Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
For the guys above (oldschool, Mass_) or anyone who might know, I'm curious who makes certain design changes (specifically improvements) along the way (and, though I expect it's entirely specific to the project, why).
Looking at the Calgary Library here: https://competitions.org/2014/12/2014-12-22-23-36-52/
vs. the end result of the library, I noticed that the hexagonal facade was carried around the entire building in the end, wherein the render the south-facing side of the building doesn't have it and there is a more "standard" looking window treatment above the arch on the west side. There are also some other minor changes throughout,
I know this doesn't have a lot to do with the arena, I just know this render isn't going to be exactly what it looks like. And I know what happens when it goes the opposite way (where the render looks great while the building turns out like crap), but I'm curious how the library actually turned out better (in my opinion, obviously). |
It's the dreaded 'Value Engineering' phase of the project...Value De-Engineering we often call it.
Designs are great, until you start getting the cost estimates...if you are overbudget, you have to figure out what's important to keep and what you can lose.
for the library, they keep things like the massing, the 'public porch', the wood soffit and that amazing interior central volume.... but they cut out curtain wall glazing while keep the overall form... they keep the wood core but stripped out finishes in the stacks area.
like buying a car, you pick the things that are most important to the 'legibility' of the project...what gives you the most bang for the buck...I think that the team made good choices here especially for a public building.
the marda loop project...well, let's just say the developer's proforma drove decisions...if you look hard enough, you can see they were trying to save the 'idea' however the decisions undoubtedly were driven through maximizing profits instead of public realm