[IanO]

In other news...the sun rose upon G4 today as I was passing by.

 

[constance_chlore]

Can we: (1) not dox people who prefer to remain anonymous and (2) not start talking like movie supervillains? Please and thank you!

 

[archited]

^ you activate the churn, you are bound to see some butter. What would you do if you were attacked; passively move on?

 

[yeggator]

What would you do if you were attacked; passively move on?

Bro, you’re a rich old man in California. I’m sure you’ve got better things to do than namedrop on a development forum.

 

[ChazYEG]

You just don't know when to quit do you! Rod McLennan, formerly Senior Partner at McLennan Ross, sadly passed away a little over a year ago. I designed the first iteration of their offices (under the firm name Powell Blackburn Design Ltd. -- yes I was the Powell) many years ago and Rod became a life-long friend through that relationship. Now if you want to put your big-boy pants on you can phone Peter Taschuk or David Ross (both still senior partners at the firm) to confirm the relationship that I had with Rod and the design scenario re their office (I doubt you are brave enough for that -- but there is the challenge). Here is another challenge for you -- re my architectural license and the "documents" that you believe you have so wisely uncovered. I am not going to go into great detail here -- the case brought against me by the two ex-clients was dismissed in Civil court but (reminding me somewhat of you) that wasn't good enough for them so they went after my license. The defense was going to cost me over $25,000.00 in Lawyers' fees and the fees that I had charged the ex-clients was just under $12,000.00 (even you should be able to do the math on that) -- so from purely a financial outcome I settled the case by repaying their fees. This is the challenge part -- the last person who posted those documents on this site had to remove them and was permanently banned from the Skyrise City site (membership revoked). So to quote Dirty Harry "go ahead, make my day" -- if you want to risk being permanently banned from the site -- post them again (that is not permission -- that is a dare!). You are such a small child!

Well, this is definitely not what is in those documents.

If anyone is curious, you can just look up his name on the California Architects Board website, do a license lookup, and have a peek at these documents.

 

[constance_chlore]

Please, take it elsewhere folks.

 

[constance_chlore]

 

[Gronk!]

 

[IanO]

Getting closer...

 

[johnnyboy]

Subjective, of course, but the darker exterior on this one might be more suitable for the TBD on 106 to diminish that suburban feel a bit.

 

[constance_chlore]

 

[constance_chlore]

I walk by this building at least once a week, and I have to admit it's looking sharper than I thought it would.

 

[constance_chlore]

Weekly update

 

[constance_chlore]

Not sure I get the faux-wood patches on the east elevation...

 

[TAS]

Not sure I get the faux-wood patches on the east elevation...

View attachment 679465View attachment 679466View attachment 679467

I get your point. I guess they were trying to break up a larger section of white panels (a bit of a blank wall) between two windows with this faux wood which at a distance could seem like another window perhaps.

Or they had some extra faux wood left and that stuff is too expensive to just throw away.