BC Place: Stadium Refurbishment | Completed [Archive] - Page 18

mr.x

May 7, 2010, 11:38 PM

Hmmmm....that rendering's pretty old. Some of the newer renderings, posted on the project website, show the same slanted yellow windows. I'm not sure if the vertical placement is still planned. It appeared that they were removing the windows today, I saw workers working on them on the east side of the stadium and by mid-afternoon four windows had been removed.

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=3942459&postcount=422
http://img359.imageshack.us/img359/1705/1865432ty8.jpg

The developments immediately around the stadium will definitely affect how the glass facade is replaced.

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=4101214&postcount=541
http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p155/jlousa/bcplaceodp2.jpg
http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p155/jlousa/bcplaceodp3.jpg
http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p155/jlousa/bcplaceodp6.jpg
http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p155/jlousa/bcplaceodp7.jpg

jsbertram

May 8, 2010, 1:08 AM

Bondaged marshmallow was the nickname I heard the most. Does this say something about my acquaintances?

depends.
do they prefer a slap or a tickle?
or a little of both?

(No way this thread can get back on topic.)

officedweller

May 8, 2010, 1:14 AM

In that first render it still looks like the slanting windows are gone.
Remember that the exitsing rim is below the new tension ring.
On the plans you posted they are in blue and marked "possible stadium expansion".

cjohnny4

May 9, 2010, 1:48 AM

Any recent photos of the stadium from above AFTER the teflon has been removed? I wanna see exposed seating! Anyone living in a highrise nearby, feel free to post photos!

GeeCee

May 9, 2010, 1:51 AM

I think the old roof is still up there, albeit not inflated.

officedweller

May 10, 2010, 5:46 AM

Yeah, probably a while longer til all of the fabric is removed.

Overground

May 10, 2010, 8:04 PM

I think they said up to 3 weeks for the roof removal.

Yume-sama

May 10, 2010, 9:01 PM

And then it will be made in to movie screens :D We could convert it in to the largest IMAX ever~ Would be nice to have one, anyways...

vancityrox

May 12, 2010, 8:37 PM

So the fabric is finally and slowly getting removed on the roof today. Looks cool to see the exposed seats inside. Ill try to get a picture when you start to see more.

jlousa

May 13, 2010, 3:37 AM

Yeah I noticed yesterday that the centre had already been completely removed. They are making quick progress.

Hed Kandi

May 13, 2010, 4:42 AM

FACT SHEET
Recycling the Air-Supported Roof at BC Place
About the roof
 The 720,000 square feet air-supported roof is made primarily of Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)
fabric, a Teflon coated fiberglass material that does not breakdown easily in landfills.
 The roof also comprises a mesh inner PTFE liner which is separate and will also be recycled.
 The durability of PTFE makes it ideal for repurposing, and smaller pieces of PTFE may be heat
welded together into larger ones, allowing for nearly 100% reuse, and diversion from landfills.
 Used PTFE is frequently recycled into products such as agricultural tarps, movie screens,
billboards, gym floor covering – and even waterproof barriers like pond and ice rink liners.
What Happens After the Roof Deflates?
 Almost 96 per cent (690,000 square feet) of the 720,000 square foot roof will be trucked to a
company called Billboard Tarp Warehouse (BTW) in Minneapolis, Minnesota, where it will be
recycled with negligible waste.
 BTW’s customers in North America and Africa order an average 5,000,000 square feet of similar
fabric each month.
 24,000 square feet (about three per cent) of the roof’s PTFE fabric will be set aside for use as a
permanent ice rink liner in Celista, BC (northeast of Kamloops), replacing a poly liner they use now,
which needs to be changed annually. Some of the material will also be set aside as roof covering
for rink storage areas. (www.celistarink.org)
 A portion of fabric will be donated to the BC Sports Hall of Fame for use in an upcoming
fundraising program, where the public will have an opportunity to acquire a piece of BC history.
 A small remaining quantity of the PTFE material (less than one per cent) will be kept by
BC Pavilion Corporation (PavCo) for internal and marketing purposes.
 The mesh inner liner from the roof fabric may be recycled into products like shade tarps and soil
erosion barriers.
 The steel cables that have shaped the air supported roof at BC Place since it was first inflated in
1982 will be sent to ABC Recycling in Surrey, BC for recycling.
(CONTINUED)
FACT SHEET
Fabric Removal, Shipping and Processing
 Burnaby-based Pacific Blasting and Demolition will demolish the roof structure and remove the
fabric.
 The PTFE fabric will be carved into sections using curved cutting blades, following cutting lines
defined by the roof’s supporting steel cables.
 Large sections will drop onto the concrete floor, and will be cut into smaller sections for handling
and shipment.
 The inner mesh fabric will be separated from the PTFE fabric and packaged independently.
 Up to six trucks will transport the load to BTW in Minneapolis, with each truck carrying
approximately 24 pallets (40,000 lbs) of fabric.
 Once received, unpackaged and inspected by BTW, any holes or tears in the fabric will be patched
before the fabric is seam welded, cleaned and repackaged on pallets for customer delivery.
-30-
Media contact:
Trevor Pancoust
604.646.3567

http://www.bcplacestadium.com/newsreleases/2010-05-04_FACTSHEET-Recycling_BC_Place_Roof.pdf

SpongeG

May 13, 2010, 4:59 AM

how much is the married couple getting? they are suppossed to get a piece of the roof since they got married there or something

officedweller

May 13, 2010, 6:39 AM

Couple of shots from flickr of the exposed seats:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/rf_m/4599465571/in/photostream/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/rf_m/4600084010/in/photostream/

Overground

May 13, 2010, 7:20 AM

Awesome, thanks!

