Comments on: How Many Differences Can You Spot?

By: dan cortland

dan cortland — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 04:26:18 +0000

Why do we get so many excessively busy facades? The building would look better if the podium Yule mentioned were painted down to the sidewalk as shown in the rendering.

By: cale

cale — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 16:38:04 +0000

Sure hope they just aren’t finished painting that concrete yet.

By: Spencer

Spencer — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 16:16:37 +0000

The sunshades along the top stand out to me. They are inset in the rendering but look additive in the final building.

I wonder if the sun is realistically placed in the rendering? I think why people are reacting to the colors is because they are washed out in the photo by the sun while the rendering the sunlight is controlled.

By: Yule Heibel

Yule Heibel — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 04:12:35 +0000

I agree with the points about saturated color vs. drab/ washed-out color. And good point by Dan, re. the bottoms of the balconies/decks not being orange! Nicely spotted — and wouldn’t that have made a *huge* difference, together with color saturation/ more green in the base?

Most striking to me is how the podium on the left corner “meets the street.” Note that in the rendering, it’s immediate: the podium isn’t separated from the street in any way, and the windows reach all the way to the ground. In the actual building, the podium seems separated: the windows don’t go all the way to the ground, and there’s a distinct barrier of some sort. I can’t really tell what that is, but it looks like some sort of planter thing. Visually, it keeps the building “away” from the street, which doesn’t seem like the best idea.

By: Sabina Pade

Sabina Pade — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 02:47:07 +0000

I agree with Matt the Engineer – the finished product does indeed resemble the artist’s rendering to a greater degree than one might have expected. But I also agree that the lack of saturation in the green tones is disappointing. Never have understood why so much of Seattle so eagerly embraces drab.

By: dan cortland

dan cortland — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 02:37:43 +0000

Seattle could be beautiful in greys and blues, it’s the beige and tan that suck.

The increased width of the window mullions in the building relative to those in the rendering takes the windows from elegant to clunky. Too bad.

By: Matt the Engineer

Matt the Engineer — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 00:17:02 +0000

Man I hate power lines.

Actually, I’m impressed with how close they came to the rendering.

By: wes

wes — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 21:00:47 +0000

Dan, always wondered the same thing as well.
You’d love Guanajuato.
http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k208/wrkirkman114/Mexico2003061.jpg
I don’t have another picture on the internet, forgive the ugly face soaking up valuable space in that photo.

By: Dan Staley

Dan Staley — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 19:32:39 +0000

I’m with Ben on this one. When I lived there, pining for the tiniest ray of sunshine to strike my dark-addled eyes, I often wondered why the color palette wasn’t more vibrant and reminiscent of what you would find in Mexico or Rome or Sicily – something sunny and cheery to look at to take your mind off of the graygraygray (look – a sun break! yay!).

Why make new construction look like something in Edinburgh in February?

By: leero

leero — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 18:58:05 +0000

The rendering is presented ‘architecturally correct’ – where verticals are kept vertical. This is standard practice for architectural photography and modeling. Despite the fact that a 3-point perspective is more “real”, most people would say that an architecturally correct image looks better. It conforms better to what our brains tell us about the world – that vertical lines should all point straight up, that walls are plumb, etc.

(props to John Stamets at UW CAUP)