|
Home > Archive > Architecture > March 2008 > Vancouver Images
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
|
|
| Warm Worm 2008-03-07, 8:25 pm |
| This is a shot I took a couple of days ago, of the construction of the
Skytrain downtown sub-section beneath Granville street. You might notice
what appears to be one of the tunnel-boring machines still in the left
tunnel, along with three cute little construction workers-- including
one in the other tunnel and one hiding in the forklift:
http://www.sfu.ca/~rmacinty/subdig.jpg
This image is from my window overlooking English Bay. Might anyone know
what those things are? Ventilation fans? The tug seems to be headed in
the direction where there is a small forest of construction-cranes--
possibly for the upcoming Olympics:
http://www.sfu.ca/~rmacinty/seacargo.jpg
Ken, if you're reading this, did you catch the lunar eclipse about 2
weeks ago? I did, and later, in the wee hours of the morning, decided to
take a quick capture of the full moonset:
http://www.sfu.ca/~rmacinty/moonset.jpg
| |
| Ken S. Tucker 2008-03-08, 3:25 am |
| On Mar 7, 4:23 pm, Warm Worm <u...@domain.invalid> wrote:
> This is a shot I took a couple of days ago, of the construction of the
> Skytrain downtown sub-section beneath Granville street. You might notice
> what appears to be one of the tunnel-boring machines still in the left
> tunnel, along with three cute little construction workers-- including
> one in the other tunnel and one hiding in the forklift:http://www.sfu.ca/~rmacinty/subdig.jpg
>
> This image is from my window overlooking English Bay. Might anyone know
> what those things are? Ventilation fans? The tug seems to be headed in
> the direction where there is a small forest of construction-cranes--
> possibly for the upcoming Olympics:http://www.sfu.ca/~rmacinty/seacargo.jpg
>
> Ken, if you're reading this, did you catch the lunar eclipse about 2
> weeks ago?
Hi WW yes we did. The eclipse was right out our
eastern view windows, beautiful.
>I did, and later, in the wee hours of the morning, decided to
> take a quick capture of the full moonset:http://www.sfu.ca/~rmacinty/moonset.jpg
Very nice, nice view too.
Ken
| |
| Michael Bulatovich 2008-03-08, 9:25 am |
| Warm Worm wrote:
> This is a shot I took a couple of days ago, of the construction of the
> Skytrain downtown sub-section beneath Granville street. You might
> notice what appears to be one of the tunnel-boring machines still in
> the left tunnel, along with three cute little construction workers--
> including one in the other tunnel and one hiding in the forklift:
> http://www.sfu.ca/~rmacinty/subdig.jpg
Cool. What's the wider orthogonal section in front? A passing layby?
> This image is from my window overlooking English Bay. Might anyone
> know what those things are? Ventilation fans? The tug seems to be
> headed in the direction where there is a small forest of
> construction-cranes-- possibly for the upcoming Olympics:
> http://www.sfu.ca/~rmacinty/seacargo.jpg
I think someone's sunk your battleship :.. (
> Ken, if you're reading this, did you catch the lunar eclipse about 2
> weeks ago? I did, and later, in the wee hours of the morning, decided
> to take a quick capture of the full moonset:
> http://www.sfu.ca/~rmacinty/moonset.jpg
I took in a presentation by your head of urban design last year, talking
about various issues. One that really caught my attention was what they were
requiring for pedestrian-friendly streetfronts- overhangs of certain
dimensions, retail door spacings, signage etc. in the downtown. If you're
dragging the camera around anyway and you remember this, can you bang off
some shots of this recent work? (Don't have to be as pretty as the last
ones.)
I, for my part, will try to do the same on our now-forming railway lands
streetscapes near the dome, after the snow melts a bit. The guy responsible
for it has left, and those remaining in the department are privately
admitting that thay've dropped the ball pretty badly when it comes to the
pedestrian context there.
Our guys look to New York and Chicago massing issues, and done OK with it,
but you'd have to add Vancouver now too. There's still lots of railway lands
left to go (about half) so it's not too late to get it right for
pedestrians. In the mean time we can take bets on how long before there is a
public charette on what to do about the ground plane in the first
half....it's pretty bad.
Speaking of massing, have you ever been to
http://skyscraperpage.com ? If not, check out the cities pages...
