Mission Hill Infill and Small Developments

stellarfun

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2006
Messages
4,915
Reaction score
149
It is not as if the architect cannot respect the past, for example, this by the same architect:

 

Beton Brut

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2006
Messages
4,304
Reaction score
54
Understood. And I don’t even blame the developer. This is on the BPDA and BCDC.
 

odurandina

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2015
Messages
5,328
Reaction score
252
Given the quality and presence of the existing stone buildings, does anyone think the the addition as depicted in this rendering is appropriate? Scale and form are up for discussion, but I'm most interested in the materials.
Fuck no. I was gonna ask, what's the trouble with the new—

(Oh crap). :(
 

Scott

Active Member
Joined
May 25, 2006
Messages
684
Reaction score
48
I would offer that the structure that was torn down was also far superior and much more appropriate
 

Scott

Active Member
Joined
May 25, 2006
Messages
684
Reaction score
48
The photos, as usual, are excellent, thank you for sharing them. The project however is a cheap looking, hulking turd that is not nearly as interesting as what it replaced.
 

vanshnookenraggen

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
May 25, 2006
Messages
6,522
Reaction score
347
I'm really torn here. The restoration looks great and the brickwork on the new section is nice too. Yet somehow the whole work together doesn't mesh well. The back end is value engineered to oblivion.
 

George_Apley

Not a Brahmin
Staff member
Joined
Jan 22, 2012
Messages
4,618
Reaction score
1,011
Yeah. I like elements of this a lot, but all together it's an incoherent mess.
 

Bananarama

New member
Joined
Mar 18, 2020
Messages
59
Reaction score
76
Huge miss, but I can see the attempt.
The material joint between the splayed out brick and the flat face is so jarring.

Also more reason to hate metal panel facades.
 

Top