Park Hyatt (1128 W Georgia) | 197m | 62 fl | Completed

[Metro-One]

Light pollution is definitely the way to let the world know we're a super-number-one-top-tier-world-class city.

ugh............................ Fine then Alex, instead of a simple effect around the top of the fins how about 3 gigantic S's, one for each side of the building? Then how about the squares light up at night to do pattern/designs, then in the middle of the building there are giant billboards that display commercials for nike and Mcdonalds 24/7? If you fine a simple white or other colored light crowning the top of a building offensive then you must just hate Canada Place, the christmas lights on Hotel Vancouver, the two towers with the green rim around the top in Coal Harbor, every beacon light etc... This is the extreme anti-display attitude that kills me inside. I guess the clique attitude of these forums is now going to be "let's bash every idea from Metro-Own because he supports more lighting effects and centralized entertainment facilities in the city core and suburban city cores. I really want to know how a simple lighting effect around the top of the fins on the Shangri-La is a bad idea?

[IdahoMountainBoy]

If something is elegant, then it goes unspoken.

Lighting the top would be speaking of elegance and ostentatiousness. Plus, I think rimming the top would make it look tacky.

No one is attacking you btw, at least not from the thread posts that I read.

[city-dweller]

I have no problem with lighting affect done tastefully. The concern I have is the lighting treatment on the fins at the top may be done by the same designer who chose those lobby chandeliers

[AlexYVR]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

ugh............................ Fine then Alex, instead of a simple effect around the top of the fins how about 3 gigantic S's, one for each side of the building? Then how about the squares light up at night to do pattern/designs, then in the middle of the building there are giant billboards that display commercials for nike and Mcdonalds 24/7? If you fine a simple white or other colored light crowning the top of a building offensive then you must just hate Canada Place, the christmas lights on Hotel Vancouver, the two towers with the green rim around the top in Coal Harbor, every beacon light etc... This is the extreme anti-display attitude that kills me inside. I guess the clique attitude of these forums is now going to be "let's bash every idea from Metro-Own because he supports more lighting effects and centralized entertainment facilities in the city core and suburban city cores. I really want to know how a simple lighting effect around the top of the fins on the Shangri-La is a bad idea?

You've got me pegged wrong, buddy. I think you and I stand for exactly the same thing: how awesome of a city Vancouver is. I think our difference comes in execution: eg, you want to shout it out with lights, while I am content to sit quietly and smugly in our superiority. I think I'd rather just have the ecological superiority of being a large, first-tier city that doesn't contribute to light pollution. It's nothing personal, Metro-One. We have the same end goal; I just think we don't really see eye-to-eye on how to get there. Nothing wrong with that.

[Metro-One]

well i think a white light around the rim would create a nice crown and not be invasive to the penthouse owner (which i believe was the reason behind the cancelled "S") Because the Shangir-La looks amazing during the day but lacks presence at night. There are several buildings downtown that have such lighting effects downtown and it adds well to the city. Well i agree with you there AlexYVR . Even though i am so heavy on lights i am more restraint on heights, looking at the Shangri-La makes one realize vancouver does not need super-talls, but a few more buildings in the 200m to maybe 230m range would be perfect.

[AlexYVR]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

well i think a white light around the rim would create a nice crown and not be invasive to the penthouse owner (which i believe was the reason behind the cancelled "S") Because the Shangir-La looks amazing during the day but lacks presence at night. There are several buildings downtown that have such lighting effects downtown and it adds well to the city. Well i agree with you there AlexYVR . Even though i am so heavy on lights i am more restraint on heights, looking at the Shangri-La makes one realize vancouver does not need super-talls, but a few more buildings in the 200m to maybe 230m range would be perfect.

I agree with you there, on height restrictions. I guess I come at the lighting from a LEED perspective; uncovered, unfocused light is as big of a no-no as black roofs or english ivy.

[lespoir]

the interior is so disappointing, from the posted photos.

[EdinVan]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

so the lobby is what?

Ugly.

[EdinVan]

Originally Posted by sono65

So since those squares don't light up, does that mean we will not be seeing any kind of cool lighting feature from this building? My understanding was that they had to take down the "S" logo from the fins at the top which I was assuming would light up. Which I then thought only left the squares which we were hinted at before had some kind of other purpose that was lighting related. Anyways it would be a shame for our tallest building in the city to go up and not have anything in the night sky saying, " I'm here!" Instead it might just end up looking like another bland condo...

