Telus Sky

[polak]

Everything that's not a grey box is pretentious! Who do you think you are? Designing something that a blindfolded preschooler couldn't s*** out by accident.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

As for the building design - I don't like it either. Pretencious and disharmonious.

The building insists upon itself.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

The only credible explanation - they've made too much money of our bills.

Same thing can be said of every corporate office in downtown. They've made too much money off your gas, your cable bill, your banking fees, etc.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

Same thing can be said of every corporate office in downtown. They've made too much money off your gas, your cable bill, your banking fees, etc.

Yeah, all these companies keep acting like they are businesses.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

Same thing can be said of every corporate office in downtown. They've made too much money off your gas, your cable bill, your banking fees, etc.

I disagree. They usually lease their offices from landlords (REITS, pension funds, real estate holding companies etc.) exactly because real estate is not their core business. They pay for those leases by using the "money off your gas, your cable bill, your banking fees, etc."

[SebC]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

Valid concern and valid question, no matter how much the cheerleaders might hate it. Telus is a public phone/internet utility company; not a builder, not a developer, not a REIT. Why are they going into the risky real estate business starting off with such a complex mixed-use venture? The only credible explanation - they've made too much money of our bills.

As for the building design - I don't like it either. Pretencious and disharmonious.

Telus' partners on the project are Westbank (a developer), and Allied (an REIT). Furthermore, they've already done a project like this in Vancouver, so they probably have a pretty good idea as to what sort of risks and rewards they are dealing with. I don't know the details of the partnership, but chances are that Allied/Westbank are responsible for the residential portion of the project, and Telus is responsible for the bottom, which is basically just a small commercial box.

As to your taste, the transition between the the commercial and residential parts is about as harmonious as you can get. And I prefer "aspirational" to "prententious". It's not like it's got a ton of bling, it's more of a simple and elegant design. Is it pretentious because it's tall? Because it has texture?

[/whack]

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

I disagree. They usually lease their offices from landlords (REITS, pension funds, real estate holding companies etc.) exactly because real estate is not their core business. They pay for those leases by using the "money off your gas, your cable bill, your banking fees, etc."

The major tennants of most corporate buildings are often involved in the ownership and design process of that building. You are correct that afterward, most choose not to be in the property management business and work on a leased arrangement.

Telus owns the land they are building this on, is Telus going to be the property manager of this building? Is the land ownership of this block some residual thing from the crown-corporation days? Do they own Telus House and Len Warry too?

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by SebC

Telus' partners on the project are Westbank (a developer), and Allied (an REIT). Furthermore, they've already done a project like this in Vancouver, so they probably have a pretty good idea as to what sort of risks and rewards they are dealing with. I don't know the details of the partnership, but chances are that Allied/Westbank are responsible for the residential portion of the project, and Telus is responsible for the bottom, which is basically just a small commercial box.

As to your taste, the transition between the the commercial and residential parts is about as harmonious as you can get. And I prefer "aspirational" to "prententious". It's not like it's got a ton of bling, it's more of a simple and elegant design. Is it pretentious because it's tall? Because it has texture?

[/whack]

It insists upon itself.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by SebC

...
As to your taste, the transition between the the commercial and residential parts is about as harmonious as you can get. And I prefer "aspirational" to "prententious". ...

[/whack]

That's your taste.

Originally Posted by SebC

...
...It's not like it's got a ton of bling, it's more of a simple and elegant design. Is it pretentious because it's tall? Because it has texture?

[/whack]

No. It's not eye-pleasing (to me) on many counts: narrowing transition is bottle-like, rhythm of the balconies is plain weird and unjustified, which is why I find it disharmonious - visual harmony is absent. It is unusual and trendy, but not timeless. Trends come and go.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

No. It's not eye-pleasing (to me) on many counts: narrowing transition is bottle-like, rhythm of the balconies is plain weird and unjustified, which is why I find it disharmonious - visual harmony is absent. It is unusual and trendy, but not timeless. Trends come and go.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by flameswin

...

You've got nothing to add to a conversation. Why bother? Should I start calling you names that I think you deserve?

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

You've got nothing to add to a conversation. Why bother? Should I start calling you names that I think you deserve?

The floor is yours

[Frank MetaMusil]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

Valid concern and valid question, no matter how much the cheerleaders might hate it. Telus is a public phone/internet utility company; not a builder, not a developer, not a REIT. Why are they going into the risky real estate business starting off with such a complex mixed-use venture? The only credible explanation - they've made too much money of our bills.

As for the building design - I don't like it either. Pretencious and disharmonious.

They are branching out into real estate for a double dip. TELUS currently only occupies 5 floors in the tower. They plan to have almost 80% of their employees working remotely/from home in the future.

It's not necessarily just customers they are trying to squeeze money from.....

[SebC]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

That's your taste.


No. It's not eye-pleasing (to me) on many counts: narrowing transition is bottle-like, rhythm of the balconies is plain weird and unjustified, which is why I find it disharmonious - visual harmony is absent. It is unusual and trendy, but not timeless. Trends come and go.