--
MichaelB
www.michaelbulatovich.ca
| |
|
|
Michael Bulatovich wrote:
>Warm Worm wrote:
>
>
>
>Cool. What's the wider orthogonal section in front? A passing layby?
>
>
>
>
>I think someone's sunk your battleship :.. (
>
>
>
>
>I took in a presentation by your head of urban design last year, talking
>about various issues. One that really caught my attention was what they were
>requiring for pedestrian-friendly streetfronts- overhangs of certain
>dimensions, retail door spacings, signage etc. in the downtown. If you're
>dragging the camera around anyway and you remember this, can you bang off
>some shots of this recent work? (Don't have to be as pretty as the last
>ones.)
>
>
If you have any specifications for this pedestrian friendly design
guideline (s?) please email me with them or a link to themas I would
love to see them for an upcoming project.
>I, for my part, will try to do the same on our now-forming railway lands
>streetscapes near the dome, after the snow melts a bit. The guy responsible
>for it has left, and those remaining in the department are privately
>admitting that thay've dropped the ball pretty badly when it comes to the
>pedestrian context there.
>
>Our guys look to New York and Chicago massing issues, and done OK with it,
>but you'd have to add Vancouver now too. There's still lots of railway lands
>left to go (about half) so it's not too late to get it right for
>pedestrians. In the mean time we can take bets on how long before there is a
>public charette on what to do about the ground plane in the first
>half....it's pretty bad.
>
>
Every single shadow study falls short of a state of the art. The cities
are not comparable in many scale respects.
>Speaking of massing, have you ever been to
>http://skyscraperpage.com ? If not, check out the cities pages...
>
>
| |
| Michael Bulatovich 2008-03-09, 9:25 am |
| ++ wrote:
> Michael Bulatovich wrote:
>
>
> If you have any specifications for this pedestrian friendly design
> guideline (s?) please email me with them or a link to themas I would
> love to see them for an upcoming project.
I'd recommend poking around on the Vancouver website...
>
> Every single shadow study falls short of a state of the art. The
> cities are not comparable in many scale respects.
Absolutely, but some approaches can be transplanted.
[color=darkred]
| |
| Warm Worm 2008-03-10, 3:25 am |
| Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> On Mar 7, 4:23 pm, Warm Worm <u...@domain.invalid> wrote:
>
> Hi WW yes we did. The eclipse was right out our
> eastern view windows, beautiful.
Great. I was at a cafe at the time when one of the staff informed me of it.
>
> Very nice, nice view too.
Funny how things like the view get taken for granted after time.
| |
| RicodJour 2008-03-10, 9:25 am |
| On Mar 10, 3:19 am, Warm Worm <u...@domain.invalid> wrote:
>
> Funny how things like the view get taken for granted after time.
Good thing that doesn't happen with other people.
R
| |
| Ken S. Tucker 2008-03-10, 1:25 pm |
| On Mar 9, 11:19 pm, Warm Worm <u...@domain.invalid> wrote:
> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Great. I was at a cafe at the time when one of the staff informed me of it.
I've been an amature astronomer since I can remember.
>
>
> Funny how things like the view get taken for granted after time.
Not for me, I like clouds and a good night sky.
Vancouver has a lot of interesting ships and
bridges.
Ken
| |
|
|
RicodJour wrote:
>On Mar 10, 3:19 am, Warm Worm <u...@domain.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>
>Good thing that doesn't happen with other people.
>
>R
>
>
Some people seem to have a natural gift for seeing everything anew.
They don' lose that way children have of saying something like "Look,
Ma, that sunset. Can you believe those color?! Wow, do you see how
that dark cloud next to that color of red madkes that sky look like a
mountain?" etc. The rest of us become complaceent with beauty and have
to remind ourselves to look fresh at what we see, to soak up the images
and to note them both. We cover ourselves with the lenses of age and
indifference.
| |
| Warm Worm 2008-03-10, 5:26 pm |
| RicodJour wrote:
> On Mar 10, 3:19 am, Warm Worm <u...@domain.invalid> wrote:
>
> Good thing that doesn't happen with other people.
What do you mean?
Would we have songs that sing about "Don't it always seem to go, that
you don't know what you got 'till it's gone.", otherwise?
