Quote:
Originally Posted by Repthe250
Yeah thats exactly what I’m saying. Only in greater Vancouver can developers 🞵🞵🞵🞵 up a mixed use tower this bad. We used to be able to do it flawlessly - Shangrila, Paradox hotel, Wall Centre etc.
If you have to cut corners so drastically, that the end result looks like THIS, then don’t do it. Leave it for someone who will do it right and not leave a permanent blemish on our cities’ skylines. I’m so effing tired of the absolute disregard for quality and form in every single new tower built in BC. They’re all eyesores.
|
It's not about doing it "right" or wrong.
It's about doing it, period.
I've already explained the financialy reality of why these developments end up like this and you seem reluctant to accept that this is how they have to be built if they're to be built at all, and would rather they don't build anything (even if it would provide badly needed homes) if they can't build it to match whatever vision you specifically think they ought to be matching.
And it isn't a "Vancouver" or "BC" thing.
This is the economic reality of building construction the world over.
Go anywhere in the world where you have mixed-use developments and you'll find the same disparity in quality and finishes.
Office, retail and commercial systems tend to be higher-end and thus more expensive and costly than residential systems because business can and do pay more per square footage to justify their costs that residential homeowners typically can't.
If you build the office component to the level and standard of the residential system and components, businesses are not going to want to lease spaces in your building at market rates and you'll lose money.
If you build the residential components to the standard and level of the office component and costs, you'll likely price out any potential homeowners who might be interested in buying or renting in your home, especially if you hope to make a profit, or heck, even just break even.
And thus sink the whole development.
I don't know what it is about this you're having such difficulty understanding.
Maybe it's the fact that there is a requirement for office or commercial usage in the zoning for these developments that requires the developers to build those components together within one development.
In which case your problem is not with the architecture or the construction, but rather the zoning and city planning policies that zone districts this way.
There are very comprehensive discussions elsewhere in this forum and in other places why these kinds of zoning mixes are becoming more and more common in concert with Transit-Oriented Design and Planning, and why they are an important tool in cities' and municipalities' toolboxes in trying to tackle living and housing affordability (working close to where you live makes it more affordable to live where you live, would be a good place to start).
But it's rather rich (......pardon the pun) and unselfaware to be complaining at the same time that developers and cities are not building developments and buildings to a more "higher" (read : 'more expensive') standard, just to have them look "better",..... when we're in the midst of trying to tackle a housing and affordability crisis.
(that we probably may never fully get a handle on in our lifetimes)
Prev
Linear Mode
