12-31-2023, 01:59 AM
(12-30-2023, 10:49 AM)ac3r Wrote: It's a nice house, so why not preserve it? There's no reason to rid ourselves of historic buildings. Once they're gone, they're gone.
It's the tower that is a bad idea. It looks like shit. It would be so easy to make the tower look good, but very few architects in this region seem to have any talent. As I've said before...take a trip to the UWaterloo architecture school and see how good these students are. There's talent out there, but it never gets used.
In my opinion, preservation is something that should require special justification. Historical or architectural significance, not just being made of stone or being vaguely old. Cities aren't museums.
I agree that this building looks ugly. I wonder how much of a role conformity to planning standards had to do with that (esp. articulation stuff?) At the end of the day though it isn't reasonable to expect every residential development to look great, even if some of these designs are real stinkers. Before too long they may be fading into a proliferation of high-rises anyway, at which point the salience of individual ugly designs is much reduced.