An offical application has been made, so here are the details.
Quote:
Rezoning Application - 320 Granville Street
VIA Architecture has applied to the City of Vancouver to rezone 320 Granville Street from DD (Downtown) District to CD-1 (Comprehensive Development) District. The proposal is for a 32-storey office building, with retail and a bike station at grade, and a childcare on the top floor. The development would be comprised of approximately 35 303 m² (380,000 sq. ft.) of floor area, with a floor space ratio (FSR) of 25.5, and a height of 119 m (390 ft.).
I the bolded the very large FSR. Not sure if it's a new Vancouver record or not, but it's certainly up there.
My 2 cents, I'm happy to see this one moving forward. I'm still a touch doubtful as to wether it will make this round of towers but I'm more then willing to be proven wrong. As most of you know I seldom complain about design, this is one building that in it's current state lets me down. I certainly don't expect anything special, but I was hoping for slightly more. Anyways enjoy, discuss, critic.
The tower seems pretty plain. The setbacks/reveals may end up looking like those on Bentall V, but across the face of the tower.
The only good thing I see with this tower is that the ground plane is nicely opened up to allow views towards the CP Station.
Check out the view cone analysis, which includes a massing study for the towers north of the CP Station.
I wonder what the glazing will be like?
Grant Thornton Place next door is very "shiny", so I wouldn't want mirrored glass, but it would be nice to have glazing that would allow the limestone RBC tower to stand out against it.
Last edited by officedweller; Jan 30, 2012 at 10:31 PM.
There's another decent sized one in the works too, should be a few months before it is announced though!
With regards to this one it seems terribly boring, and why in the world is VIA submitting a proposal to the city rendered in what looks like sketch-up. They are much better than that.
Hopefully the UDP gets them to add some more umph to the design because this one is going to be quite visible from the harbour and is a total snooze fest as is.
Couldn't agree more. This is potential place for a dramatic "twist" ot "turn" to it (metaphorically speaking) and we're presented with this. The diagonal lines seem like a wimpy attempt to be "daring." The Credit Suisse-funded building seems much more dramatic. As Leftcoaster said, give this one some more "umph" and Fast ! ! It needs an emergency intravenous against blandomyelitis.
Love the ethereal (no height, no date given) of 99 West Pender in that thread. Now THAT or something more like it would be worthwhile and difficult to argue down, I think. French immersion pie!
(These renderings are always frustrating for me to look at. The rendering is so vague to me that I couldn't possibly interpret what the final product is going to look like. I'm not doubting others, that's just my own experience.(with renderings)
I hope the glass isn't nearly as translucent as it is in that picture.
Also, when was the last time the diagrams were updated?
__________________
"you're eating chicken periods" - Vid
"I love eggs, especially the ones with runny yolks" - Me
"EWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW, you're disgusting!" - Vid
I think it will look a lot like the sides of Bentall V - and blame the view cones for the flat roof.
It's actually a bit more interesting than some office towers like Bay-Adelaide in TO.
Here are the reveals on Bentall V - I think the reveals on 320 will appear the same - hopefully there will be some differentiation in the facade on each side of the reveal:
Assuming the 12' floor-to-floor heights of the current proposal, mine is 330 feet high and 26 stories. At first I tried a 450 foot version to step "up" from Granville Square, but seeing that the site is A) near the waterfront, and B) surounded by smaller-scale historic buildings, hence C) will not see a lot of height nearby in the forseeable future, I think the tower height should step down instead, preserving vistas from the Harbour Center observation deck. This is not a good spot to stick a "skyline addition".
Floorplates (minus a 1500sf core) average just over 8500sf, for a total of 220,000sf. The main gesture of course is opening up the ground plane for clear sightlines to Waterfront Station, and to Granville Plaza from the adjacent buildings.
I wouldn't get too worked up about the design, as there is a good chance this is just a placeholder until the rezoning is achieved - which would explain the choice of architect and what appears to be minimal cost and effort in the design work so far.
If they get approval for this density, don't be surprised if the site is sold before it hits the DPB/UDP stage which would allow for some refinements and tweaks to the design (but no more height or density).
I think it's about trying to encroach on the view cone with a component that would be politically incorrect for the City to delete.
To be withion the view cone, an entire floor would have to be deleted.
And remember that the City doesn't like daycare outdoor space on podium rooftops because of all the stuff (including dead bodies) that seem to fall on them.
I think it's about trying to encroach on the view cone with a component that would be politically incorrect for the City to delete.
To be withion the view cone, an entire floor would have to be deleted.
And remember that the City doesn't like daycare outdoor space on podium rooftops because of all the stuff (including dead bodies) that seem to fall on them.
Agreed totally on the "politically correct" armlock attempt. Interesting (and disturbing) the dead bodies: (where do they come from?).
Anyway, some years earlier, I had seen a Time-Life photgraph of a highrise rooftop preschool in Mexico City, and understood there were others like it.
Tried to research it but must have looked in all the wrong links.
Do they still exist? Is this relevant to Vancouver at all? (not in this case; sorry for the digression)