So did we ever find out for sure if they are replacing all the seats?

cjohnny4

May 13, 2010, 1:17 PM

Thanks for the links, Officedweller! Exposed seating=cool!

Vancity

May 13, 2010, 10:04 PM

Awesome, thanks!

So did we ever find out for sure if they are replacing all the seats?

was wondering this myself.

Delirium

May 15, 2010, 8:22 PM

taken may.14th. they're moving quick!
http://www.globalairphotos.com/images/bc/vancouver/2010/vch2010_0100.jpg

jlousa

May 15, 2010, 9:55 PM

note the 4 fours in the floor centre, probable crane mounts.

Prometheus

May 15, 2010, 10:11 PM

note the 4 fours in the floor centre, probable crane mounts.

My initial thought was that they had to do with the four giant arms used during the olympic ceremonies.

dtrain

May 17, 2010, 2:15 PM

I drove by yesterday and noticed that they're removing 2 panes of glass every few sections, all the way around the stadium, in a uniformed way. Does anyone know what this is for?

Zassk

May 17, 2010, 3:25 PM

I drove by yesterday and noticed that they're removing 2 panes of glass every few sections, all the way around the stadium, in a uniformed way. Does anyone know what this is for?

Spaces to raise the construction cranes for the roof, perhaps?

jsbertram

May 17, 2010, 4:54 PM

My initial thought was that they had to do with the four giant arms used during the olympic ceremonies.

Most of what was added to BC Place for the Olympic opening/closing ceremonies and the nightly event ceremonies were removed by VANOC (more likely the production company hired to produce the ceremonies) so that BC Place was back to 'normal' for the next events, which I think was the Home Show, and the Car show - the last event under the old roof.

Most people didn't realise that the 'floor' of BC Place for the Olympics was actually a stage about 10 feet higher than the concrete floor (ie the football turf level) of the stadium, and this stage and perimeter seating covered the entire floor surface. All of the extra lighting and special video effects that were hung from the roof also caused the roof to sag from all the extra weight, but this wasn't noticable to the general public.

This stage hid the equipment needed for the special effects like elevators for raising the performers to stage level to do their number, and then lowering them down again, and trap-doors covering entrace and exit stairs, and the indoor cauldron and infamous arms that (mostly) rose up from the interior of the stage. It also allowed performers and 'back stage' crews to move around under the floor to prepare for the different acts and scenes in the ceremonies and stay hidden in plain sight from the audience.

All of this staging for the ceremonies and the other Olympic decorations were removed so BC Place was back to 'bare concrete' original condition for the next event after the Olympics.

As for the four circular 'pads', I doubt they are for cranes, since I would have expected mobile cranes would be used from the interior. It also occurred to me that those might be the foundation pads for the scaffolding needed to hold the middle section of the roof in place while the wire ropes are strung from a perimeter mounting point through the middle section to the opposite perimeter mounting point. This can simplify the rigging of the wires while the perimeter masts are being installed at the same time.

Prometheus

May 17, 2010, 7:21 PM

That a false stage floor was built for the opening ceremonies was quite apparent during the Olympics. However, there were reports that they had to do some substantial digging into the concrete floor to accommodate some of the cauldron infrastructure. Putting things back to normal for events following the Olympics could have consisted simply of covering any holes, not necessarily filling them up.

I have no clue what those four craters are. But since they look to match-up perfectly with the cauldron, my initial thought was that they were connected in some way.

Zassk

May 17, 2010, 8:15 PM

It looks like the cauldron hydraulics did not fit into the false floor, and had to be placed in excavated pits below it.

zivan56

May 17, 2010, 8:58 PM

The holes were not there when it was built, see photo at this page:
http://www.globalairphotos.com/large/BC/Vancouver/Downtown/1982/026/2

Prometheus

May 17, 2010, 9:05 PM

The holes were not there when it was built, see photo at this page:
http://www.globalairphotos.com/large/BC/Vancouver/Downtown/1982/026/2

I do not think anybody thinks that they were.

mooks28

May 17, 2010, 10:00 PM

The cauldron would have had gas lines running through the floor to supply it with natural gas -- this would have required drilling into the concrete, which is probably what this is.

BCPhil

May 17, 2010, 10:44 PM

Some of the steel cables that kept the roof down should be saved for a special purpose, like support cables on a pedestrian suspension bridge or something.

jlousa

May 18, 2010, 4:36 AM

Okay this is kind of BC Place related, and it's probably the best place for it.
It's regarding the Georgia St connector.

OVERVIEW OF THE GEORGIA PEDESTRIAN LINK
The Georgia Pedestrian Link will connect False Creek to the Central Core of Downtown Vancouver. The link will run along the east side of BC Place Stadium from the corner of Georgia and Beatty Street to Pacific Blvd. All three options feature an elevator. Options two and three feature pathways at 5% slope.