Photographs can help reset perspectives.
| |
| RicodJour 2008-03-10, 5:26 pm |
| On Mar 10, 2:58 pm, Warm Worm <u...@domain.invalid> wrote:
> RicodJour wrote:
>
>
> What do you mean?
> Would we have songs that sing about "Don't it always seem to go, that
> you don't know what you got 'till it's gone.", otherwise?
> Photographs can help reset perspectives.
If you have the right lens.
Sorry, I took for granted that you'd infer the smiley. Here it is
;)
R
| |
| Warm Worm 2008-03-11, 3:25 am |
| RicodJour wrote:
> On Mar 10, 2:58 pm, Warm Worm <u...@domain.invalid> wrote:
>
> If you have the right lens.
>
> Sorry, I took for granted that you'd infer the smiley. Here it is
> ;)
I thought you might have been in a crabby mood... It's ok to be in a
crabby mood.
| |
| Warm Worm 2008-03-11, 3:25 am |
| Michael Bulatovich wrote:
> Warm Worm wrote:
>
> Cool. What's the wider orthogonal section in front? A passing layby?
You mean that rust-coloured I-beam "bridge"? Unsure, but I'll take a
guess that it's supporting electrical, communication and/or water mains.
>
> I think someone's sunk your battleship :.. (
I was an innocent civilian who happened to be in the wrong place at the
wrong time.
>
> I took in a presentation by your head of urban design last year, talking
> about various issues. One that really caught my attention was what they were
> requiring for pedestrian-friendly streetfronts- overhangs of certain
> dimensions, retail door spacings, signage etc. in the downtown. If you're
> dragging the camera around anyway and you remember this, can you bang off
> some shots of this recent work? (Don't have to be as pretty as the last
> ones.)
I'll try to include that when I attempt this:
One of my ideas for an alt.arch thread is to post a "directed
photographic study" of some favorite downtown retail shops' interiors--
perhaps with a view toward some inspiration for and application to other
areas.
> I, for my part, will try to do the same on our now-forming railway lands
> streetscapes near the dome, after the snow melts a bit.
I look forward to it.
> The guy responsible
> for it has left, and those remaining in the department are privately
> admitting that thay've dropped the ball pretty badly when it comes to the
> pedestrian context there.
Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I seem to recall some interesting pics from
you regarding a silvery gallery or museum or something that jutted over
a sidewalk?
> Our guys look to New York and Chicago massing issues, and done OK with it,
> but you'd have to add Vancouver now too. There's still lots of railway lands
> left to go (about half) so it's not too late to get it right for
> pedestrians. In the mean time we can take bets on how long before there is a
> public charette on what to do about the ground plane in the first
> half....it's pretty bad.
>
> Speaking of massing, have you ever been to
> http://skyscraperpage.com ? If not, check out the cities pages...
I think so and will try to find the time to return.
| |
| Warm Worm 2008-03-11, 3:25 am |
| ++ wrote:
>
>
> Michael Bulatovich wrote:
>
>
> If you have any specifications for this pedestrian friendly design
> guideline (s?) please email me with them or a link to themas I would
> love to see them for an upcoming project.
>
>
> Every single shadow study falls short of a state of the art. The cities
> are not comparable in many scale respects.
What are shadow studies, and vis-a-vis state-of-the-art and scale?
I might have mentioned this on here before, but why is it that a lot of
"inward-looking-use" architecture seems to be situated right on the
waterfronts-- areas that would otherwise be put to better advantage for
their views?
For examples, in Halifax and Vancouver (Sydney's Opera House?), they
have their casino and trade/convention centre, respectively, right on
the waterfronts.
There just seems to be a kind of counter-intuitiveness and/or
inward-looking way, as to how a lot of urban waterfronts are
designed/developed.
(BTW, in Vancouver, they have 2 Stadiums and a mall/cinema along with
many residential highrises and assorted retail outlets, in a narrow
"peninsular bottleneck".)
| |
|
| "Warm Worm"> wrote
> I might have mentioned this on here before, but why is it that a lot of
> "inward-looking-use" architecture seems to be situated right on the
> waterfronts-- areas that would otherwise be put to better advantage for
> their views?
