Mission Hill Infill and Small Developments

It is not as if the architect cannot respect the past, for example, this by the same architect:

170612_448Beacon_1491-769x516.jpg
 
Understood. And I don’t even blame the developer. This is on the BPDA and BCDC.
 
Beton Brut said:
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.
Click to expand...

Fuck no. I was gonna ask, what's the trouble with the new—

(Oh crap). :(
 
I would offer that the structure that was torn down was also far superior and much more appropriate
 
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.
 
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.
 
Yeah. I like elements of this a lot, but all together it's an incoherent mess.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top