OPTION 1 - GEORGIA STAIRS
(pedestrian only- aligned stairs + elevator)

Circulation
• pedestrian stairs aligned to Georgia Street
• bicycle access to southwest side of BC Place Stadium
• transparent elevator (4 levels)
• optional overpass over Pacific Boulevard

Concept
• grand wide stairs
• iconic ‘ light pillars’
• weather protection (glass canopy)
• green spaces
- bosque of trees
- lawn paving
- seating, gathering opportunities
• continuation of concept to False Creek waterbody across Pacific c Boulevard

http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p155/jlousa/Option1-1.jpg

http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p155/jlousa/Option1-2.jpg

http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p155/jlousa/Option1-3.jpg

http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p155/jlousa/Option1-4.jpg

OPTION 2 - GEORGIA RIBBON
(pedestrian / barrier free / cyclist - aligned stairs + elevator + 5% pathway @ min. 5m width)

Circulation
• pedestrian stairs aligned to Georgia Street
• combined bicycle / disabled access on continuous pathway (5% slope, -8m width)
• transparent elevator (4 levels)
• optional overpass over Pacific Boulevard

Concept
• Georgia Ribbon - an iconic pathway
- winding informal edge
- edges defined by the red ribbon wall
- “The Wall of Fame” (sports & entertainment)
• ribbon winds through and over plaza and green spaces
• continuation of concept to False Creek water body across Pacific Boulevard

http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p155/jlousa/Option2-1.jpg

http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p155/jlousa/Option2-2.jpg

http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p155/jlousa/Option2-3.jpg

http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p155/jlousa/Option2-4.jpg

OPTION 3 - GEORGIA RED POLES
(pedestrian / barrier free / cyclist - aligned stairs + elevator + 5% pathway @ 5m width)

Circulation
• pedestrian stairs aligned to Georgia Street
• combined bicycle / disabled access on continuous pathway (5% slope, 5m width)
• transparent elevator (4 levels)
• optional overpass over Pacific Boulevard

Concept
• Iconic lite red poles connect Georgia Street to False Creek water body • informal meandering pathway wraps between red poles (Asian Zigzag bridge)
• continuation of concept to False Creek water body across Pacific Boulevard

http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p155/jlousa/Option3-1.jpg

http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p155/jlousa/Option3-2.jpg

http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p155/jlousa/Option3-3.jpg

http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p155/jlousa/Option3-4.jpg

Personally I favour a combination of 2 and 3, if I had to choose one I'd go with 3. Let hear your opinions.

Prometheus

May 18, 2010, 4:56 AM

They included the streetcar in the renderings.

red-paladin

May 18, 2010, 5:10 AM

I think this project is great, and I like the third one the best. We would be able to see the lights from the Skytrain and it would liven up the NEFC area.

officedweller

May 18, 2010, 5:38 AM

Thanks for posting.

For the second one - the ribbons would block the view from the winding path - sort of defeats the purpose of the vista down the steps.

I like the form of either the first or third ones the best.

Third one is nice and prominent since the masts are taller than the viaduct (unlike the first one) and should be visible farther west along Georgia St. - but I'm not keen on the red colour - only because red is prominent on the Spectrum development and this feature may seen too much like a part of that project.

Query:
- for the third option, whether the red masts obscure or frame the view of Science World down Georgia St. (from pedestrian level) - I wouldn't want the end result to block the view of the lighted Science World sphere.
- also - would there be too many "masts" in the area given the masts on the stadium? Maybe they should curve or something? - i.e. an organic form (like a fiddlehead fern) growing as it approaches the water (or vice versa)

******

Locked In

May 18, 2010, 5:43 AM

Great - thanks for posting JL! I like the grand, wide stairs shown in option 1, but I think it would be best to have a meandering path as shown in option 2 or option 3 - better for bicycles, etc. I really don't like the ribbon wall in option 2 - I think it would just cut into visibility and add nothing to the concept. I wouldn't mind seeing a few trees near the winding path, like those shown in option 2 - option 3 looks a bit bare that way.

I think the iconic light poles are a great idea. I'm surprised the city is proposing something as prominent as the red poles in option 3 - but I think they could be fantastic (depending on how they're actually designed, etc.), and they would add a really unique, visible element to the area. What's the significance of the liberal use of red in the concepts? Am I missing some obvious meaning here?

As for the overpass, I see how it would be convenient for crossing a busy street and possibly a street car route... though in a perfect world, I'd be happier if Pacific could be designed in a way that makes it easy/inviting to cross at grade without the need for an overpass. How the tower adjacent to the overpass/stairs west of Pacific meets the ground might also affect how an overpass fits in there - it would be nice to avoid a situation like the overpass beside Sinclair Centre on Granville. Also, by optional overpass, do they mean that it might be included or might not be included? Or that it's an option for crossing Pacific, as opposed to the option of crossing at grade?

Anyways, I think these options are an exciting improvement over the status quo:

http://lh4.ggpht.com/_9FW9P3-u1EI/S_Ivc6PaIhI/AAAAAAAADcc/4_HVzoIzQ-0/georgia%20street.jpg
Source: My screenshot of Bing Maps (http://picasaweb.google.com/dev.pics.1/VancouverSummer2010#5472488670925300242)

http://www.globalairphotos.com/images/bc/vancouver/2009/vch2009_142.jpg
Source: Global Air Photos (http://www.globalairphotos.com/large/BC/Vancouver/Downtown/2009/144/2)

paradigm4

May 18, 2010, 6:12 AM

I like how prominent the poles are in Option 3. Would make for a great icon. I think the pathway should remain curved as in Option 2, making it fully accessible and the usable for bikes. Option 1 was surprisingly similar in design to parts of the VECC IMO.

I'm also apprehensive about an overpass. It's just so anti-Vancouverism to grade separate the pedestrian crossings. I also think that focusing on taming Pacific Boulevard should be the priority, rather than trying to find ways to avoid impeding the free flow of traffic.