>
> For examples, in Halifax and Vancouver (Sydney's Opera House?), they have
> their casino and trade/convention centre, respectively, right on the
> waterfronts.
>
> There just seems to be a kind of counter-intuitiveness and/or
> inward-looking way, as to how a lot of urban waterfronts are
> designed/developed.
Good point.
Most residential applications emphasize the view *toward* the water but
commercial projects focus attention *from* the water.
If you're in a stadium watching a game you aren't looking at the view of the
water.
So, the greatest feature, waterview, is not being exploited.
Perhaps the city planners have this all wrong?
| |
| RicodJour 2008-03-11, 9:26 am |
| On Mar 11, 7:59 am, "Don" <one-if-by-l...@concord.com> wrote:
> "Warm Worm"> wrote
>
>
>
>
> Good point.
> Most residential applications emphasize the view *toward* the water but
> commercial projects focus attention *from* the water.
> If you're in a stadium watching a game you aren't looking at the view of the
> water.
> So, the greatest feature, waterview, is not being exploited.
> Perhaps the city planners have this all wrong?
Not really. Not everyone is at the stadium or opera house. The
majority of people look past it as they view the water, and that's
every hour of every day, not just when an event is taking place.
People on the water don't think the water is the most interesting view
- it's the shoreline.
You guys are myopic.  ~
R
| |
| Michael Bulatovich 2008-03-11, 1:27 pm |
| Warm Worm wrote:
> Michael Bulatovich wrote:
>
> You mean that rust-coloured I-beam "bridge"? Unsure, but I'll take a
> guess that it's supporting electrical, communication and/or water
> mains.
The the large orthogonal excavation in front ot the drilled cylindrical
tunnels atthe back.
| |
| Michael Bulatovich 2008-03-11, 1:27 pm |
| Warm Worm wrote:
> ++ wrote:
>
> What are shadow studies, and vis-a-vis state-of-the-art and scale?
>
> I might have mentioned this on here before, but why is it that a lot
> of "inward-looking-use" architecture seems to be situated right on the
> waterfronts-- areas that would otherwise be put to better advantage
> for their views?
>
> For examples, in Halifax and Vancouver (Sydney's Opera House?), they
> have their casino and trade/convention centre, respectively, right on
> the waterfronts.
>
> There just seems to be a kind of counter-intuitiveness and/or
> inward-looking way, as to how a lot of urban waterfronts are
> designed/developed.
>
> (BTW, in Vancouver, they have 2 Stadiums and a mall/cinema along with
> many residential highrises and assorted retail outlets, in a narrow
> "peninsular bottleneck".)
I think this has to do with land use history and the scale of redevelopment
planning, not some lack of vision per se. Urban waterfronts were too
valuable to be preserved for 'views'. These areas are usually reclaimed from
derelict former commercial areas in these port cities. The lands are often
reclaimed or toxic. There's often infrastructure like railways or highways
adjacent, etc. forming barriers to access. There's also often a long period
of transition, when some of the former uses persist legally on adjacent
lands limiting the commercial viability of some types of redevelopment. You
have to take a long view and be patient, or put in power a totalitarian
strongman with a new interest in urban destruc...er...I mean ...design. I've
got someone in mind ; )
| |
|
|
"RicodJour" <ricodjour@worldemail.com> wrote in message
news:58bc2a70-a056-40a6-babf-d16508126093@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 11, 7:59 am, "Don" <one-if-by-l...@concord.com> wrote:
>
> Not really. Not everyone is at the stadium or opera house. The
> majority of people look past it as they view the water, and that's
> every hour of every day, not just when an event is taking place.
> People on the water don't think the water is the most interesting view
> - it's the shoreline.
>
> You guys are myopic. ~
>
> R
I likes me a nice waterline view.
But they don't have much of it in these landlocked states!
| |
| Ken S. Tucker 2008-03-11, 1:27 pm |
| On Mar 11, 7:07 am, "Don" <one-if-by-l...@concord.com> wrote:
> "RicodJour" <ricodj...@worldemail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:58bc2a70-a056-40a6-babf-d16508126093@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I likes me a nice waterline view.
> But they don't have much of it in these landlocked states!
Don, awhile back you mentioned something about
building a pond, are you still thinking about that?
