Unbelievable. I don't know how they do it in other places you have been but in halifax we have democracy and respect for each other's point of view. Our candidates are friends with each other and help push each other's agendas for the betterment of our communities. Please take your disrespectful opinion elsewhere. If you had constructive criticism bring them on, don't just go around spreading hate like this.
What was that thing called again...right, freedom of religion, Brad Dykema! Regardless of what is said in this article, your comments are completely irrelevant, wrong and extremist (on the left). I have my own opinion about him too but to try to punish him or make fun of his faith for his religious views is as ridiculous as calling a Muslim (say Sadiq Khan, new mayor of London) terrorist because he believes in a "similar" faith as the ISIS followers. What if our city one day grows up enough to elect a Muslim, gay, women, or whatever mayor? Are we going to treat them like this? Your extremists comments are shameful and has no place in Canada, and this is coming from a leftist atheist.
I have my own objections to the Nova Centre (just like the Ferry ordeal) and how the public money was used. I would be happy to discuss all the things I see wrong with the project. I will be happy to participate in public forums about what we should demand from architects and developers to strive for better buildings than glass boxes. I will happily share my insight on why I think taxpayers money can go into much more amazing projects like the convention centre in Vancouver. But I refuse to go on personal attacks to prove a point, to discredit architects and developers that are community members and we see them on the streets every day. The very same people that have a huge influence on the future of our city. Willow Tree Group has done nothing but to divide us even more. I'm looking forward to a day that angry people like the ones running the Willow Tree Group will channel their energy into helping build a better city through dialogue and collaboration.
"It really sounds like you're a big fan of false advertising", No I'm a fan of professionalism. Read the post again, it's not 'here is a guideline on how to look at architectural renderings and what to look for'. The whole tone of the post is condescending and at the end of it the post concludes the architects and developers are unethical and that they are worse than Big Pharma in the States. The last paragraph literally reads "What About Ethics?", who is Mr. Parcell to go online and question people's ethics on a public post? That's the type of behaviour we see down South with Trump and Cruz! I certainly don't want to be subject to such unethical and bullying behaviour myself.
Yes, we all have a duty to educate specially when we have a skill to pass on but this post is questioning the whole industry. Again, I'm all for a dialogue and conversation that will make our city better but this way of attacking others kills trust all together and does nothing but to polarize the discussion.
It is also troubling that Mr. Parcell did not willingly put his name on the post originally and change his tone until these comments here were posted. He needs to be better than that as an architecture prof and active community member.
Update 2: Mr. Parcell has now changed the tone adding "or architectural renderer" in brackets at the conclusion of the post where he calls developers and architects unethical. The question still remains: why is Mr. Steve Parcell discussing professional ethics of architects (or architectural renders, and developers) online by 'shaming' them and not through professional bodies governing the industry or through constructive conversations?
This blog post is not a dialogue, it's not constructive criticism to make future projects better. It is the definition of online bullying where someone gets to write whatever they want without any chance for the person being accused having an opportunity to express their side of the story. Even the blogpost's comment section is closed off to make sure no other opinion gets expressed. Mr. Parcell has hoped to get 'public relations' to work for him here. What I find really troubling is that Mr. Parcell teaches at Dal to the architects of tomorrow and he is supposed to be the one establishing trust and be an example for future industry leaders. Instead he is forgetting about the ethics he is supposed to teach the future architects by expressing his opinion through desecrating other architects.
The conclusion still reads: "Unfortunately, there is no ethical gatekeeper to protect the public from Big Developa." Who is Mr. Parcell to accuse and shame an entire industry by calling them worse than Big Pharma in the States? If Mr. Parcell really wants to have an influence and make things better, host an event, have a conversation, show respect, don't sit behind your computer and kill someone's reputation through online shaming and hope that you get away with it.
Update: the name of the post's author was added after my comment here this morning. It is great to see that he is at least willing to come forward. But now the issue gets even more problematic: as an architecture prof, is it really ethical to call other architects unethical? If Mr. Parcell really thinks what the architects have done is unethical, shouldn't he go to the Association of Architects instead of calling out the issue in the public, essentially shaming and bullying architects ? Doesn't basic professional decency require you to discuss the issue with the architects you are accusing of unethical behaviour first? I think he owes a big apology to all the architects that work in the city with developers. Yes, that's about every architect in the city except for Mr. Parcell himself because he is not a practising architect.
My issue with the Coast remains: you are calling an entire industry into question by publishing a post that questions the profession that has a code of ethics. Please reconsider your post.
The blogpost you have linked to is a piece to discredit architects by calling them unethical in the conclusion of the post. The same group has, over the past few months, published a number of illustrations, from skewed shadow analysis that show you February 8 am shadows to wrong 'views from the library', that were all drawn incorrectly to convey a message. (I will be happy to point out their many intentional wrong representations in a separate comment)
The architects are bound by high standard of ethics and they go through difficult processes to receive their stamp. No drawing can go out of their shop without their name all over it. It is ironic that the very group that publishes skewed information and calls architects and developers unethical has no reference to who is writing the posts or who, with what kind of credential and motives, is doing their graphics. At least have the decency of telling people who you are before taking pleasure in dragging professionals through the mud.
The Coast must remain a professional entity, if you reference a blogpost without a writer's name you are discrediting the newsletter. There are many rules around journalism, one of which includes referencing credible sources.
Halifax's sex secrets revealed
All the beer, all over town
The couple's guide to everything.
The official handbook to student life in Halifax.
Designers, stores and fashion, all locally-sourced.
The Coast's Well Being Guide
Search 100s of Halifax restaurants, bars and cafes
Features from The Coast
Interior design and home accessories in Halifax.
Coast Publishing Ltd.