Oh, I was also amused that the streetcar (?, looked more like a typical LRV) had TransLink livery.

mr.x

May 18, 2010, 6:21 AM

wow, i'm excited. Thanks for posting!

A few thoughts:

Option 1
- a bit too much greenery; it needs to be a bit more plaza and less park....we've got plenty of the latter
- the glass canopy for weather protection seems a bit out of place for this development

Option 2
- the sports "Wall of Fame" is a great idea, but I don't think it'll work well in the context of this project...perhaps they could acknowledge our sports heroes in an non-view-obstructing manner: the whole area needs to be open for it to work (see Erickson's Robson Square)

Option 3
- the best option
- but I do think those red poles need to be a bit more than simply red poles...perhaps we need more detailed artistic renderings to get a real feel of it of how it would look during the daytime, but if they're lit up at night the red glow will be quite something
- they could do without 2 or 3 of those poles on the pier

Is the overpass in all of the options really needed?

Hopefully some sort of cultural institution will still go to where the Plaza of Nations is, right next to the new plaza. I think it would be an iconic location for the maritime museum.

Smooth

May 18, 2010, 6:28 AM

I know my longboarding friends would like Option 2 the best. I agree with those that like a combo of 2 & 3.

Locked In

May 18, 2010, 6:28 AM

Is the overpass in all of the options really needed?

Hopefully some sort of cultural institution will still go to where the Plaza of Nations is, right next to the new plaza. I think it would be an iconic location for the maritime museum.

I agree that a cultural institution on the PoN site is important, but I'm not sure about a maritime museum. Maybe I'm out to lunch, but shouldn't the museum be located somewhere that ships (of varying sizes) will have access to it (or at least be able to get close to it) - this end of False Creek is pretty limited that way.

Definitely agree that there are way too many red light poles near the pier - their spacing overall seems a bit odd now that you mention it.

As for the overpass, since none of the renders even show people using it, I bet the city thinks (hopes?) it's not really necessary.

mr.x

May 18, 2010, 6:36 AM

I agree that a cultural institution on the PoN site is important, but I'm not sure about a maritime museum. Maybe I'm out to lunch, but I'd think that the museum should be located somewhere that ships (of varying sizes) will have access to it (or at least be able to get close to it) - this end of False Creek is pretty limited that way.

Definitely agree that there are way too many red light poles near the pier - their spacing overall seems a bit odd now that you mention it.

As for the overpass, since none of the renders even show people on it, it appears the city doesn't think it's really necessary.

Well, I'm all for any museum using the site (except for the new art gallery). I prefer a museum over the long awaited centre for performing arts as a museum would bring a continuous stream of people everyday (even if it's only a trickle) and it'll give the area and plaza some constant activity....whereas, a concert hall would bring a gush of people every few days for just a few hours (e.g. the Queen Elizabeth Theatre block).

Ideally, it would be great if both a major museum and a 2,000 seat performing arts centre could fit in the Plaza of Nations site! :haha: :tup:

SpongeG

May 18, 2010, 6:42 AM

yes an overpass would be needed that street gets very busy it would be better to be able to cross instead of waiting at a light

like the 3rd option

mr.x

May 18, 2010, 6:48 AM

yes an overpass would be needed that street gets very busy it would be better to be able to cross instead of waiting at a light

like the 3rd option

Well, if they are to build the overpass they should put a bit more effort into the actual design of the bridge to better incorporate it into the plaza....see the Kingsway overpass from Metrotown to Best Buy.

SpongeG

May 18, 2010, 6:49 AM

mybe its the existin overpass - there is already one down there

Locked In

May 18, 2010, 6:57 AM

^ The existing overpass is further south/west on Pacific than the one shown in the renders (which is aligned with Georgia) - see this Global Air Photo (http://www.globalairphotos.com/large/BC/Vancouver/Downtown/2009/157/2).

mr.x

May 18, 2010, 7:01 AM

So...will they no longer be using the East load in dock at BC Place? The Georgia link is kinda in the way.

ozonemania

May 18, 2010, 9:58 AM

Thanks for the renders! I have to say my first impression was that I liked Option 1 the best.. I liked the formality of it, but we would do well to have a street with a bit more dramatic character to it like Option 3. I don't like Option 2 so much.

I have a couple of concerns about these proposals though. For example, this corridor is just so damn dark. Maybe I'm wrong, but that area hardly gets any direct sunlight during the day, it's sandwiched between to stadiums and a viaduct. This is a very challenging space to work with. Whatever plan goes ahead, it will need to be warm, bright, and engaging.

My other concern is that this is a long 'street' to have nothing along the way to bring people to use it. You either need strong anchors on both ends or you need to have destinations along the corridor itself. Having a transit hub at the end of the corridor would help lots. How about putting a people mover in there somewhere too? An outdoor escalator from bottom to top would be interesting, and an attraction in itself. Thre's commercial opportunities along the corridor as well. Since it sits between two stadiums and is relatively close to existing and planned office space, this might be a place for food vendors, street food, or something else?

Alot more has to go into this plan than just an architectural design for the street. Otherwise you will just end up with a nicely-designed path with no one using it.

jsbertram

May 18, 2010, 12:00 PM

My problem with any of the variations of the the Georgia Steps is that they all end up with a pedestrian crossing of Pacific Blvd on the way to the waterfront and dockside plaza.