Ken
| |
|
|
"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
news:50b8723e-2f02-4720-948d-4e2723e37713@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 11, 7:07 am, "Don" <one-if-by-l...@concord.com> wrote:
>
> Don, awhile back you mentioned something about
> building a pond, are you still thinking about that?
> Ken
Yeah, we're thinking about it.
I have doubts about the viability though because of how the land lays.
There's no flat place, except over the drainfield.
To make a flat place would be very expensive, moving trees, earth, etc.
We'll probably settle for a smallish thing, maybe 16-20 feet across,
something my wife can put some fish and plants in and or around.
Maybe dip the toes in during the summer.
From the SE corner of the property to the NW corner the land drops maybe 50'
or so, and its not a regular drop.
| |
| Ken S. Tucker 2008-03-11, 1:27 pm |
| On Mar 11, 8:38 am, "Don" <one-if-by-l...@concord.com> wrote:
> "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote in messagenews:50b8723e-2f02-4720-948d-4e2723e37713@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yeah, we're thinking about it.
> I have doubts about the viability though because of how the land lays.
> There's no flat place, except over the drainfield.
> To make a flat place would be very expensive, moving trees, earth, etc.
> We'll probably settle for a smallish thing, maybe 16-20 feet across,
> something my wife can put some fish and plants in and or around.
> Maybe dip the toes in during the summer.
> From the SE corner of the property to the NW corner the land drops maybe 50'
> or so, and its not a regular drop.
We had a lakefront home for 20 years, we sold
it, and really don't miss it. Of course it's a case
of "been there, done that". By and large, water
is boring, it's a big flat thing. Bird feeders and
wildlife is our interest now and of course clouds,
our new place is called SkyView.
Ponds is a great hobby for other people.
Ken
| |
|
|
RicodJour wrote:
>
>
>Not really. Not everyone is at the stadium or opera house. The
>majority of people look past it as they view the water, and that's
>every hour of every day, not just when an event is taking place.
>People on the water don't think the water is the most interesting view
>- it's the shoreline.
>
>You guys are myopic. ~
>
>
Not necessarily. When I think of Seattle, for example, I always first
see in my mind the incredible sky-scape. Those Pacific colors are not
those of us on the East Coast. Depending on where you are around
Seattle, the mountains can blend with water and sky and seem like
unusual cloud formations. What is taken advantage of in a view need not
be pedestrian
>R
>
>
>
| |
|
|
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>
>
>We had a lakefront home for 20 years, we sold
>it, and really don't miss it. Of course it's a case
>of "been there, done that". By and large, water
>is boring, it's a big flat thing. Bird feeders and
>wildlife is our interest now and of course clouds,
>our new place is called SkyView.
>Ponds is a great hobby for other people.
>Ken
>
>
skyscape...yes! What is optimum, in my mind, is the sound and smell of
the sea and/ or water fowl with a great skyscape
>
>
>
>
>
| |
|
|
"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
news:6f626ef8-db1a-48a2-954b-9bde0add7cae@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 11, 8:38 am, "Don" <one-if-by-l...@concord.com> wrote:
>
> We had a lakefront home for 20 years, we sold
> it, and really don't miss it. Of course it's a case
> of "been there, done that". By and large, water
> is boring, it's a big flat thing. Bird feeders and
> wildlife is our interest now and of course clouds,
> our new place is called SkyView.
> Ponds is a great hobby for other people.
> Ken
Well as you know my next target is a 100 acre property, when we're done with
the one we have.
THEN we'll have our pond.
Its needs to be fed by a stream to be worthwhile, otherwise its a big mud
puddle..
| |
| Warm Worm 2008-03-11, 5:26 pm |
| Michael Bulatovich wrote:
> Warm Worm wrote:
>
> The the large orthogonal excavation in front ot the drilled cylindrical
> tunnels atthe back.
You mean the whole "square" pit that the construction workers, blue
portable toilets, scaffolding and materials occupy?
If so, I'm unsure. Probably a few reasons. I think there's an
underground mall in the area too.
| |
| Michael Bulatovich 2008-03-11, 5:26 pm |
| Warm Worm wrote:
> Michael Bulatovich wrote:
>
> You mean the whole "square" pit that the construction workers, blue
> portable toilets, scaffolding and materials occupy?
