BKha
Active Member
People nitpicking about Telus Sky, but I think it's is good. A sign that our level of expectation is higher these days.
TELUS Sky | 222.19m | 60s | Westbank | Bjarke Ingels Group
- Thread starter SRC Admin
- Start date
UrbanWarrior
Senior Member
As it should be. The level of design in Calgary has made a categorical leap over the past decade. We've gone from residential buildings like Vantage Pointe to residential buildings like 6th and 10th and The Royal, and we've gone from office buildings like TransCanada Tower to towers like Telus Sky, 707 Fifth, and The Bow. With incredible smaller buildings like the National Music Centre of Canada and the New Central Library. We have a lot to be proud of, and our expectations should be as high as those in any major city around the world. Calgary is becoming Canada's new architectural design city.
Always_Biking
Senior Member
Amen to that! I look at some of those office towers built in the 80's and think about what a missed opportunity it was. The goal was to slap up an office tower as fast as the y could and get workers into them.
BKha
Active Member
And even more recent than the 80's. Livingston Place and Jamieson Place really lack IMO. All of the new office buildings including the Bow are plagued by the same sterile cold street frontage. Telus Sky might break out of that mould.
Alex_YYC
Senior Member
I didn't know the original spandrel was white, that's a shame because, yes it would've been better. It would've been a very light airy looking building in amongst all the dark gray buildings . Thankfully they didn't go with gray and at least went with black .
I would have preferred the white also, but also thankful they went with a jet black, as it will look striking in certain lights. Aside from black or white does anyone have another color they would have liked?
O
October
Guest
From most of the renders I saw i thought it would of been more of a shiny silver, but thankful they went with black.
DiscoStu
Active Member
Let's not get crazy now. We've had a few nice gems over the last little while, but in general our level of design just isn't the same as what's going on in places like Vancouver or Toronto.
Oddball
Senior Member
Yeah, pound for pound I think we do pretty great, but we're in a much lower weight class. Telus Sky, Studio Bell, and the New Library are or are going to be new all time bests for the city though. Brookfield, the Bow and Eighth Ave Place aren't half bad either.
I'd also like to say that I find Vancouver overrated in a lot of respects. I feel like it's the surroundings that make it an amazing city and not so much the city itself. It definitely has it's moments though. I also, find it strange that no one has ever thought to build an iconically recognizable building. Something that makes you instantly know you're looking at Vancouver. I wonder if that why so much stuff gets filmed there. Vancouver, the gorgeous non-entity.
Toronto is a sprawling mess riddled with flaws, but it by far and away has the best buildings in Canada and the best building projects proposed and underway. I really hope Mirvish+Gehry happens.
Last edited:
I find Vancouver has some very nice projects individually, but I'm not fond of their buildings as a collection. If Vancouver's skyline was a movie it's title would be 'Attack of the Clones'. What I like most about Vancouver's skyline is the mountains.
O
October
Guest
Silence&Motion
Senior Member
As a (former) Torontonian, I concur with this evaluation.
Alex_YYC
Senior Member
Toronto has its downsides, but has its virtues. It's the only city in Canada that feels like a true metropolis to me.
DiscoStu
Active Member
Even though I think there are plenty of other individual examples, you want to know what the iconic Vancouver building is? Look at any modern condo tower or new high rise district in in Canada. The only reason people are bored with Vancouver design is because it's been co-opted (or via Vancouver architects expanding their reach) to become the standard look across the country. What's happening in the East Village in Calgary, or the waterfront of Toronto, Vancouver has been doing for 3+ decades now. And it's not just condos. I look at the new YYC terminal, and it looks like something you saw at YVR in the 90s.
And even if you're not a fan of that look, the architecture and design in Vancouver has had a regional stamp to it unlike any other larger Canadian city. They forged that particular Pacific-look that combines glass, bare concrete, and timber in a way that I think is quite lovely for their surroundings. Yes, they're running with one type of aesthetic, but I think it's a particularly good one.
And is it really that bad that things look consistent? Personally I find the cohesion much more pleasant then what we see in Calgary, where it's a giant mish-mash of styles from block to block. I mean what's our distinct look? We just jump from trend to trend, whether it be historicism, or pixelated spandrel, or brown stucco...and then bulldoze it all down in 40 years. Even our recent architectural gems (NMC, The Bow, Telus Sky, Library etc) don't really share anything that you could point to and say "yeah, you know that says Calgary". They are all designs that could easily live elsewhere..and in many cases, already do.
Consistency, especially when it's of high quality, is not a bad thing when it comes to city building.
And even if you're not a fan of that look, the architecture and design in Vancouver has had a regional stamp to it unlike any other larger Canadian city. They forged that particular Pacific-look that combines glass, bare concrete, and timber in a way that I think is quite lovely for their surroundings. Yes, they're running with one type of aesthetic, but I think it's a particularly good one.
And is it really that bad that things look consistent? Personally I find the cohesion much more pleasant then what we see in Calgary, where it's a giant mish-mash of styles from block to block. I mean what's our distinct look? We just jump from trend to trend, whether it be historicism, or pixelated spandrel, or brown stucco...and then bulldoze it all down in 40 years. Even our recent architectural gems (NMC, The Bow, Telus Sky, Library etc) don't really share anything that you could point to and say "yeah, you know that says Calgary". They are all designs that could easily live elsewhere..and in many cases, already do.
Consistency, especially when it's of high quality, is not a bad thing when it comes to city building.
Oddball
Senior Member
Interesting perspective. I can't help but agree. I think it must certainly be credited to Vancouver that they have originated or at least heavily promoted a distinct architectural style that can be called their own. However there's no reason they could have both their distictive spandrels and balconies on their more... common... sorts of structures but still have a few really marquee buildings that stand out. Perhaps the day will come for Vancouver, but it isn't yet here.
I for one do prefer Calgary's eclecticism to Vancouver's homogeneity. I don't think owning an architectural style is requisite for civic identity. Especially now that other cities have begun to copy them. Even though I think I would agree that the average building in Vancouver is nicer than the average building in Calgary. I think the best best ten buildings in Vancouver would be utterly forgettable in Calgary, but that the best ten buildings in Calgary would be magnificent in Vancouver.
And none of this applies to Vancouver House. Bravo Vancouver, that thing would be remarkable anywhere in the world. (It's still take Sky first
)