West Village Towers | 149.95m | 42s | Cidex Group | NORR Dubai Yahya Jan

[haltcatchfire]

Just bored of waiting.

 

[Cowtown]

While I agree the city should strive for better architecture, at what point do you balance it out? The folks building these towers need to make a profit, and any additional cost is ultimately going to be passed onto the consumer. If the developer is forced to make rental towers an architectural showpiece they aren't going to build them, IMO, as long as the building isn't offensive, it shouldn't be a problem. I know some think it'll be offensive, but it isn't really. This is offensive. That's the kind of architecture the city should force to improve. That said, the city can still push for world class architecture on public projects.

 

[maestro]

There's a lot of middle ground between show stopper and ugly. I can't see different cladding choices for the podium, in particular colour, breaking the bank. As far as I can see, there's no return on the crown here as it's not rentable space. I'd rather they cut it out completely should it end up cheapened down to spandrel glass. Often times it isn't about costs. It's about different tastes.

I see no reason to settle for something you don't like because it's newer than the mediocrity from previous generations. It's also mediocrity that is subjective to one's opinion. Good is generally universally applauded. It's timeless.

 

[JonnyCanuck]

I agree with Cowtown. We are going to 'get what we get' with residential high rises, particularly purpose rental buildings. The money is being spent on the inside of the building, not the outside.
Certainly the bar should be raised for public projects and office towers (if ever see another one downtown). I would also expect that luxury condo buildings will differentiate themselves architecture wise. There are fewer of those these days as well. But look at the most recent one ... The Concord .... it's OK but it is far from compelling. On the other hand, Telus Sky, which is mixed use, is outstanding.

 

[Patrick.1980]

I tend to agree with Cowtown also. I know the building will be average at best, but I think the pros outweigh the cons. 500 and some odd rental units in a high-rise tower that will have retail at the podium.
If it wasn’t for Cidex building this it would probably sit as an empty parking lot from my previous car dealership for several years. It’s not the kind of location developers are going to build an architectural masterpiece to be used for private residences.

 

[UrbanWarrior]

This is going to be one of the most prominent buildings in our skyline due to its height and relatively offset location. We need to be demanding quality, not settling for spandrel garbage which is what Cidex consistently produces. I can't possibly agree that we shouldn't be expecting/hoping for quality because its rental. If they can't afford to deliver on attractive projects that make the city a better place to live both aesthetically and functionally, then they shouldn't be building.

 

[maestro]

These towers will stand 100 years. A few more years more or less to get something more creative than a full block podium with two colours of baby poop cladding is worth it to me. I don't understand the reason to discount the product because its rentals. Today's rental boom is built and priced to the standards of condominiums. The quality should be indistinguishable.

 

[UrbanWarrior]

Exactly.

 

[Mountain Man]

As far as the city saw, West Village was a really nice project designed by a foreign Architect, so it was exactly what they wanted. The end result will be plain because Cidex is cheap as fuck, and the Architect lets them do what they want. A properly designed residential tower should have minimal spandrel as there shouldn't be things like a kitchen right against a curtain wall, that stuff should be on the inside walls with the glass left open for light and a view. Neither Cidex or NORR work that way though, they try to squeeze as much as possible into the smallest space and you end up with kitchens and bathrooms on the exterior wall and that requires lots of spandrel to conceal.

 

[maestro]

The Hat East Village and One Tower are both boxy towers clad in window wall and yet they are already world's apart in appearance. There probably will be a difference in pricing. I find it unlikely it amounts to the drastically different look of the towers.

 

[cowGaryBerta]

I still can't figure out the obsession in this forum about spandrel v glass. What makes spandrel "garbage"? I don't understand how spandrel = poor quality.

 

[Just build it]

I still can't figure out the obsession in this forum about spandrel v glass. What makes spandrel "garbage"? I don't understand how spandrel = poor quality.

People including myself prefer transparent glass over spandrel, but spandrel is probably the next best reasonably affordable material. I don't have any issue with it. Yeah, I'd love stainless steel or white ceramic tiles, etc.. but IMO spandrel is the best of the less expensive materials.

 

[Just build it]

This is going to be one of the most prominent buildings in our skyline due to its height and relatively offset location. We need to be demanding quality, not settling for spandrel garbage which is what Cidex consistently produces. I can't possibly agree that we shouldn't be expecting/hoping for quality because its rental. If they can't afford to deliver on attractive projects that make the city a better place to live both aesthetically and functionally, then they shouldn't be building.

Hey I agree, it would be nice to have better architecture, but demanding developers do it is a slippery slope, especially since the average person or average city councilor has varying ideas of what's quality. I thin right now we have a decent balance. Developers do nicer projects - but they charge for them. In places like NYC, London, Van, Tor, SF, you see nicer projects, but they have buyers paying well over $1,000 per sq ft. Thee's little market here for that price range.

They could do a higher percentage of transparent glass, and that would make a big difference, but it's more expensive. Someone can correct me, but didn't the new buildings require higher insulation factor, and thus one of the reasons we are seeing more spandrel?

 

[haltcatchfire]

The new energy code is part of it. Material & labour cost is part of it. Developer and architectural laziness is part of it.

 

[Alex_YYC]

It's difficult to enforce the level of quality that would please us forumers, when we are in a free market economy and private developers build 90% of the city. It all comes down to $$$. The question is, how exactly do we enforce better quality? It really comes down to the purchasers or the tenants. The level of design for condos is much better than it used to be thanks to users being more picky, so maybe the bar will continue to raise.

We see great architecture in London and New York, but it's not enforced, it's the same deal as here in Calgary - the market decides it. There are tenants or purchasers in those kinds of cities who will pay excessive amounts of money. It should be noted that in those cities where land is cheaper average architecture routinely gets built.

I don't understand the reason to discount the product because its rentals. Today's rental boom is built and priced to the standards of condominiums. The quality should be indistinguishable.

There shouldn't be a difference, but typically the average renter doesn't care much about how the building looks. Cost is generally the most important, followed by location.