> If so, I'm unsure. Probably a few reasons. I think there's an
> underground mall in the area too.
That's it. Looks too narrow for a station, maybe just wide enough for a
layby.
| |
| Warm Worm 2008-03-11, 5:26 pm |
| RicodJour wrote:
> On Mar 11, 7:59 am, "Don" <one-if-by-l...@concord.com> wrote:
>
> Not really. Not everyone is at the stadium or opera house. The
> majority of people look past it as they view the water, and that's
> every hour of every day, not just when an event is taking place.
Ok, but they're blocking the view and with an inward-looking event no less.
Here in Vancouver, when you look out over the water, depending on which
way you're looking, you can also see the mountains, the opposite
shoreline, and/or far off into the distance. You also can get far more
of the sky and sun, including its rises and sets.
I guess part of my point is that the main cafe/pedestrian strips where
you can hang out and "enjoy" the view are in the middle of the city
that, without the above views, make it feel like any other city, with
cars and another building and Starbucks across from the ones you're at--
yet more of that inward-looking feel.
> People on the water don't think the water is the most interesting view
> - it's the shoreline.
Of course the shoreline is also viewable from across the water on the
opposite shoreline and there's interesting activity on the water, too.
| |
| RicodJour 2008-03-11, 5:26 pm |
| On Mar 11, 3:53 pm, Warm Worm <u...@domain.invalid> wrote:
> RicodJour wrote:
>
>
>
> Ok, but they're blocking the view and with an inward-looking event no less.
> Here in Vancouver, when you look out over the water, depending on which
> way you're looking, you can also see the mountains, the opposite
> shoreline, and/or far off into the distance. You also can get far more
> of the sky and sun, including its rises and sets.
> I guess part of my point is that the main cafe/pedestrian strips where
> you can hang out and "enjoy" the view are in the middle of the city
> that, without the above views, make it feel like any other city, with
> cars and another building and Starbucks across from the ones you're at--
> yet more of that inward-looking feel.
>
>
> Of course the shoreline is also viewable from across the water on the
> opposite shoreline and there's interesting activity on the water, too.
Oh, well, why didn't you say so? That's no problem, just list all of
the activities/buildings that require no tradeoffs, are equally
enjoyable from indoors and out, appeal to all people at all times, are
spectacularly viewable from all angles, and we'll be happy to build
them for you...for free.
R
| |
| Michael Bulatovich 2008-03-11, 5:26 pm |
| Warm Worm wrote:
> RicodJour wrote:
>
> Ok, but they're blocking the view and with an inward-looking event no
> less. Here in Vancouver, when you look out over the water, depending
> on which way you're looking, you can also see the mountains, the
> opposite shoreline, and/or far off into the distance. You also can
> get far more of the sky and sun, including its rises and sets.
> I guess part of my point is that the main cafe/pedestrian strips where
> you can hang out and "enjoy" the view are in the middle of the city
> that, without the above views, make it feel like any other city, with
> cars and another building and Starbucks across from the ones you're
> at-- yet more of that inward-looking feel.
>
>
> Of course the shoreline is also viewable from across the water on the
> opposite shoreline and there's interesting activity on the water, too.
....and the juxtaposition of building types makes for an image that has some
dynamism. A wall of glass condo towers can get pretty dull pretty fast, and
turns into a ground without a figure.
| |
| Kris Krieger 2008-03-11, 5:26 pm |
| ++ <friend@spambot.com> wrote in news:hNidnd3N5o0_
7EjanZ2dnUVZ_s6mnZ2d@rcn.net:
>
>
> RicodJour wrote:
>
>
> Some people seem to have a natural gift for seeing everything anew.
> They don' lose that way children have of saying something like "Look,
> Ma, that sunset.
And others hide it, becasue adults who get overly exhuberant are all too
often ridiculed an ddenigrated...
> Can you believe those color?! Wow, do you see how
> that dark cloud next to that color of red madkes that sky look like a
> mountain?" etc. The rest of us become complaceent with beauty and have
> to remind ourselves to look fresh at what we see, to soak up the images
> and to note them both. We cover ourselves with the lenses of age and
> indifference.
Others of just keep it to themselves, because of the general attitude that
most adults exhibit. As with the Octopus: Is this a stone, or a living
creature doing an amazing facsilime...?
