Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Hall D - the rant section

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Hall D - the rant section

    Originally posted by NoreneS
    I have to admit that it is a BIG wall; even my 13-year old commented on it (he has an interest in architecture)!

    I have no doubts that the interior is splendid, and will serve to meet the needs of many. But, my concern is for the exterior...there is no room left for real landcaping, because the building butts up so close to the street. With a background in lanscape architecture, I must admit that I am curious to see how this is dealt with. I guess they will be looking at a minimalistic approach in contrast to the HUGE wall.

    The view - I am thinking that Hall D willl be spectacular from the interior; I am sure there are oodles of windows in the front elevation. As for the exterior, I have no problem looking at beautifully designed architecture, in place of the river valley, but on this subject, I think I need to reserve judgement until I see the end result... So far, I just see a big wall...
    If you all didn't know, all those pockets at street level are all the requried exit doors. Just for information. I can say i've been told that there have been some regrets from the architectural firm about what happened. But what's done is done. We can complain but nothing will get changed.

    As a joke, when I was at NAIT this is what I learned. Landscape architects are there to hide the sins & errors of the architects and the interior designers are there to fix the problems on the interiors...lol.
    Thus the task is not so much to see what no-one yet has seen, but to think what nobody yet has thought that which everyone sees. - Schopenhauer

  • #2
    " Just for information. I can say i've been told that there have been some regrets from the architectural firm about what happened. But what's done is done. We can complain but nothing will get changed."



    so we are just suppose to accept it and allow for "regrets"....


    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by IanO
      " Just for information. I can say i've been told that there have been some regrets from the architectural firm about what happened. But what's done is done. We can complain but nothing will get changed."



      so we are just suppose to accept it and allow for "regrets"....
      No, you don't just accept regrets.

      You blackball the hacks that did this, make it VERY public who's to blame for this, and never hire their sorry @sses again. EVER.

      This is just another despicable example of what Edmonton's slogan should be: "we do one step forward, two steps back better than anyone".

      Oh, and NEVER accept "what's done is done" from anyone. The only thing you settle for is "Don't tell me it can't be fixed. Tell me how you're going to fix this, fix it now, and then thank me for letting you redeem yourself".
      [email protected][email protected]: the 5th Horseman of the Apocalypse

      Comment


      • #4
        I like the idea mentioned about public rooftop access to Hall D, that seems like the only way the view can be redeemed and enjoyed by ALL, not just convention goers.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by murman
          Originally posted by IanO
          " Just for information. I can say i've been told that there have been some regrets from the architectural firm about what happened. But what's done is done. We can complain but nothing will get changed."



          so we are just suppose to accept it and allow for "regrets"....
          No, you don't just accept regrets.

          You blackball the hacks that did this, make it VERY public who's to blame for this, and never hire their sorry @sses again. EVER.

          This is just another despicable example of what Edmonton's slogan should be: "we do one step forward, two steps back better than anyone".

          Oh, and NEVER accept "what's done is done" from anyone. The only thing you settle for is "Don't tell me it can't be fixed. Tell me how you're going to fix this, fix it now, and then thank me for letting you redeem yourself".

          bingo murman...whoever you are.


          Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by IanO
            Originally posted by murman
            Originally posted by IanO
            " Just for information. I can say i've been told that there have been some regrets from the architectural firm about what happened. But what's done is done. We can complain but nothing will get changed."



            so we are just suppose to accept it and allow for "regrets"....
            No, you don't just accept regrets.

            You blackball the hacks that did this, make it VERY public who's to blame for this, and never hire their sorry @sses again. EVER.

            This is just another despicable example of what Edmonton's slogan should be: "we do one step forward, two steps back better than anyone".