How difficult would it be to have the Georgia Steps slope down at a slower pace from Beatty so the pedestrians can walk over Pacific Blvd, and then have their slope get slightly steeper so East of Pacific Blvd they fan out to connect with the redeveloped Plaza of Nations to the south, the waterfront and dockside plaza to the east, and the Concord condos to the north.

From a pedestrian's perspective, the Georgia Steps would remain the same width from the waterfront to Beatty, and you may not notice whether you are walking over the BC Place north truck airlock, Expo Blvd or Pacific Blvd.

Hed Kandi

May 18, 2010, 3:44 PM

Proposal 3 gets my vote! :tup:

johnjimbc

May 18, 2010, 3:52 PM

I actually use the existing steps next to GM place get to the seawall, especially if I'm heading around to Science World or Millennium Water (can I just keep calling it Olympic Village? ;)) seawall.

It's a narrower space than the proposed bike and walkway and not really that dark. it gets a lot of midday sun. The main issue is it just feels isolated. If there is a huge alley or parking area behind a building, you still have that sense of "hey, I'm behind a building." That's the way it feels.

So, with that in mind, I don't think natural light is as much of an issue as just making the space feel complete and welcoming (landscaping, etc). I think the more expansive feel they can give it, the better, but not so much from lighting as giving it a presence. I think all of the designs would be good in that regard.

I'm actually not as keen on the first one as some folks are. It just seems too obvious . . . It's not a broad avenue sidewalk so make it more interesting. 2 & 3 fit the bill there, plus I like riding my bike down as well. I didn't quite understand what they were saying about bikes on the first option. They *mention* bikes, but it seems clear to me it's not really a full bike option. Why would you even have a plan that doesn't allow for full bike access since, hey, it is one of the best routes from downtown to the seawall bike path. I think it would be better to make it the main bike route from SE False Creek actually, rather than the Dunsmuir viaduct which (btw) was designed for automobiles ;). If given an option as a biker, even if enroute to work, I'd much rather ride around false creek on a dedicated path and up into downtown, then move my way to the road routes of Main and Dunsmuir to end up the same place.

I like option 2 better than some folks here. I don't think the curved walls will really detract from the view. Speaking from my experience with the GM steps, you are still on an incline so you'd still have views. Plus, that really only affects the incline folks, not the steps. The poles in 3 scare me a bit. I see how "well" (sarcasm intended) all the pole lights on Granville turned out (they just add to the jumbled sense that I don't *get* on that redesign). Plus I'm not convinced "pole art" works any better than the "word art" so en vogue in Vancouver. And they're red? I might feel better if they were even another colour . . . orange perhaps? But, no, I still go back to thinking it just looks kinda awkward, and might just look silly or too industrial for a concrete area you ought to be softening. At least the lower curved elements would make the bike path look interesting. They're something more to scale of a park area, which is appealing.

Lastly, I suppose it's a factor of cost. But I don't get not bringing the whole passage over Pacific Blvd as well. It would help with the lighting, crossing safety, grading, and view. It would also eliminate some of that uncomfortable sense one gets when descending beneath the viaduct and stadium as you do when you walk the steps by GM now. The passage would still sit a bit lower, but not quite so much. It would be a better bridge (literally and figuratively) if the route could connect more smoothly to the other side of Pacific Blvd.

So, at any rate, those are my thoughts. I think I'd end up being a vote for 2, but as I said all the options are better than the lack of access there now.

djmk

May 18, 2010, 5:52 PM

i like option one. i like the stately staircase and the terraced greens. although, where are the bikes paths?

i do not see the point of the meandering path. i like to go to point A to B. i think those red poles look silly and maybe belong in china town.

and i think the red ribbon breaks up sight lines, creates spaces for people to hide (perceived or otherwise. if you cannot see around the bend there might be a perceived increase in risk especially at night) and will be tagged in a matter of minutes

johnjimbc

May 18, 2010, 6:15 PM

I think the point of the meandering path is to keep the grade level down. It would be quite a steep bike path if it just shot straight down the hill . . . even scarier (or more exciting!) in a wheelchair.

Though I agree with your basic sentiment.

The more I think about it, not having a ramp / bike path would bother me a lot. If you're going to do a project like this in a "bike friendly" city, it seems irresponsible to even consider an option that doesn't include a bike path.

officedweller

May 18, 2010, 7:43 PM

WRT overpasses -
As it is now, people run across Pacific Boulevard because it is too much trouble walking up a level and using the overpass.
i.e. the overpass is only useful for people coming from the upper level.
You'll always have a percentage of pedestrians coming from either east or west and wanting to cross at grade.

I could, however, see the overpass being of benefit to the handicapped - it would allow them cross without the switchbacks on the hill (in favour of ramps at the south end of the overpass, with the overpass itself providing some drop in elevation). However, on options 1 and 2 - the overpass ends in... stairs! If an overpass is built, I would expect it to have ramps at the south end (and not curve off in another direction as seen in option 3).

-----

Good point about isolation of the site -
maybe when the triangular site next to the steps is developed, the City will insist on retail commercial space facing the steps - unlike the Convention Centre plaza!

wrenegade

May 18, 2010, 8:16 PM

If I had to pick one of the options, I would pick option 1. I think the grand staircase looks good, offers lots of space for people to sit and relax if they want and still provide ample room for people moving through the area. I also think having as much greenery there as possible is paramount. The area is surrounded by concrete. BC Place to one side, the viaduct to the other. It needs some greenery to liven it up and make it feel more inviting. I also think that whatever they can do to brighten up the Georgia st end as much as possible is important. It's so dark in the middle there and not being able to see down very well from Georgia/Beatty might deter people from going down there. I think the city should encourage Aquilini to use shiny curtain wall on the GM Place tower as well to reflect some light down there too!

