
Reaction score
1,459
44 homes, 12 classified and below-market affordable (with 10 being fully accessible) is worth the trade of 3 houses. It's not pretty, but probably doesn't have to be - although there is nothing inherent about affordable buildings that require them to look cheap (as this one does). The street design is highly questionable but obviously not the developer's fault.

Generally I rank projects like this in order:
  1. Does this increase density in an location / design that supports a more "urban" form and lifestyle such as walkability, transit usage?
  2. Is this project attractive looking?
Ideally a development would check both boxes, but for all the terrible, equally ugly multi-family going up in the deep burbs - thus failing both requirements - this isn't the worst project possible.
 

Alex_YYC

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 20, 2016
Messages
646
Reaction score
1,287
Location
Calgary
Couldn’t agree more. If this building was down on 10th street or in the Beltline I’d feel differently, but given it’s use and location I’m fine with it.

Often good urban neighbourhoods are a collection of multiple individual buildings with many of them banal or average mixed in with a few stand out buildings.
44 homes, 12 classified and below-market affordable (with 10 being fully accessible) is worth the trade of 3 houses. It's not pretty, but probably doesn't have to be - although there is nothing inherent about affordable buildings that require them to look cheap (as this one does). The street design is highly questionable but obviously not the developer's fault.

Generally I rank projects like this in order:
  1. Does this increase density in an location / design that supports a more "urban" form and lifestyle such as walkability, transit usage?
  2. Is this project attractive looking?
Ideally a development would check both boxes, but for all the terrible, equally ugly multi-family going up in the deep burbs - thus failing both requirements - this isn't the worst project possible.
 

Calgcouver

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 13, 2017
Messages
346
Reaction score
809
Very cohesive design, understated and sophisticated.

Seriously though, if you are going to build a cheap building, you could have just went with all brown siding and left it boring like a 70s apartment building. Why keep tacking shit on? Red squares of varying sizes, multicoloured WTF stone, white vents, orange over hangs over some decks, all sorts of shapes of windows, a "cornice".

I want to buy the architect a beer and ask him what informed his design decisions and what his vision for this thing was.

Something like this thing; cheap to construct and not an eyesore.
 
Last edited:

Surrealplaces

Administrator
Staff member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 24, 2015
Messages
7,514
Reaction score
17,742
Location
Calgary
Definitely not the belle of the ball, but good density on a street that isn't on a main drag. All the projects along 17th seem to be less than stellar. I hope that if they re-zone a street like 20th ave they raise the bar.
 
Last edited:

Calgcouver

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 13, 2017
Messages
346
Reaction score
809
Architects sometimes have limited input on buildings like this, Clients have a design vision that the Architect has to work around. Not sure if this was the case here, but it wouldn't surprise me given that the client is a homebuilder.
That is almost certainly the case here.
 

Oddball

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 18, 2016
Messages
1,131
Reaction score
1,057
I wouldn't call it playing "devil's advocate," but I will say it did end up exceeding my expectations. I was expecting it to look far worse. I doubt it will age well though.

Very cohesive design, understated and sophisticated.

Seriously though, if you are going to build a cheap building, you could have just went with all brown siding and left it boring like a 70s apartment building. Why keep tacking shit on? Red squares of varying sizes, multicoloured WTF stone, white vents, orange over hangs over some decks, all sorts of shapes of windows, a "cornice".

I want to buy the architect a beer and ask him what informed his design decisions and what his vision for this thing was.

Something like this thing; cheap to construct and not an eyesore.
Ouch. Sometimes it hurts to know what could have been done. :confused:
 

Top