Brenns wrote: ↑July 25th, 2017, 11:32 amI think you're missing my point. Functionally, yes, the building may be just fine and provide a strictly functional improvement to the neighborhood, but I'm not arguing that. The massing and material aesthetic of the 333 project was under debate, and I'm arguing that if I'm going to go after ugly buildings, there are worse offenders to get wound up about.J2arkitekt wrote: ↑July 24th, 2017, 9:53 amChallenge accepted. The design of the building addresses the pedestrian experience with a permeable and transparent façade, canopies over the adjacent sidewalk, and ample bicycle parking. It uses durable exterior materials, including real brick at the first floor. It is parked internally, eliminating yet another surface lot from the area. It replaced a rapidly aging brick/wood three story walk up circa 1960-ish. Do I like the aesthetics of that building? Not really. I can appreciate its role in bettering the overall experience of the public as well as adding much needed housing for students.
Internal parking and bike racks aside, the 4th & 13th building has almost no facade articulation aside from some clumsy entry bump-outs and material changes, and has what is easily the most obnoxious color scheme of any of the new cookie-cutter apartment buildings. This building will only become more of a dated eyesore over time - you yourself admit you don't like how the building looks.
Anyway - this is getting way off topic, so I'll stop there.
Ah, got it. Makes sense, and you are right. There are plenty of offenders to chase if getting wound up about aesthetics is on the agenda.