Ideally some sort of hybrid between options 1 and 3 would be the best. I agree with the fact that some sort of bike pathway is important. A winding path through tall trees would be great, perhaps Pine, Arbutus would be fantastic if they could grow, but I think they have to be evergreen. I prefer the lower yellow poles to the tall red ones, and I like the idea of having some glass canopy (this is Vancouver after all) but I think we could do better. The bone/angle shaped poles in the Olympic Village are great, something like that would be much better than ordinary poles.

I think it would be great to use some wood planks to tie in with the waterfront/boardwalk type idea would be interesting too, and it would add a little colour to the otherwise grey concrete/stone. Gardens with bright flowers would also help but they may be too expensive to maintain in this area and/or too likely to get damaged or vandalized. Finally, I also think that a pedestrian overpass here would negate the welcoming feeling of the wide steps, and as much as I hate to slow traffic down on Pacific, (although a streetcar would do that considerably anyway) I think a light here would be necessary.

Overground

May 18, 2010, 8:56 PM

Option 1 for me. I like the width of the staircase.

Here you go guys, a webcam on BC Place. It's not streaming vid but the captures are every 15 mins I think. The great thing is you can really zoom in....

http://www.earthcam.com/clients/bcplace/index.php?cam=2%E2%80%8F

BCPhil

May 18, 2010, 9:11 PM

I'm just trying to visualize this in my head...

So it would be built overtop of the loading docks off Griffiths? And overtop of Expo Blvd? At the same level as the gate to BC Place on that side (Northwest)? And I imagine connect through to the Terry Fox plaza at the foot of Robson? So basically be part of the path around BC Place? So it's going to connect the BC Place perimeter walkway to Georgia street, and widen it so it takes up all the room between BC Place and Griffiths way?

If I'm correct in all those assumptions, then this space will be crazy busy during events at BC Place. It will directly connect BC Place with a lot more walking options, especially multiple routes to and from Stadium Station. I like the look of option 1, but I don't know if the trees would work well when this plaza is packed with people waiting to get into a massive concert.

I do like the idea of option 2 incorporating sports information, but the ribbon walls are lame. I would like to see any option use sport inspired art, like statues and small monuments to great moments in BC Sports, like the other few pieces scattered around the area. The idea being to use art to encourage people to then visit the BC Sports Hall of Fame in BC Place or visit the Art Gallery (to see more work by local artists).

P.S. I would name it after Terry Fox seeing as Terry Fox Way will probably disappear when the Casino is built.

EDIT: PPS: They could use some cables from the old roof on the potential pedestrian overpass. If the design is going to include an overpass, may as well make it majestic and unique built with a few pieces of BC Place history.

itinerant

May 18, 2010, 10:14 PM

A few stray observations:

Generally, I'd like to see the shorter light poles in option 1, and the curves of option 2 (views wouldn't be obstructed if the panels are on the up-slope above the walkway as one descends to the water), but I don't think the rain canopy is desirable or necessary (sometimes its great to experience the weather out in the open all days of the year). Also, with shorter poles, while drawing out the linear effect of the walk, it doesn't detract from the light show on Science World or that of the neighbouring (like BC Place) structures.

I'd like to see the whole 'steps' aligned with Georgia on axis (i.e. shifted to the East, thus requiring a larger curve from Beatty and arc farther out along the side of the viaduct. The garden portion would then be on the Western side, and the upper portion of the steps would have greater exposure to the Southwestern sunshine. This would create perfect alignment with Science World 'glitter ball'--more dramatic than looking at it off-axis.

I think the overpass over Pacific Boulevard should be full width of the steps so there is no need to deal with at-grade anything, then go down to grade once across to the other side. The bike path as well would go across Pacific. A side-ramp down to grade (from the curved side-garden?) would be suitable to reach the Pacific tramway.

Having a bike-way from Beatty St. to the water is great! Looking forward to that ride.

The overall length and width of the walkway looks about right. I love how it reaches into False Creek.

The reason to go to the end of the pier (any pier) is simply to get out over the water and into the 'middle of the view'. No destination other than that is required. All piers work this way, and just draw you out to 'sea' (or inlet, as the case may be).

metroXpress

May 19, 2010, 12:20 AM

thanks for the renderings

http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p155/jlousa/Option2-2.jpg

Georgia Ribbon?

http://www.b105.com/blog/media/LombardSt.jpg

Lombard St in San Francisco?

jlousa

May 19, 2010, 1:07 AM

A couple of points just to clarify, option one does not include anything for bikes, the bike path would run along the opposite side of the stadium via existing infrastructure, hence why option 1 isn't high on my list.
Also there is a major push against overpasses in current planning thinking, note in Seattle they've done away with a major overpass for the lrt line and opted for an enhanced street crossing. Pacific there is currently terrible and it would need some work but it can become inviting.

Spoolmak

May 19, 2010, 1:21 AM

they should do the poles orange and black, the colors of the BC lions. Or, string lights from the top of each pole.

SpikePhanta

May 19, 2010, 1:37 AM

I like options 2 & 3 the most, simply because it would be fun/nice biking/boarding down the winding path.

