Admittedly a bit of brick would have been nice but these windows aren't small and the patio doors are really nice not your usual cheap sliders
IMG_20251026_140359031_HDR.jpg
 
_urbanite said:
I've actually been inside some true commie blocks (Romania), and honestly, they're actually fairly well built with good floorplans. Many have been well maintained and have been extensively renovated to modern standards inside and out.
Click to expand...
The blocks in Poland where my grandparents lived looked about a thousand years old within a couple years of being built. Fast forward past the fall of communism, and they had been painted, maintained, and looked lovely. It made all the difference.
 
I just stumbled upon an article by Mike Eliason that exactly captures my thoughts on this building (and why I think the obsession with things like 'massing' is terrible). It starts out:

One of the more, ummm, interesting complaints about new buildings is that they are “too boxy”–as if their form is somehow foreign and boxy buildings are nonexistent in the history of the city. I find this complaint interesting because the urban morphology of this city, as with most other cities, is rooted in box-shaped buildings. The sad reality is that we don’t have enough dumb boxes today. Our present land use code makes dumb boxes illegal to build in most of the city. The singular exception to that is in single-family zones and the lowest of the lowrise zones , which is where we see these types of forms most often.

I say this is a sad reality because “dumb boxes” are the least expensive, the least carbon intensive, the most resilient, and have some of the lowest operational costs compared to a more varied and intensive massing. Given the housing and climate crises we presently face , it would behoove us to move towards legalizing dumb boxes in more of the city.

Before the zoning ordinance was passed in 1923, the restrictions on building form were few and far between. In looking at the pre-zoning buildings in my block –the vast majority of them are simple boxes. The facade isn’t modulated, there aren’t awkward recesses , and these buildings weren’t encumbered with useless setback requirements. Of course, it makes sense that builders built in this manner , it was the most cost-effective and allowed the builder to make flourishes on the street-side facade if desired or budget allowed. It’s also important to point out what else these buildings didn’t have to comply with: classist density limits, SEPA, reduced lot coverage limits, parking requirements, and modulation.
Click to expand...

In Praise of Dumb Boxes​

www.theurbanist.org

In Praise of Dumb Boxes » The Urbanist

# One of the more, ummm, interesting complaints about new buildings is that they are "too boxy"--as if their form is somehow foreign and boxy buildings are nonexistent in the history of the city. I find this complaint interesting because the urban morphology of this city, as with most other...
www.theurbanist.org www.theurbanist.org
 
Square boxes are fine if there's an adequate amount of ornamentation. I'm not sure of the history of it, but we have substituted ornamentation for massing and material choices. Most cities don't even have the skilled trades needed for ornamentation now, even if architects wanted to do it.

I seem to recall reading a theory that this seems to coincide with the expectation of detailed 3d renders in the rezoning stage, and with the process often requiring a dozen iterations, design started to focus more on easily identifiable changes like massing and materials. Its also a lot easier to change the massing than it is to redesign ornamentation a dozen times over, especially when it may not end up in the next iteration before rezoning approval, let alone the final product. And now the importance of massing and materials is so entrenched in the design process, that ornamentation isn't something that many architects are pushing for, let alone something developers or urban design panels are asking for.
 
EtoV said:
Square boxes are fine if there's an adequate amount of ornamentation. I'm not sure of the history of it, but we have substituted ornamentation for massing and material choices. Most cities don't even have the skilled trades needed for ornamentation now, even if architects wanted to do it.

I seem to recall reading a theory that this seems to coincide with the expectation of detailed 3d renders in the rezoning stage, and with the process often requiring a dozen iterations, design started to focus more on easily identifiable changes like massing and materials. Its also a lot easier to change the massing than it is to redesign ornamentation a dozen times over, especially when it may not end up in the next iteration before rezoning approval, let alone the final product. And now the importance of massing and materials is so entrenched in the design process, that ornamentation isn't something that many architects are pushing for, let alone something developers or urban design panels are asking for.
Click to expand...

I always found this piece useful for understanding the demise of ornamentation.

