West Pender Place | 104m | 34 fl | Completed - Page 17

sintetsu · #**321** Posted **Aug 17, 2010, 8:44 PM**

This building looks unique and pretty compared to the other generic mid rises plaguing downtown. Taller would've been better, yes... but with insecure hippies running the show here, it seems that height is comparable to clubbing a baby seal.

PaperTiger · #**322** Posted **Aug 17, 2010, 10:24 PM**

Now you are just trying to be a troll. Have fun with that.

trofirhen · #**323** Posted **Aug 17, 2010, 10:39 PM**

On a totally different tangent .... my mother and her family at one time lived in North Vancouver when there were streetcars running up and down Lonsdale. Her sister used to race the streetcar on her horse, "Tony."

My mother died in 1994 - not so very long ago in relative terms - but I wish she and my departed family were alive to see Vancouver as it is right now.

sintetsu · #**324** Posted **Aug 17, 2010, 11:27 PM**

not trollin, just expressing distaste in those who run the city and continue to enforce the ludicrous viewcones. Dont automatically assume i'm a vicious creature out to get you, my lil stalker. Mmmkay? K. And yes, the world in general has come a long way since horses were used as transport...

trofirhen · #**325** Posted **Aug 17, 2010, 11:35 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by sintetsu

not trollin, just expressing distaste in those who run the city and continue to enforce the ludicrous viewcones. Dont automatically assume i'm a vicious creature out to get you, my lil stalker. Mmmkay? K. And yes, the world in general has come a long way since horses were used as transport...

I'm not your stalker; just trying (with the help of others) to get you accustomed to basic forum etiquette.....

But anyway, regarding horses being used as transport, it wasn't like that. My aunt was a teenager. Streetcars and automobiles were in use in North Vancouver (and most other cities) at the time. The point I was making was that they would be astounded at the glass and concrete apartment city that Vancouver has become ... and continues to do so. That's all.

SpikePhanta · #**326** Posted **Aug 18, 2010, 2:02 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by sintetsu

not trollin, just expressing distaste in those who run the city and continue to enforce the ludicrous viewcones. Dont automatically assume i'm a vicious creature out to get you, my lil stalker. Mmmkay? K. And yes, the world in general has come a long way since horses were used as transport...

if you don't like it move back to Calgary.....

The viewcones are supported by many people who aren't hippies. And are praised by Tourists...

sintetsu · #**327** Posted **Aug 18, 2010, 2:19 AM**

Oh tourists praise the viewcones?!? Lordy lord, that must mean that i and others who hate them, are totally mistaken! ...that was sarcasm, for those users not blessed with the gift of thought.

djh · #**328** Posted **Aug 18, 2010, 2:34 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpikePhanta

if you don't like it move back to Calgary.....

The viewcones are supported by many people who aren't hippies. And are praised by Tourists...

Grr, it bugs me when people use that as a response to any criticism. It's such a classic passive-agressive response - being too scared to voice an opinion. This is exactly the reason why the Westender Rant page is chockablock full of stupid rants, because people are too chicken to say something in person, and hold their petty grievances. If everybody was to move whenever they found something wrong and not speak up, the bullies would rule the world and those with the loudest voices would run everything.

It's OK to object to something. Granted, he didn't do it very well, but he doesn't need to "move to Calgary"!

sintetsu · #**329** Posted **Aug 18, 2010, 4:32 AM**

I honestly dont know why people support viewcones. There are a million other places to see views from. We are afterall surrounded by mountains and water. Although at this current point in time, taller buildings dont seem necessary in the downtown core for the foreseeable future. They're havin enough trouble finding someone who wants to build the ritz/turn...that is all.

Prometheus · #**330** Posted **Aug 18, 2010, 12:21 PM**

The viewcones are a shameful affront to individual liberty, human achievement and architectural integrity. They cannot be supported on any rational grounds.

cc85 · #**331** Posted **Aug 18, 2010, 2:10 PM**

there is plenty of space around the city of vancouver to build additional density (read: height for all you people only concerned with building height as opposed to anything else meaningful). we are destroying any attempt at creating a sustainable city by believing we can exist with two opposing development patterns.

sintetsu · #**332** Posted **Aug 18, 2010, 2:46 PM**

height=destroying a sustainable city. Gotcha.

red-paladin · #**333** Posted **Aug 18, 2010, 7:42 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by cc85

there is plenty of space around the city of vancouver to build additional density (read: height for all you people only concerned with building height as opposed to anything else meaningful). we are destroying any attempt at creating a sustainable city by believing we can exist with two opposing development patterns.

Yeah, but who wants to live in a 250m mixed use office/condo tower in Whalley when there will be money marts, porn stores, pawn shops, etc around. What are you going to tell your friends? "The entrance to where my $17m penthouse's underground parking is across the street from the power lines with the shoes hanging on it!"

sacrifice333 · #**334** Posted **Aug 18, 2010, 8:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prometheus

The viewcones are a shameful affront to individual liberty, human achievement and architectural integrity. They cannot be supported on any rational grounds.

And in other cases, such as THIS ONE, the view cones have necessitated a unique architectural design... creating a very cool building here.

And if Vancouver's Turn every gets built another GREAT EXAMPLE of a positive architectural outcome as a result of the view cones!

wrenegade · #**335** Posted **Aug 18, 2010, 8:42 PM**

^That being said, this building could have been designed this way just as easily without view cones.

cc85 · #**336** Posted **Aug 18, 2010, 8:47 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by sintetsu

height=destroying a sustainable city. Gotcha.

sorry, maybe I have to be specific to point out the obscure to some members here...to draw a huge concern over erecting higher and higher buildings at the cost of view cones misses the point about having tall buildings in urban areas. Accept the views cones as a public good and slightly lower in height towers than you would otherwise like and focus on transferring this density to other areas of the city that actually can take advantage of it.

cc85 · #**337** Posted **Aug 18, 2010, 8:49 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by awvan

^That being said, this building could have been designed this way just as easily without view cones.

you would not achieve the unique building design without the provocation of planning policy.

sacrifice333 · #**338** Posted **Aug 18, 2010, 8:52 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by awvan

^That being said, this building could have been designed this way just as easily without view cones.

Of course it "could have". But I'd venture to say that it wouldn't have happened.

sintetsu · #**339** Posted **Aug 18, 2010, 10:32 PM**

Yeah lets have the tall buildings in places where nobody would want to be. Brilliant.

sintetsu · #**340** Posted **Aug 18, 2010, 10:35 PM**

Oh and hey sacrifice, you do realize that some interesting towers do actually exist in places other than viewcone corridors, right? Or maybe i'm wrong...i must be. Because nobody would ever design a twisting building, were it not for vancouvers viewcones. (again, sarcasm for the uptight bitter folks)