I just think it has to feel less uninviting as it is now.

dleung

May 19, 2010, 3:19 AM

They all look stupid. I don't see the point of suburbanizing a bad-ass stadium-abutted urban junction with windy tree-lined paths. Something simple and urban like the monumental steps is closer to what I have in mind... bike ramps can be incorporated into the steps (there's tons of room) But the yellow poles are such a lame and arbitrary attempt at an urban artifact/wayfinding element. This is the crap you get when a committee designs it and shows it to another committee (this time the city) for feedback/adjustment... no vision whatsoever.

PROSTSHOCKER

May 19, 2010, 11:20 PM

option one

and for bike paths, do the ramps like those used on robson square/law courts exterior steps.

officedweller

May 20, 2010, 1:34 AM

Those may not be up to building code anymore -

cjohnny4

May 21, 2010, 2:30 AM

BC Place has a new and interesting redesigned website. My favourite feature: the downloadable 3D Google Earth image of the new stadium. When you open the file and then turn on 3D buildings in Google Earth, you can see the new stadium roof superimposed over the old roof. If the scale is correct, it will be quite a bit taller than the old roof. :banana:

It was interesting to "drive" down Robson toward the new stadium in Google Earth....the new roof should be very impressive from that angle.

officedweller

May 21, 2010, 6:07 PM

Yeah, it will be a lot taller - at least at the rim because of the clerestory panels (clear panels - same material as the Bejiing Water Cube complex)

johnjimbc

May 21, 2010, 7:29 PM

Regarding the passage, how wide do steps have to be to be considered grand?

Seriously, take a good look at the scale of the steps in the options. Option 2 & 3 both have really wide, grand staircases, yet there is still plenty of room for a bike path and landscaped area.

The space is larger than people may realize, and it grows wider as you descend. I just don't see how having a bike path is an impediment to having a stately staircase that widens as you approach the base.

There is plenty of room for both. It's not an either / or proposition.

cornholio

May 21, 2010, 8:45 PM

I prefer option 1 with the the option 3 overpass with a sloped bike usable ramp. I would then prefer that overpass to be moved to the eastern edge of the staircase and instead having a spiral ramp and have it wide enough for two bike lanes and a narrow pedestrian/wheelchair lane. I think the vast majority of the pedestrians would and should use the main ground level crossing while the bike overpass would be more out of the way and not most direct route for pedestrians especially with the spiral that would also slow bicycles down for safety and make the best use of the space available without having a sprawling bike path.

There is something people love about grand staircases and if i would have to guess it would be because of the open vantage point with out height dangers and easy seating.

I also like the idea of poles and creating something else to focus on along the false creek waterfront.

cornholio

May 21, 2010, 9:17 PM

More about the poles and what I picture. Although obviously our version would be smaller and cheaper to operate, something that would better fit the area. But even then the LAX ones only use $18,000 worth of electricity per year and have $20,000 budgeted in maintenance per year, a $2 million dollar one time fund from one of the local developers, the city, pavco, or anyone else would keep something as large as the LAX one running for ever. A smaller version may only require maybe a $1million dollar one time fund to keep it running for ever.

from http://virtualvisualmuseum.blogspot.com/2010/05/spectacle-lax-pylons-by-marina.html and by Marina Richardson
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_nyY79i2lDSg/S-RjEx3C1cI/AAAAAAAAAAM/ZeoeM0OejlM/s1600/lax2.jpg
from http://www.lawa.org/welcome_LAX.aspx?id=1060 by Jay Berkowitz
http://www.lawa.org/uploadedimages/environmental/images/pylons%20at%20night-lax%20sign_G-01.jpg
VJQj-u0FYo4

quoted from http://www.colorkinetics.com/showcase/installs/lax/
LAX Gateway at Los Angeles International Airport
Los Angeles, CA

Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) is the fifth busiest airport in the world, accommodating more than 61 million travelers per year. In 2006 it undertook a major lighting renovation to both improve visual impact and reduce energy and maintenance concerns by taking advantage of intelligent LED illumination.

The project called for approximately 1,800 ColorBlast® 12 Powercore fixtures to replace five-year-old metal halide fixtures within 26 glass pylons leading to the airport's entrance, known as the famed LAX Gateway. Ranging in height from 25 to 110 feet, the translucent pylons can now display custom-designed, color-changing effects that are seamlessly enabled by Chromacore® technology, as opposed to the use of glass filters, colored gels, and electro-mechanical color scrollers that were previously required. Based on preliminary operation and testing, the LED-based system is expected to cut energy consumption by 75%, reduce annual electricity costs from $73,000 to $18,000, and cut annual maintenance costs from $1 million to $20,000 – an excellent example of the return on investment that can be achieved with LEDs in place of conventional sources. On top of the economic benefits, the pylons are more uniformly light from top to bottom with vibrant saturated color.

The pylons of LAX Gateway are visible to airline passengers at 3,000 feet. A series of dynamic light shows was designed for the new LED-based installation, including a patriotic sequence of red, white and blue to observe the anniversary of September 11, 2001. The distinctive, architectural structures were originally designed as part of a $112 million construction and landscaping program intended to make the airport more welcoming and convenient for passengers. They have since become an iconic component of the Los Angeles cityscape for residents and visitors alike.

mrjauk

May 21, 2010, 10:36 PM

We could put small blades at the top and generate the electricity for free via wind power. A nice set of brightly-lit poles would be nice, though.

mr.x

May 21, 2010, 11:33 PM

Nice example cornholio, I think something like that for the steps would cost quite a bit less to operate and maintain considering it will be a bit smaller than LAX's.