The balconies are in an alternating pattern - the building, once narrowed, has two floorplates, and alternate between them as you ascend. This means that rather than having floor that solely supports the balcony as most vertical towers do, the floor of one balcony doubles as the ceiling of the unit below. Instead of being protusions, which could detract aesthetically from a standard mixed-use building, they are simply part of the texture of the building that transitions smoothly from the bottom section to the top. Which, again, is an elegant way of to do things. What other mixed-use building does as good of a job blending a section that has balconies with one that doesn't? The blending gives it a coherent, unified feel, to a degree that stacked boxes could never achieve.

I do agree with you a tiny bit on the narrowing, as in it might look slightly better if it had a continuous taper from the transition point all the way to the top. But then each floor would have a different floorplan, and that's a lot of complexity that this design doesn't have.

[CaptainYooh]

I understand the points you are making; but they are purely technical, in nature. I see it similar to a musician admiring a piece only because of its pure complexity of execution. Visual harmony should come first, I believe. It's easy to go nowhere with this, as at some point we'd we have to start throwing examples of what's good and what's bad architecturally, which would then come to what we like and don't like in architecture. Judging by your overall comments, you have probably seen the Lloyd's of London building. I do like it a lot. Modern, complex, unique and, yet, well-balanced and unbelievably cool. So, it is possible to combine it all.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

I understand the points you are making; but they are purely technical, in nature. I see it similar to a musician admiring a piece only because of its pure complexity of execution. Visual harmony should come first, I believe. It's easy to go nowhere with this, as at some point we'd we have to start throwing examples of what's good and what's bad architecturally, which would then come to what we like and don't like in architecture. Judging by your overall comments, you have probably seen the Lloyd's of London building. I do like it a lot. Modern, complex, unique and, yet, well-balanced and unbelievably cool. So, it is possible to combine it all.

You were the one who said the project was complex, prententious, and disharmonius. But I don't see how it can be pretentious, given that while it may look a bit post-modern, it is essentially a modernist design. Form follows function. At it looks nice, too!

I find your example of Lloyd's quite ironic, given your criticism of the Sky. It is cool, but I don't see it as balanced... the mechanical blocks but too much visual weight at the top. It is unique, but I wouldn't call it timeless. It is unique precisely because its style appears to have been a fad! I think Sky has a much better shot at being timeless, because it straddles the line between modernism and post-modernism. It has aesthetic considerations, but they are not extravagant or gaudy - no spire, no crazy cantilevers, no crown, no clocktower etc.

I don't like Sky for its complexity, I like it for its simplicity. And that's where your analogy fails. It's beautiful in the way Copernicus' model of the the solar system is beautiful. It solves the problem, and it does so in a simple manner that just works.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

Valid concern and valid question, no matter how much the cheerleaders might hate it. Telus is a public phone/internet utility company; not a builder, not a developer, not a REIT. Why are they going into the risky real estate business starting off with such a complex mixed-use venture? The only credible explanation - they've made too much money of our bills.

They're a public company, meaning they are responsible to their shareholders. And if this makes the company money and provides a benefit to the shareholders, so be it. But you'll have to forgive me if I'm not sympathetic to some arse whining about it as though this unrelated project somehow has a direct impact on your monthly bill.

They've made 'too much' money off your bills? How much money should they be allowed to make? Please, I'd love to know.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by flameswin

It insists upon itself.

This analysis is shallow and pedantic.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by SebC

...
I find your example of Lloyd's quite ironic, given your criticism of the Sky. It is cool, but I don't see it as balanced... the mechanical blocks but too much visual weight at the top. It is unique, but I wouldn't call it timeless. It is unique precisely because its style appears to have been a fad! I think Sky has a much better shot at being timeless, because it straddles the line between modernism and post-modernism. It has aesthetic considerations, but they are not extravagant or gaudy - no spire, no crazy cantilevers, no crown, no clocktower etc.

I don't like Sky for its complexity, I like it for its simplicity. And that's where your analogy fails. It's beautiful in the way Copernicus' model of the the solar system is beautiful. It solves the problem, and it does so in a simple manner that just works.

Again, you are applying technical evaluation criteria to justify your personal aesthetic preferences. I believe this is a wrong and dangerous approach, (especially when used by the people in approving authorities), as it leads to creating architectural monstrosities and eyesores that "grace" city skylines forever and become "familiar monstrosities and eyesores". Calgary downtown architecture has been dominated by the same four largest architectural firms for too long; hence, craving for something exciting and out-of-the-ordinary is understandable. Unfortunately, this also means that anything non-straight and asymmetric is easily welcomed and heralded as world-class. It is not always the case.

In summary, I think our positions on this building are now quite clear and simple: you like it and I don't.

[Daradon]

I think it looks a little weird or out of place simply because of the buildings around it, cept the Bow perhaps. Calgary's buildings, mostly going up in the 70's and early 80's are completely boring and even ugly in some cases. You can tell the few newer ones we have very easily. (Bankers Hall etc.) I think Telus Sky would fit right in on skylines like Singapore and Dubai (except for being woefully short of course). As the city's skyline continues to evolve Sky won't look so out of place.