(03-31-2018, 07:59 PM)rangersfan Wrote: [ -> ]Renders now available, I like what I see.
I like it, too, but I didn't like the weird perspective distortion in the full-building render.
[
attachment=4963]
Is that an above ground parking garage? If so, I do not like that at all. Why can't they put the parking garage underground?
It's probably the same reason why most developments in Kitchener and Waterloo have above ground parking due to the high water table.
(04-02-2018, 05:08 AM)rangersfan Wrote: [ -> ]It's probably the same reason why most developments in Kitchener and Waterloo have above ground parking due to the high water table.
Correct. Although you can engineer solutions, it drives the cost of construction up considerably and it's just not something worthwhile in a mid sized city in this geographical location (the waterfront in Toronto is another story, for example).
(04-02-2018, 05:08 AM)rangersfan Wrote: [ -> ]It's probably the same reason why most developments in Kitchener and Waterloo have above ground parking due to the high water table.
...and excessive parking minimums.
(04-02-2018, 05:08 AM)rangersfan Wrote: [ -> ]It's probably the same reason why most developments in Kitchener and Waterloo have above ground parking due to the high water table.
Or at least not going deep underground -- some developments do have 2-3 levels of underground parking. Pumping water from the construction digs is a common sight.
Wow. Come back from a weekend away to see this. VERY nice looking building.
Am I remembering right that there plans to be some affordable housing in this one?
I was wondering if it was just me, or if the building appeared to get wider as it got taller.... Is that the distortion you refer to tomh009?
Coke
(04-02-2018, 03:40 PM)Coke6pk Wrote: [ -> ]I was wondering if it was just me, or if the building appeared to get wider as it got taller.... Is that the distortion you refer to tomh009?
Coke
That's exactly it! Not sure what the heck they were doing when they created the rendering.
It might look a little off but that's the correct way to show a project render or photograph buildings! All of the vertical lines should line up straight.
I think it's an optical illusion. The vertical edges are all straight and parallel (or at least very close to it). The fact that the vertical edges don't really converge is one reason the top of the tower appears larger - our brains expects it to be smaller. This is also compounded by the fact that the balconies at the top come all the way to the corner of the building, effectively enhancing that flared effect.
(04-02-2018, 05:00 PM)Lens Wrote: [ -> ]It might look a little off but that's the correct way to show a project render or photograph buildings! All of the vertical lines should line up straight.
It looks off because that's not how we see buildings in real life. In real life the top of the building is further away, and our brains adjust for the perspective effect accordingly.
A totally isometric rendering (like the one in question) makes the building look wider at the top. Filippo Brunelleschi figured out the perspective for drawings and paintings back in 1413 (705 years ago!) and buildings indeed look more natural with perspective.
(03-31-2018, 07:59 PM)rangersfan Wrote: [ -> ]Renders now available, I like what I see.
I see the condo comb-over is still in fashion (here, garment street/120 vic, 100 vic). That said I like the look of this one too.
(04-02-2018, 07:32 PM)EdM Wrote: [ -> ] (03-31-2018, 07:59 PM)rangersfan Wrote: [ -> ]Renders now available, I like what I see.
I see the condo comb-over is still in fashion (here, garment street/120 vic, 100 vic). That said I like the look of this one too.
Not an extreme comb-over in this case, though.