MechMike

May 21, 2010, 11:37 PM

if the steps are grand enough you can ride down them, not sure about going up though

officedweller

May 27, 2010, 5:47 PM

Webcams - interior and exterior views:

http://www.bcplacestadium.com/index.php/construction.html

SFUVancouver

Jun 3, 2010, 11:49 PM

http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/1565/bcplacerenosjune32010p1.jpg
http://creativecommons.org/images/public/somerights20.png (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/ca/) Taken by SFUVancouver, June 3rd, 2010.

g35

Jun 6, 2010, 7:39 PM

Webcams - interior and exterior views:

http://www.bcplacestadium.com/index.php/construction.html

All of the roof + all but one of the cables seem to have been removed...if you want to see open-air BC place, here it is

http://img714.imageshack.us/img714/7461/place.png
bcplacestadium.com

officedweller

Jun 6, 2010, 9:28 PM

Thanks for posting.

Yume-sama

Jun 6, 2010, 9:47 PM

I hope they do plan on replacing all of the seats :P

Hed Kandi

Jun 6, 2010, 10:02 PM

I haven't been by BC Place for quite awhile. Are they removing the hideous brown glass on the exterior?

Vancity

Jun 9, 2010, 7:40 PM

I haven't been by BC Place for quite awhile. Are they removing the hideous brown glass on the exterior?

That's a good question. I've been wondering about that myself. Also, there still hasn't been any clarification for the replacement of the seats. Are they going to upgrade on that too?

Personally, I don't think they're going to replace the brown glas on the exterior. Looks 80's like - I understand - but I don't think they have the funds to replace that. Or maybe...they can't. Anyone have any answers to this?

Zassk

Jun 9, 2010, 7:49 PM

Some of the renderings showed the 80's sloped glass replaced with vertical glass, while other renderings showed the 80's glass intact.

WarrenC12

Jun 9, 2010, 7:52 PM

There are orange tarps over a bunch of sections of the concourse now. You can see that the glass has been removed under these areas, but I don't know if that's permanent or not.

Any cams from above out there? If the seats were going to be replaced, no doubt they would already be in the process of removal.

Zassk

Jun 9, 2010, 9:38 PM

The cam views posted in this thread show that some of the upper rows of seats have been removed, but only those that would hinder the construction work around the top rim. The rest of the seats look largely intact.

As for the sloping windows, it appears that only enough windows have been removed to make space for cranes to be erected at even spacings around the stadium. These would be the cranes that will place the "pylons" on the rim.

Overground

Jun 10, 2010, 3:23 AM

Surely they'll replace the seats. After the damages that could happen during the construction process plus being exposed to the elements till next summer, the seats will be looking older than they do now. Does anybody have stats on how much it costs to install/replace stadium seating?

jlousa

Jun 10, 2010, 5:11 AM

Rough numbers would be 60,000 seats by roughly $200 for each seat installed would be $12Million. I have no idea if $200 is an accurate figure but it seems like a good guess.

Yume-sama

Jun 10, 2010, 5:23 AM

:P Better actually have a cushion if they'll be charged $200 each. I would think that seems a bit high, though!

Overground

Jun 10, 2010, 5:59 AM

MechMike

Jun 10, 2010, 10:23 PM

I got within the safety limit boundary today working for a catering company to have a BBQ lunch for the workers and took some pics. They are removing some seats and reinforcing the concrete around the top for the pylons at this time. Some of the steel for the pylons have been shipped in on site and they appear to be very shiny aluminum and unpainted, I could be wrong but they seem large enough to be for the pylons. All the photos are pretty crappy iphone photos and there aren't many. Standing in person in the open air stadium was quite epic too. I'll upload when i get the chance, maybe ill throw in the delicious BBQ photos too. :P

cjohnny4

Jun 12, 2010, 4:56 PM

The central scaffold tower which will support the outer roof pylons during construction is well underway. I'm amazed at how quickly it's going up! I thought for sure that once the old support cables were removed, we wouldn't see much action for a while, but things are moving forward at a good clip!

GeeCee

Jun 12, 2010, 7:56 PM

SpongeG

Jun 12, 2010, 9:35 PM

grey cup 2011 is here so they gotta boogie on it and use the goos ummer weather to get as much done this year

Zassk

Jun 13, 2010, 3:13 AM

The forces on the upper rim of the stadium must be enormous after the pylons have been attached and tensioned. Was there a bunch of structural reinforcement done while I didn't notice? Or perhaps the force is not that much great than the previous load of the teflon roof...? I wonder. The pylons LOOK so heavy, but if they're actually aluminum as MechMike speculated, then maybe they are lighter than they look.

mr.x

Jun 13, 2010, 4:06 AM

It took me awhile to find some info but I finally discovered a UK company called Ferco Seating. They did Arsenal's 60k seat stadium Emirates a few years ago, Wimbledon Ctr Ct, F1 tracks, Sydney Games, Commonwealth Games Malaysia, and tonnes of others.

I only found costs for the new Rhein-Neckar-Arena in Germany for Bundesliga side 1899 Hoffenheim. It only cost $2m for 30k Ferco seats. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_8016/is_20090328/ai_n44436096/

pics of the stadium - http://www.flickr.com/photos/holger-baschleben/3214254039/

Any official word on whether there will be new seats? The webcam shows that they've only uninstalled the upper row seats for roof construction, so I'm starting to have my doubts...it's such a small cost in terms of the whole expense of the entire project.