It is utilitarian, and so it succeeds. Could it be made to look more attractive? Certainly. Better to be utilitarian and bland than convoluted and flashy.
And across the street there's nothing but a vacant sales centre for a long-defunct condo project (Giraffe). A waste of space and resources, while the "ugly pile" keeps on doing its thing of three functions in one.
I have passed by that building hundreds of times and never really taken it in in its entirety. Thank you for drawing my attention to my lack of attention!
Is ugly an objective word? I hope you will agree that it is not. Must ugly be confined to describing the visual impression? Again, I hope you agree that that it need not be so confined. Does it fulfill its purpose? Does it fill a need in the local community? Will the proposed change improve or detract from the from the cohesion of the community? What cost comes with its destruction, to the community and the environment? First impressions are often deeply flawed. Look deeply before concluding that something, or someone, is ugly.
New high-rise condos are required to meet the population density of urban centers, the 15-Minute City. It's unsurprising then that some old(er) buildings are bulldozed to be replaced with higher density accommodations. My questions are two-fold:
1. Aren't older buildings innately less efficient, from ventilation to lighting and more?
2. Should urban centers more resemble the aesthetic of British/Parisian/Roman/Copenhagen small-storefront small businesses when so much of retail and service businesses are large corporate entities? How does one square the desire for aesthetic and support of small businesses when most people prefer sticking to large corporate chains for their purchases?
1) high rise condos are not needed, this building is surrounded by single-family residential and is at the intersection of two commercial streets full of 2 story buildings that are now being replaced with new condos.
2) yes, that is what I would prefer, but that is not what we get in new buildings, we get a monoculture of big chains that can afford the high rents.
So the two-story buildings are being replaced with higher density housing, in line with the need for far more housing so as to meet demand. If that isn't what's needed, what then? Single-family residential urban sprawl that requires more roadways and vehicle commute miles? I don't quite understand—either housing density goes up, or it spreads out. Which is the greater evil?
Spreading out is the greater evil, especially if it gobbles up good farmland to accommodate people who want the food no longer produced on the farmland. Duh! However, higher densities have to have a higher level of amenities built into the community, such as transit, bike paths, walkways, parks, and small stores, to accommodate one's needs without having to travel to a Big Box for a little box of cereal.
>>"higher densities have to have a higher level of amenities built into the community, such as transit, bike paths, walkways, parks, and small stores, to accommodate one's needs"
None of that has anything to do with the zoning footprint of the *actual* building being constructed, though. There's currently a glut of commercial real estate, and with the reluctance of workers to go back to the office (as well as the push for a 4-day workweek, the implementation of automation, and AI-based disruption) it seems to me that the "amenities" so desired should be secondary to general housing needs. Who's going to take on the small business risks of opening a small mom-and-pop store front? I've driven many places, from NYC to Houston to L.A. and here in Phoenix, and the overwhelming majority of those small store fronts are corporate, not independent.
New buildings use clip in glass " curtains ". The glass product ( wall ) is simply clicked in. VERY inefficient to heat, or cool. As you can appreciate - it's " just a "glass wall ", often built to minimal insulation standards to save costs.
The World Economic Forum seems to think there's nothing wrong with low-emissivity glass so long as its use includes proper insulation and installation.
It's a cheap, renewable, efficient exterior building solution; buildings can be designed so that it's not just a solid glass box but ones that offer ample light penetration without adverse degradation effects from infrared and ultraviolet radiation. And if paired with HVAC systems that are low emission, why would it be a bad choice? Do YOU want to live in a dark box with very few windows? I surely don't; I lived in several basement apartments during my college days and early working career and it was miserable. I would never again voluntarily live in such emotionally depressive conditions.
It is utilitarian, and so it succeeds. Could it be made to look more attractive? Certainly. Better to be utilitarian and bland than convoluted and flashy.
