(12-09-2024, 09:38 PM)Momo26 Wrote: What's with the ugly plain wall?

(12-10-2024, 09:16 AM)westwardloo Wrote:

(12-09-2024, 09:38 PM)Momo26 Wrote: What's with the ugly plain wall?

is that a temporary wall or have they already built the podium for tower #2?

(12-10-2024, 09:52 AM)ZEBuilder Wrote:

(12-10-2024, 09:16 AM)westwardloo Wrote: is that a temporary wall or have they already built the podium for tower #2?

If you're referring to the wall that has all the GlasRoc on it that is temporary, when the second tower of Duo (Platform @ Station Park) is built that wall will come down as the podium of both towers is connected with the entire back half of the podium structured parking along the tracks. This is why from the angle that is shown you can see the white cladding material stop because it will eventually turn at that point and continue on to the next tower.

The back wall is plain like that primarily due to the fact that it's the parking podium, it's also partly due to Metrolinx/CN and their crash wall requirements. The lower portion, ends just above the top of the GO train in that picture, is the crash wall which you cannot change, that will be a plain wall no matter what. It's generally between 30 and 18 inches thick and there's an entire design guideline by Metrolinx for it. The rest of the white cladding material with all the grates on the back could change as there is no requirement from Metrolinx/CN beyond the scope of the crash wall so that was entirely VanMars decision.

(12-10-2024, 05:25 PM)ac3r Wrote: The real solution is to simply encourage developers to care about the architecture of their buildings. Most architects are talented with not just architecture, but design and art as well. You don't need to make developers consider putting their money into murals if the building looks good in the first place.

Problem is, this is Waterloo Region. It isn't important to their bottom line. They'll spend the bare minimum and unless we change our building and planning rules, you'll have to deal with these ugly and usually poorly made buildings.

(12-10-2024, 05:25 PM)ac3r Wrote: The real solution is to simply encourage developers to care about the architecture of their buildings. Most architects are talented with not just architecture, but design and art as well. You don't need to make developers consider putting their money into murals if the building looks good in the first place.

Problem is, this is Waterloo Region. It isn't important to their bottom line. They'll spend the bare minimum and unless we change our building and planning rules, you'll have to deal with these ugly and usually poorly made buildings.

(12-10-2024, 08:46 PM)Momo26 Wrote: Sell to end users only? Lol

A building will never hit 80% sold to even start development.

(12-10-2024, 08:13 PM)bravado Wrote: I really don't think that beauty comes from a set of government standards... Beauty comes from people actually caring about a place and that's really fucking hard to create and maintain when so many are in the business of just extracting as much as they can and moving on - local government included.

How do we create better "customers" for architects and better citizens that demand more from the built environment?

(12-10-2024, 08:13 PM)bravado Wrote:

(12-10-2024, 05:25 PM)ac3r Wrote: The real solution is to simply encourage developers to care about the architecture of their buildings. Most architects are talented with not just architecture, but design and art as well. You don't need to make developers consider putting their money into murals if the building looks good in the first place.

Problem is, this is Waterloo Region. It isn't important to their bottom line. They'll spend the bare minimum and unless we change our building and planning rules, you'll have to deal with these ugly and usually poorly made buildings.

I really don't think that beauty comes from a set of government standards... Beauty comes from people actually caring about a place and that's really fucking hard to create and maintain when so many are in the business of just extracting as much as they can and moving on - local government included.

How do we create better "customers" for architects and better citizens that demand more from the built environment?

(12-11-2024, 11:14 AM)cherrypark Wrote:

(12-10-2024, 08:13 PM)bravado Wrote: I really don't think that beauty comes from a set of government standards... Beauty comes from people actually caring about a place and that's really fucking hard to create and maintain when so many are in the business of just extracting as much as they can and moving on - local government included.

How do we create better "customers" for architects and better citizens that demand more from the built environment?

Would be interesting to me to see are more dynamic process for positive design input from panels of candidate residents, current residents (not just the NIMBYs), etc. Especially if that rewarded some faster or easier pass through approvals that did have economic upside.

(12-11-2024, 01:24 PM)creative Wrote:

(12-11-2024, 11:14 AM)cherrypark Wrote: Would be interesting to me to see are more dynamic process for positive design input from panels of candidate residents, current residents (not just the NIMBYs), etc. Especially if that rewarded some faster or easier pass through approvals that did have economic upside.

What type of ROI are local developers making on their building projects. How much more does it cost to design and build “nicer buildings”. Are most of our local builds financed by private equity? If so there is usually a guaranteed ROI on those finance deals. If margins are too thin, what is the incentive to build. Not an expert. Just asking.