But, the thing about ornamentation is that it has to be tasteful and coherent. In the past 30-40 years, we've gone through phases of high-rises that want to be Tuscan villas, offices that want to be English manors, and other kinds of nonsense. (See this by Kate Wagner on PoMo architecture.) And so in Edmonton we get weird stuff like this:

1762663106347.png

1762663621059.png

1762663176717.png

1762663669567.png


Once in a while, we get a nice little historical pastiche (e.g. the Ortlieb Block), and some of our contemporary civic and educational buildings are really nice. But if you ask most Edmonton developers to put more attention into ornament, you're going to get cocaine chic. And compared to that, I'd take a plain-but-handsome little Bauhaus box every single time.
 
EtoV said:
Most cities don't even have the skilled trades needed for ornamentation now, even if architects wanted to do it.
Click to expand...
Actually, with 3-d printing and CNC cutting, shaping, and drilling we have bypassed the need for skilled tradespeople in the realm of ornamentation in architecture. Almost any level of ornamentation is now achievable which as @constance_chlore has researched has both positive and negative outcome-potential. We are seeing the negative in these 6-storey agglomerations that are rising offensive to the name of Piet Mondrian.
 
archited said:
Actually, with 3-d printing and CNC cutting, shaping, and drilling we have bypassed the need for skilled tradespeople in the realm of ornamentation in architecture. Almost any level of ornamentation is now achievable which as @constance_chlore has researched has both positive and negative outcome-potential. We are seeing the negative in these 6-storey agglomerations that are rising offensive to the name of Piet Mondrian.
Click to expand...
I don't have your experience in architecture and development, but I would have to imagine that these sorts of patchwork façades must be successful in part for economic reasons, right? Like, even if we can use factory-produced cast stone rather than hiring a stone carver, I'd imagine it's more expensive to design, install, and maintain compared to interchangeable panels?
 
^ Actually, not so much as you might think. Let's take the Tegler Building as an example -- a building with a great deal of ornamentation in its make-up; so much so that it appears to have broad appeal with the public in substantial nostalgic measure. In the first instance in order to replicate the building's pastiche of notable and memorable elements, the items would have to be replicated in scalable fashion on the computer with a BIM-capable program. Some one who is skilled at this could replicate (again -- on the computer) in a single day (from an invested time perspective). In a reputable shop equipped with CNC grinders, etc. for the "stone work" I believe all of the pieces could be milled and stored ready for application in as little as 2 weeks (especially if there was a great deal of AI-assist in terms of mechanization. The rest of the building also is advantaged by modern techniques. Brick panels can be factory assembled in a manner that allows for ornamentation within their field-of-service (witness the Douglas Manner as a very current example of this where the bricks are delineated by storey with a subtle change in color and arrangement). Windows same -- triple glazed (modern heat-loss/heat-gain energy codes) can absolutely duplicate the historic character necessary without betraying their modernness even if they have integral elements that prevent solar gain or bird collisions. The coolest part is that with the right additives for both strength and appearance concrete can be fashioned such that when polished in the final steps can be made to look like stone such that the casual eye cannot tell the difference.
Now if you go into the guts of the building that is where modern elements can really shine -- indirect or shadow lighting accomplished with LED strips (low energy consumption combined with exceptionally long life-spans) can literally make the building glow. Plumbing systems with PLEX piping (water supply) and PVC waste not only simplify layout and lead to better concealment but from a labor perspective they are -- what -- 10-times easier to install. With point-of-use electric flash-heaters huge water heating/storage systems are completely eliminated. On the HVAC side -- systems like (and here I am going to underscore a personal favorite) Daikin's VRV - IV-i allow great interior expanses to be serviced by ductless heat pump systems that are two-way efficient moving heat either into the building or out of it (heating in/AC-cooling out). Combined with integral circulating fans they obviate the need for, IMO, any kind of t-bar ceiling (I say IMO because I have yet to meet a t-bar ceiling that has aesthetic appeal). Instead we then leave room for ornate metal ceilings or soon-to-come-to-market SuperWood ceilings that are both inexpensive to apply and beautiful in appearance.
Long-winded (sorry) -- but the point is that a building like the Tegler could be refashioned to have all the aesthetic glory of old, working to greatly exceed the minimal code, and be much less expensive to build than some of the monstrosities rising up today. Electrical. Plumbing, and HVAC systems are one of the biggest budget chewers in modern construction when taken together -- it doesn't need to be that way.
 
Hopefully they make the central street more pedestrianized in the final design :( Otherwise pretty cool!
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top