And across the street there's nothing but a vacant sales centre for a long-defunct condo project (Giraffe). A waste of space and resources, while the "ugly pile" keeps on doing its thing of three functions in one.
I have passed by that building hundreds of times and never really taken it in in its entirety. Thank you for drawing my attention to my lack of attention!
Having graduated from high school in 1970 I appreciate the style (and the memories!)
Is ugly an objective word? I hope you will agree that it is not. Must ugly be confined to describing the visual impression? Again, I hope you agree that that it need not be so confined. Does it fulfill its purpose? Does it fill a need in the local community? Will the proposed change improve or detract from the from the cohesion of the community? What cost comes with its destruction, to the community and the environment? First impressions are often deeply flawed. Look deeply before concluding that something, or someone, is ugly.
You sold me. I love it too.
AND I like the two-level retail with stairs you designed.
Like some have noted - passed it dozens of times and never noticed it. Which is a " good thing ". It doesn't overpower the pedestrian.
Looks like a modern-day Roman Insula to me....
New high-rise condos are required to meet the population density of urban centers, the 15-Minute City. It's unsurprising then that some old(er) buildings are bulldozed to be replaced with higher density accommodations. My questions are two-fold:
1. Aren't older buildings innately less efficient, from ventilation to lighting and more?
2. Should urban centers more resemble the aesthetic of British/Parisian/Roman/Copenhagen small-storefront small businesses when so much of retail and service businesses are large corporate entities? How does one square the desire for aesthetic and support of small businesses when most people prefer sticking to large corporate chains for their purchases?
1) high rise condos are not needed, this building is surrounded by single-family residential and is at the intersection of two commercial streets full of 2 story buildings that are now being replaced with new condos.
2) yes, that is what I would prefer, but that is not what we get in new buildings, we get a monoculture of big chains that can afford the high rents.
So the two-story buildings are being replaced with higher density housing, in line with the need for far more housing so as to meet demand. If that isn't what's needed, what then? Single-family residential urban sprawl that requires more roadways and vehicle commute miles? I don't quite understand—either housing density goes up, or it spreads out. Which is the greater evil?
Spreading out is the greater evil, especially if it gobbles up good farmland to accommodate people who want the food no longer produced on the farmland. Duh! However, higher densities have to have a higher level of amenities built into the community, such as transit, bike paths, walkways, parks, and small stores, to accommodate one's needs without having to travel to a Big Box for a little box of cereal.
>>"higher densities have to have a higher level of amenities built into the community, such as transit, bike paths, walkways, parks, and small stores, to accommodate one's needs"
None of that has anything to do with the zoning footprint of the *actual* building being constructed, though. There's currently a glut of commercial real estate, and with the reluctance of workers to go back to the office (as well as the push for a 4-day workweek, the implementation of automation, and AI-based disruption) it seems to me that the "amenities" so desired should be secondary to general housing needs. Who's going to take on the small business risks of opening a small mom-and-pop store front? I've driven many places, from NYC to Houston to L.A. and here in Phoenix, and the overwhelming majority of those small store fronts are corporate, not independent.
New buildings use clip in glass " curtains ". The glass product ( wall ) is simply clicked in. VERY inefficient to heat, or cool. As you can appreciate - it's " just a "glass wall ", often built to minimal insulation standards to save costs.
The World Economic Forum seems to think there's nothing wrong with low-emissivity glass so long as its use includes proper insulation and installation.
https://www.weforum.org/stories/2024/06/low-emissivity-glass-revolutionizing-building-efficiency/
It's a cheap, renewable, efficient exterior building solution; buildings can be designed so that it's not just a solid glass box but ones that offer ample light penetration without adverse degradation effects from infrared and ultraviolet radiation. And if paired with HVAC systems that are low emission, why would it be a bad choice? Do YOU want to live in a dark box with very few windows? I surely don't; I lived in several basement apartments during my college days and early working career and it was miserable. I would never again voluntarily live in such emotionally depressive conditions.