            Oh, and NEVER accept "what's done is done" from anyone. The only thing you settle for is "Don't tell me it can't be fixed. Tell me how you're going to fix this, fix it now, and then thank me for letting you redeem yourself".

            bingo murman...whoever you are.
            I'm only a simple person wondering when this thread will be moved from the "rave" to the "rant" folder.
            [email protected][email protected]: the 5th Horseman of the Apocalypse

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by murman

              I'm only a simple person wondering when this thread will be moved from the "rave" to the "rant" folder.
              ...ask and ye shall receive.
              President and CEO - Airshow.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by RichardS
                Originally posted by murman

                I'm only a simple person wondering when this thread will be moved from the "rave" to the "rant" folder.
                ...ask and ye shall receive.
                The cosmos is back in alignment. I was beginning to wonder when we'd stop stop calling black "white".
                [email protected][email protected]: the 5th Horseman of the Apocalypse

                Comment


                • #9
                  /\stop stop - murman is so passionate he is stuttering...
                  President and CEO - Airshow.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by RichardS
                    /\stop stop - murman is so passionate he is stuttering...
                    [email protected][email protected]: the 5th Horseman of the Apocalypse

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      To help direct the rants here...

                      Originally posted by Edmonton Journal

                      Shaw Conference Centre expansion design is a blight on Jasper Avenue

                      Published: Sunday, March 19, 2006
                      Re: "Addition -- or detraction?" The Journal, March 5.

                      I understand the controversy regarding the Hall D expansion of the Shaw Convention Centre.

                      While the sweeping glass facade overlooking the river valley is stunning, the Jasper Avenue side is unsightly. It is an odd mix of pale concrete slabs along with oddly placed coloured blocks.

                      Why would Cohos Evamy, the architect responsible for the project, dazzle us on the river valley side, only to construct a monolithic wall on the Jasper Avenue facade?

                      Cohos Evamy has done some good work in Edmonton, namely by redeveloping the Whyte Avenue/104th Street corner which burned to the ground in 2003, as well as the simple, elegant building that joins the old CIBC building with Commerce Place on Jasper Avenue.

                      However, Cohos Evamy has made some significant mistakes on the University of Alberta campus. They designed three incongruent, bulky-looking buildings -- the Electrical and Computer Engineering Research Facility, the Natural Resources Engineering Facility, and the National Institute for Nanotechnology.

                      Thank goodness the University of Alberta has subsequently hired a university architect, Len Rodrigues, who was responsible for designing the eye-catching Alberta Heart Institute, which is now under construction.

                      With such a track record in Edmonton, can Cohos Evamy be trusted to do justice to the expansion of the Royal Alberta Museum, which they have been selected to do? Let's hope so.

                      Jeff Beitel, Edmonton

                      © The Edmonton Journal 2006
                      President and CEO - Airshow.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Troy,
                        Your post reminded me of the description of the symbiotic relationship between architects and engineers - "If it were not for engineers, most architects buildings would fall down. If it were not for architects, most engineers buildings would be torn down."

                        Murman,
                        You are shooting the messenger. Architects and engineers do not in fact build buildings. The are involved in the development of buildings for their clients. THE ULTIMATE RESPONSIBILITY FOR WHAT GETS BUILT OR NOT AND HOW IT GETS BUILT OR DOES NOT RESTS WITH THE CLIENT, NOT THE CONSULTANT. You cannot fault the architect for the directions and restrictions imposed by the client. What the public is now seeing and taking a dislike to was in fact identified at the design and approval stage.

                        IanO,
                        There was clearly an "opportunity missed" here that will not be resolved by art alcoves or a rooftop garden. I think that opportunity and our civic abdication to the responsibility that comes with it is not even best exemplified by Hall D. It is seen in the "Coca Cola" signage placed on one of our most prominent and most used civic buildings/spaces that would not enhance a corner grocery in most jurisdictions. It is seen in the unfinished soffits and chicken wire and stone retaining walls fronting Grierson. It is seen in the boulevard grasses that are left unkempt so they are the perfect height to catch and retain litter and make it difficult to keep clean.
                        If one wants to seize opportunity, close Grierson Hill Road. With than, the Convention Centre and that stretch to the east of it would be the only place one could walk from Jasper Avenue to the edge of the river without crossing a single street. With any sort of "destination" at the bottom of Louise McKinney Park (a restaurant, a place to rent bikes in the summer or skis in the winter, a place to buy an ice cream cone in the summer and a coffe in the winter, a decent washroom etc.) we could integrate the river valley to downtown and Jasper East. And the Grierson Hill traffic you say? If we can live without the Low Level Bridge on a temporary basis, we can live without Grierson Hill. It is all just "shortcut" traffic anyway. And where does it go without the shortcut? It has to go downtown. Well, that's a good thing is it not? Let people see what's happening downtown and drive past the square and the library and City Hall instead of saying they never go downtown.