I agree. Not lighting it up screams "mediocre" --- just like Vancouver itself.

[EdinVan]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

What about just a simple lighting effect that runs along the top of the fins? That way it would not be intrusive to the penthouse owner and will display its height at night.

As if the penthouse owner will ever even be home enough to be bothered it.

[EdinVan]

Originally Posted by IdahoMountainBoy

If something is elegant, then it goes unspoken.

Lighting the top would be speaking of elegance and ostentatiousness. Plus, I think rimming the top would make it look tacky.

Yes, better to just let it totally disappear in the dark, like everything else in Vancouver.

[EdinVan]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

well i think a white light around the rim would create a nice crown and not be invasive to the penthouse owner (which i believe was the reason behind the cancelled "S") Because the Shangir-La looks amazing during the day but lacks presence at night. There are several buildings downtown that have such lighting effects downtown and it adds well to the city.

Well I for one agree with you and applaud you for going against the grain and being so adamant about your position.
Unfortunately, the city and property owners are moving more towards turning off lights from many major towers downtown. Ostensibly, the reason is to save power; but I think the real motivation is simply herd mentality: if you don't join with everyone else in making the city look dull and boring, then you'll be accused of being ostentatious.

[EdinVan]

Originally Posted by AlexYVR

I am content to sit quietly and smugly in our superiority. I think I'd rather just have the ecological superiority of being a large, first-tier city that doesn't contribute to light pollution.

1. Superiority, in what?
2. There are worse problems than light pollution. Why don't we spend more time cleaning up our water and air instead of doing silly (ie, cheap, effortless, mindless) things like dimming lights?

[EdinVan]

Originally Posted by lespoir

the interior is so disappointing, from the posted photos.

Yes, especially for a building (at least the hotel part) that some on here have predicted will be the epitome of---what was the phrase again?---oh yes, "classic Asian luxury". I bet those interiors were designed by a bunch of heterosexual men sitting around a boardroom table flipping through 30-year-old editions of Dreadful Homes and Gardens.

[IdahoMountainBoy]

Originally Posted by EdinVan

Yes, especially for a building (at least the hotel part) that some on here have predicted will be the epitome of---what was the phrase again?---oh yes, "classic Asian luxury". I bet those interiors were designed by a bunch of heterosexual men sitting around a boardroom table flipping through 30-year-old editions of Dreadful Homes and Gardens.

Remember though, the lobby interior we first saw is now obscured by covered windows. Although we have an idea of what the chandeliers will be like, the rest could still turn out nicely...

[AlexYVR]

Originally Posted by EdinVan

1. Superiority, in what?
2. There are worse problems than light pollution. Why don't we spend more time cleaning up our water and air instead of doing silly (ie, cheap, effortless, mindless) things like dimming lights?

In the city that doesn't have to scream about itself. And yes, there totally are worse things than light pollution - although since it takes no time at all (ie, not 'wasting our time') to NOT install something that is going to sit 60 stories at the top of a building, I don't see how it's silly.

I think something like the lights on Canada Place discussed elsewhere on this thread is great. It's at ground level, it's widely accessible, and it brings joy (if you will) to everyone. Much more bang for the buck.

[flight_from_kamakura]

uh, edinvan, would it be possible that you contain you comments to like one or two posts?

is there something in the water these days?

[sono65]

I think all some people we're saying is that, most every other mixed use, taller (office/condo) tower even in Vancouver, (minimal or not) has some sort of lighting feature going on. I don't think light pollution has to be an issue these days either. Shaw tower has a very minimal light strip running up the side, the Melville has it's sail which is lit up, even L'Hemritage, being quite a bit shorter in comparison to those 2, has a neat LED color strip goin' on. Is that building polluting light? I don't think it's screaming about it's self. Now let's take a look at any other major skyscraper in the world. I think it's safe to say most, if not all have an interesting focal point created by light at night time. Is it too much to ask that our only real "tall" tower have a little something neat for people to look up at and go, "Hey yeah, that's pretty cool!" Nobody said it must scream. We're skyscraper enthusiasts on this board. Who's with me on this one?

[MapleLeaf]

Who's with me on this one?

[Metro-One]

You know how i feel