"...
- here, as in the seething street below,
the mountains are merely pretty pictures,
and only madmen hear the songs of stars."
| |
| Warm Worm 2008-03-11, 8:25 pm |
| RicodJour wrote:
> On Mar 11, 3:53 pm, Warm Worm <u...@domain.invalid> wrote:
>
> Oh, well, why didn't you say so? That's no problem, just list all of
> the activities/buildings that require no tradeoffs, are equally
> enjoyable from indoors and out, appeal to all people at all times, are
> spectacularly viewable from all angles, and we'll be happy to build
> them for you...for free.
Well ok, but the indoor inward-looking buildings are probably one of the
last things I'd put on the waterfronts if the sky was indeed the limit.
| |
| Warm Worm 2008-03-11, 8:25 pm |
| Michael Bulatovich wrote:
> Warm Worm wrote:
>
> ...and the juxtaposition of building types makes for an image that has some
> dynamism. A wall of glass condo towers can get pretty dull pretty fast, and
> turns into a ground without a figure.
That's indeed what they have out here along the water, too-- glass condo
towers-- and many of them. It's quite dense in some areas.
However, in some places, they seem to be set more back from the water.
Ideally, I was thinking of some sort of progressive heightening of
buildings from short at the water's edge to gradually higher the further
inland.
| |
| RicodJour 2008-03-12, 9:25 am |
| On Mar 11, 8:55 pm, Warm Worm <u...@domain.invalid> wrote:
> Michael Bulatovich wrote:
>
>
>
>
> That's indeed what they have out here along the water, too-- glass condo
> towers-- and many of them. It's quite dense in some areas.
> However, in some places, they seem to be set more back from the water.
>
> Ideally, I was thinking of some sort of progressive heightening of
> buildings from short at the water's edge to gradually higher the further
> inland.
Well, air rights go up, and water rights go out and own, not in, so
you're creating what? - air-water-shore-view rights? Maybe you should
just take some time out from the photography and sketch out where it's
okay for people to build. Start with a small city until you find your
feet. It'd save a lot of time. ~
R
| |
|
| On 12 Mar 2008, RicodJour wrote
> On Mar 11, 8:55 pm, Warm Worm <u...@domain.invalid> wrote:
>
> Well, air rights go up, and water rights go out and own, not in,
> so you're creating what? - air-water-shore-view rights?
That depends on the jurisdiction, dunnit -- the concept of "air
rights" isn't universal.
(Even the concept of "right to develop" isn't universal.)
--
Cheers, Harvey
Architectural and topographical historian
| |
| Michael Bulatovich 2008-03-12, 9:25 am |
|
"RicodJour" <ricodjour@worldemail.com> wrote in message
news:b0a84805-e247-467d-8dc1-bd5a11b762c5@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 11, 8:55 pm, Warm Worm <u...@domain.invalid> wrote:
>
> Well, air rights go up, and water rights go out and own, not in, so
> you're creating what? - air-water-shore-view rights? Maybe you should
> just take some time out from the photography and sketch out where it's
> okay for people to build. Start with a small city until you find your
> feet. It'd save a lot of time. ~
The city of Vancouver has already incorporated something along these lines
into thier urban design guideline. They have even protected view corridors
to a couple of bumps in the mountains known as the 'two lions'. WW is not
breaking new ground or being silly, but his musings are quite preliminary
compared to those of people in the business. The trick is to balance many
competing imperatives, after you've appreciated them all....and even that
you'll probably get some of it wrong. Take solace in the fact that it's
always changing...
>
> R
| |
| Warm Worm 2008-03-14, 3:26 am |
| RicodJour wrote:
> On Mar 11, 8:55 pm, Warm Worm <u...@domain.invalid> wrote:
>
> Well, air rights go up, and water rights go out and own, not in, so
> you're creating what? - air-water-shore-view rights?
What does this mean?
> Maybe you should just take some time out from the photography and
> sketch out where it's okay for people to build.
I'd say build "wherever", just keep it incrementally shorter and sweeter
towards the water I suppose.
> Start with a small city until you find your feet. It'd save a lot of time. ~
If I ever get the time and desire, maybe I could look into some kind of
city simulation.
|
|
|
|
|