                        Enough ranting for one post so, to sum up, I don't believe we are just supposed to accept it and allow for "regrets" - we are supposed to participate early and recognize that we are all ultimately responsible, not just the project architect who was following the direction of his client (THE CITY OF EDMONTON) and bound by the limits in scope and in finances imposed by his client, not by his design.
                        "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by kcantor
                          Troy,
                          Your post reminded me of the description of the symbiotic relationship between architects and engineers - "If it were not for engineers, most architects buildings would fall down. If it were not for architects, most engineers buildings would be torn down."

                          (...) With any sort of "destination" at the bottom of Louise McKinney Park (a restaurant, a place to rent bikes in the summer or skis in the winter, a place to buy an ice cream cone in the summer and a coffe in the winter, a decent washroom etc.) we could integrate the river valley to downtown and Jasper East. And the Grierson Hill traffic you say? If we can live without the Low Level Bridge on a temporary basis, we can live without Grierson Hill. It is all just "shortcut" traffic anyway. And where does it go without the shortcut? It has to go downtown. Well, that's a good thing is it not? Let people see what's happening downtown and drive past the square and the library and City Hall instead of saying they never go downtown.
                          I totally agree with the LM Park services discussion. We so need something to do in the river valley. I really get upset at the zealots who think the river is so sacred that it is BANANA territory. We need to have some carefully selected spots for hikers, bikers, x-country skiers, walkers, and auto-bound folks to enjoy our valley with a glass of wine, ice cream, or the like. The river flows for miles in the city, why can;t we have something cool on it downtown and the rest can stay wild?

                          As for closing Greirson, I would agree in the current state that it is a shortcut. Develop Downtown East, and I would then disagree.
                          President and CEO - Airshow.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Richard,

                            Downtown East does not benefit from Grierson Hill's traffic, much of which continues East on Jasper and never enters Downtown East. It does, however, associate Downtown East with a minimum security institution because that's the primary use that's really seen on that shortcut but that use being in a totally inappropriate location and building is perhaps worthy of another thread.

                            If that traffic is filtered through downtown and downtown east (actually Jasper East Village as, from a planning perspective, downtown does not in fact cross east of the middle of 97th Street !!), it would add traffic to the streets. That means lights, eyes, movement etc., all of which are good things from a safety and security perspective.

                            That exposure to traffic by routing it through the area is also good for potential business activities (and not the kind that thrive on a lack of street level activity and the supervision this brings). That traffic also does NOT have to move terribly quickly in order to "work" well. In case no-one has noticed, downtown traffic in busy successful vital downtowns is in fact congested and slow moving. That is a sign of a successful downtown, not a fault to be corrected or avoided. One of the by-products of that very congestion is that sidewalks and pedestrians are more and not less comfortable with the adjacent streets which encourages and nurtures the "right kind" of pedestrian traffic.
                            "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by kcantor
                              Enough ranting for one post so, to sum up, I don't believe we are just supposed to accept it and allow for "regrets" - we are supposed to participate early and recognize that we are all ultimately responsible, not just the project architect who was following the direction of his client (THE CITY OF EDMONTON) and bound by the limits in scope and in finances imposed by his client, not by his design.
                              I agree that the best way to improve the quality of the design aesthetic for civic buildings and other projects is for more community involvement. Working in the architectural realm, I can attest to projects being given a driection by the Owner, by budget, schedule and many other factors. It is never only one reason for design decisions. On a rave note, I do give Cohos a great big handshake for a beautiful interior and what will be a prime facility for future events at the Shaw. All in all, I am confident they met the programming requirements set forth by the City.
                              Thus the task is not so much to see what no-one yet has seen, but to think what nobody yet has thought that which everyone sees. - Schopenhauer

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X