The Mercury Block | 21.7m | 6s

I'm kind of not sure.what to think. The white illustration is reminiscent of an institution tbh. I wouldn't mind a cascade affect on this lot since it is such a large floor plate. Add rooftop gardens at interval step ups and on precipice elevation. 9-6-3 ratio and slightly reduced overall floor plate would be more ideal for me.
It's just a massing y'know, so this isn't exactly the final design....
Understandably...but that masing is also an indication where their creative direction is at the moment for it exist as it came out of their head(s). Therefore, if you want to add your input, this is the time.
^^^^ I doubt your input @Clearshades is going to move the needle one iota. @Platinum107 is 1000% right -- this is only a massing model and has no bearing on the forthcoming design other than functionality. I suspect that @IanO is closer to the final design truth in terms of likely outcome with his offerings near the bottom of the previous page.
If that works for you... alright.
For me, it would be the more ideas people have, the more information I would have to negotiate. The challenge of a designer is to know the scopes and needs and challenged your creative level and bring it to the cost level of builders...the outcome is determined by various factors, but they'll definitely defined one's reputation. If I say 'Regency' right now, what is your first impression?
^^^^ Pretty much the same as if you had said "City Planning". It's not my job to convince you; it is your job to know when you are wrong.
Indeed it is.
Edgar West Oliver aerial for the post from yesterday.

The shape of the river represents the symbol of Hope to my People.
^^^^ Pretty much the same as if you had said "City Planning". It's not my job to convince you; it is your job to know when you are wrong.

Wrong about what though? There is no right or wrong in this situation but differences of perspectives. If my thoughts were your's, I would be you...
If you feel a conversation is about winning or losing when it should be an opportunity to expand thoughts, that is sad. What were we competing
I rather you leave C2E mentality behind.

That saying is about setting parameters when managing a project and managing expectations/input when working with (a) stakeholder(s).

For example, marketing firms find it difficult to work with certain stakeholders, such as a government, because the public service often has a hard time narrowing scope and wants to target everyone.

As far as design and a large committee goes, you often end up dumbing the project down across the board to the lowest common denominator in each area of the said project as you try to consider all the feedback received. It is why consultation with the public is a double edged sword. You are engaging with people that think they know what they want, but it often isn't their area of expertise. This is where we get NIMBYism - community input is not always a good thing and can lead to poor outcomes. See the Glenora project and 153 project as examples where high quality projects were canned because of community input.

Committees such as the EDC are different, because you are engaging a set of experts in the field of design that critique with certain 'best practices' in mind to improve a given project.

Of course, we are welcome to share our opinions here on this forum, but to say that our input should be considered on a project is another thing entirely.
Last edited: