Iconic Building/landmark?

[SpikePhanta]

I don't know why but I always think Vancouver needs some sort of Iconic Tall Building, something creative enough to stand out from the rest.

My friend once told me his idea to have a tower similar to the one being built in Tokyo or something like the CN Tower in Toronto.


It would be cool, what do you guys think, like what type of building would you like to see and where?

[Whalleyboy]

at first i was like canada place is iconic. But then i noticed you said tall
lets make canada place vertical=P

[paradigm4]

I would say Canada Place, along with Harbour Centre, are the icons of the city.

Science World, BC Place, and SkyTrain are the alternates, if the view is from False Creek. But most tourist places choose the view from Burrard Inlet.

I don't know if we need something signature. Perhaps just more unique buildings!

[thenorthofvan]

lions gate bridge ?

[crazyjoeda]

Loser cities build a building just to impress. Most of the worlds great landmarks are historical. Vancouver is beautiful ugly cities like Toronto need to build a tower for something to look at we have awesome mountain and ocean views plus some nice buildings just for fun.

[Metro-One]

Hong Kong seems to have been able to do both........

[crazyjoeda]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Hong Kong seems to have been able to do both........

Not to belittle Hong Kong, but I found that with a few obvious exception the architecture in Hong Kong was boring with identical buildings being reproduced over and over. Vancouver's well preserved beautiful surroundings are what make this city unique. People visiting from London, New York or other large cities are not going to be impressed because we built some huge landmark tower. Vancouver doesn't need to compensate for anything.

[ozonemania]

Yeah, but I don't see why we can't celebrate both: outstanding garden and outstanding house. One doesn't have to be at the expense of the other. Iconic buildings and interesting architecture, why are these so incongruent with North Shore mountains and Stanley Park?

It's not like every view of downtown's skyline has Stanley Park and the North Shore mountains in the background...

[Metro-One]

Sometimes I do not understand this forum. Every time a new condo is proposed, there will be nothing but complaints saying how every tower downtown looks the same and they are all short. Then when a thread about possible iconic structures is proposed, the conversation flips on its head that we don't need anything iconic because we have mountains and ocean, a feature one can find in many cities around the world (essentially every Japanese city, Hong Kong, and every city in New Zealand for example).

While I agree Vancouver has a great backdrop, a little more attention should be spent on the built form. I believe that a few well designed, original towers in the 200 to 230m range would be ideal for the Vancouver skyline. Vancouver does not need supertalls, but a little more height is welcome.

And if everyone here is so content with the mountains and ocean why do we even have a skyscraper forum about Vancouver?

And it is funny how excited everyone on this forum became when "Vancouver's turn" was first proposed. An interesting slightly "iconic" tower with decent height............strange how that happened.

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by crazyjoeda

the architecture in Hong Kong was boring with identical buildings being reproduced over and over.

...ya, good thing we don't have that problem here.

[Spoolmak]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

...ya, good thing we don't have that problem here.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by crazyjoeda

Loser cities build a building just to impress. Most of the worlds great landmarks are historical. Vancouver is beautiful ugly cities like Toronto need to build a tower for something to look at we have awesome mountain and ocean views plus some nice buildings just for fun.

great philosophy!! wish more people thought that way

[Distill3d]

Originally Posted by crazyjoeda

Loser cities build a building just to impress. Most of the worlds great landmarks are historical. Vancouver is beautiful ugly cities like Toronto need to build a tower for something to look at we have awesome mountain and ocean views plus some nice buildings just for fun.

Agreed. The other thing to consider is that the iconic or landmark buildings we DO have (IE: Science World, Canada Place) fit in so well with the city's mentality of not needing an icon. If you ask someone what Vancouver's major landmark or icon is, you're going to hear Stanley Park or the North Shore mountains before anyone even considers one of downtowns beautiful buildings. Truly, we live in a city that has beautiful buildings that many cities would envy having, as well as the natural beauty. Where else can you go from sea to sky? Where else can you snowboard in the morning and sail in the afternoon?

Personally, I say deal with what we have, and be thankful we don't have to build some god awful Calgary Tower to put us on the map.

[delboy]

Originally Posted by crazyjoeda

Loser cities build a building just to impress. Most of the worlds great landmarks are historical. Vancouver is beautiful ugly cities like Toronto need to build a tower for something to look at we have awesome mountain and ocean views plus some nice buildings just for fun.

This is very true. Lance Berelowitz - author and urbanite - says that vancouverites tend to look out towards the ocean and mountains and not to the city - our city squares are beaches and parks.

While I agree, I think the setting has made us lazy or complacent.

A friend of mine describes vancouver: " beautiful garden, average house"

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by crazyjoeda

Loser cities build a building just to impress...Vancouver is beautiful ugly cities like Toronto need to build a tower for something to look at we have awesome mountain and ocean views plus some nice buildings just for fun.

Bad philosophy. I hope not many people think this way.

Vancouver's natural setting is breathtaking, but to use this fact as a rationalization for mediocre architecture is sad. Architecture is an integration of form and function. In addition to serving our practical needs, architecture is an artistic expression of the human spirit. As in all art forms, a healthy culture strives for excellence, not mediocrity.

A building becomes truly iconic because it achieves the special, because it stands apart. The absence of a truly iconic building in Vancouver is thus the absence of the exceptional. This should be unacceptable to anyone in whom the flame of human exceptionalism burns.

Vancouver's natural beauty should not be allowed to suppress Vancouver's human creativity. Indeed, the majesty of our mountains should inspire a majesty in our architecture. Far from being competitors, the natural and the man-made can be allies, enhancing the beauty of one another and forming a coherent whole more wonderful than its parts are alone.

And we build this way not to impress, but to achieve the beautiful and fulfill the best within us.

[SpikePhanta]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Bad philosophy. I hope not many people think this way.

Vancouver's natural setting is breathtaking, but to use this fact as a rationalization for mediocre architecture is sad. Architecture is an integration of form and function. In addition to serving our practical needs, architecture is an artistic expression of the human spirit. As in all art forms, a healthy culture strives for excellence, not mediocrity.

A building becomes truly iconic because it achieves the special, because it stands apart. The absence of a truly iconic building in Vancouver is thus the absence of the exceptional. This should be unacceptable to anyone in whom the flame of human exceptionalism burns.

Vancouver's natural beauty should not be allowed to suppress the best of human creativity. Indeed, the majesty of our mountains should inspire a majesty in our architecture.

I really like this post, While I'm a huge nature fan, i'm also a huge fan of art and architecture, It would be nice to create a building that matches the beauty of our nature!

[mr.x]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Bad philosophy. I hope not many people think this way.

Vancouver's natural setting is breathtaking, but to use this fact as a rationalization for mediocre architecture is sad. Architecture is an integration of form and function. In addition to serving our practical needs, architecture is an artistic expression of the human spirit. As in all art forms, a healthy culture strives for excellence, not mediocrity.

A building becomes truly iconic because it achieves the special, because it stands apart. The absence of a truly iconic building in Vancouver is thus the absence of the exceptional. This should be unacceptable to anyone in whom the flame of human exceptionalism burns.

Vancouver's natural beauty should not be allowed to suppress Vancouver's human creativity. Indeed, the majesty of our mountains should inspire a majesty in our architecture. Far from being competitors, the natural and the man-made can be allies, enhancing the beauty of one another and forming a coherent whole.

And we build this way not to impress, but to achieve the beautiful and fulfill the best within us.

Absolutely. Very well said. This is certainly the problem we currently have.

[trofirhen]

Whew, looks like I goofed!!!!!

[Canadian Mind]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Whew, looks like I goofed!!!!!

?

Anyways, what I think would be a nice and very different look is a building that actually looks like it belongs in the raiforest. IE it's siding is coarse-cut black granite (kept wet by an ever-flowing trickle of wat), Cedar wood panels, etc. with moss growing up the height of the building.

I dunno how well that would work for a high rise, but maybe if the new casino, or a new VAG, or some other low-rise but relatively expansive structure were to be built in the city, make it look like a rock outcropping you'd find in the middle of the forest.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Whew, looks like I goofed!!!!!

No I'm with you.. very valid points on the cities you mentioned from the ones I've visited. Nobody in Rome or London is clamouring for supertall towers.