Downtown Vancouver Updates

[sacrifice333]

The Ritz is looking pretty abrasive too.

I think the 'colours' twin, twin buildings will be pretty good, especially if those coloured panels are something like the 999 Seymour panels. And I think given the 'unique' location a little bit of funk will help them sell to their target market.

[flight_from_kamakura]

it's been my worry for some time now that yaletown and much of false creek (though not millenium water) is going to look awfully silly in a few years, the way the west end looks awfully silly. it won't affect the livability much, and people will still love vancouver (waikiki and the alawai have some of the ugliest towers around, but try getting into that market for under 500k!), but for all the fanfare about vancouver's supposed planning genius, there are always places for improvement, and imo, the aesthetic side of built form is cardinal among them.

personally, i think that concord's colours is a significant advance for vancouver, as it's one of the few buildings, especially in that area, to depart from the two dominant (podium and block) models for towers, if only by incorporating a skybridge and clever site use. as for the colours themselves, things like this don't really age well in vancouver, particularly if they're buildings that are large and renter occupied (ever notice that green thing by the seaforth armory?). but usually strata buildings and co-ops are a different story, so who knows? plus, it's hard to dispute that the colours is a departure from that feeling of clinical sterility that is concord's hallmark.

[SpongeG]

architecture doesn't age to well many places

seattle has some pretty ugly stuff too

london has some atrocious buildings

[djh]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Agreed.

The worst (and first) example is Spectrum. ...i.e. add colour to the bits of the standard design that aren't glass.

The problem is that to make a unified design that uses colour, you'd need to reduce the amount of window area to provide solid surfaces on which to use the colour - and that could affect the marketability of the project.

TV Towers seems to work reasonably well - they have chopped up the coloured panels so they don't look like strips.

I think this one in Coal Harbour went in a few years before the Spectrum towers. It looks better than Spectrum, I believe:

Originally Posted by Spikester

[fever]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

Hed Kandi is referring to something innately jejeune or tacky about the design, not its (tepid) willingness to subvert the "norm". Basically, the buildings are an adolescent, reactionary response to the lack of colour in the area. I am not against them, as I do think they are some kind of small improvement, as well I am open to what they will actually become in their realized physical form; however, sometimes the obvious is just too obvious.

Nail on the head.


The typical Vancouver condo is not silly, and will not appear silly once it ages. They are too sober, too rational, much like the typical West End slab. "Silly" aptly describes postmodern architecture (see Portland, all of it), and we do have our share, including some condo towers.

[northwest2k]

I heard someone on this forum (can't remember who) say downtown Vancouver will be having an office building boom in the future. When exactly will it be happening?

[subdude]

Originally Posted by flight_from_kamakura

it's been my worry for some time now that yaletown and much of false creek (though not millenium water) is going to look awfully silly in a few years, the way the west end looks awfully silly.

The West End looks silly? Really? Please explain.

[Architype]

Originally Posted by flight_from_kamakura

it's been my worry for some time now that yaletown and much of false creek (though not millenium water) is going to look awfully silly in a few years, the way the west end looks awfully silly.

I think the West end has aged rather well and functions well; it does not have the problems of large project housing found in many (especially American) cities. Although the 60's & 70's buildings are a bit colourless, that is to be expected considering the era of their construction. I find it has it's own kind of beauty, but that's in the eye of the beholder. The newer developments like Concord Pacific do have more to worry about in terms of aging gracefully because they were built in a shorter time span. All designs are not going to be award winners, but a little colour never seems to hurt anyone.

[amac]

Originally Posted by flight_from_kamakura

...things like this don't really age well in vancouver, particularly if they're buildings that are large and renter occupied...

Damn those bloody renters... offending the yuppie condo owner's aesthetic sensibilities with their ghetto window coverings!

[amac]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

architecture doesn't age to well many places

seattle has some pretty ugly stuff too

london has some atrocious buildings

Yeah, like this ghastly monstrosity... in Milan of all places. We should count our blessings.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/197/519497915_856d7b273d.jpg?v=0

[worldwide]

we have that exact same building at royal oak skytrain

[MichaelChampion]

^ What building are you referring to?

[jlousa]

Interesting read below.

http://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/ctyclerk/civicagencies/bicycle/documents/080716.pdf

It's in concerns to the city wanting a bike parkade downtown, they are talking about a 400+ bike parkade that would be expandable and include showers, and other ammenties, the preferred option is the corner of Georgia and Granville in front of the Sears site with other options all at Pacific Centre. They also mention the redevelopment of Sears, but I'm going to leave that for another member on this forum.

[officedweller]

Above ground?
i.e. the City is aware that the plaza in front of Sears is above the mall, aren't they? Unless they mean reducing the available parking spaces in the Pacific Centre parkade or occupying unused floors in Sears itself.
Maybe there's virgin soil under the Art Gallery lawn?

7.3 Pacific Centre Sites
The preferred arrangements, in terms of their ability to provide an accessable
and visible location, as well as reduce the financial impact on parking and mall
operators are Options 2, 4, and 5. The bike tower (Option 5) is limited by its cost
and expandability.

A number of specific locations for a Bike Centre at Pacific Centre have been
considered in terms of how they deliver these options with consideration of the
key criteria.

7.3.1 Pacific Centre Parkade
Although this is not a “preferred” option given its limited visibility, it has been
presented as the initial arrangement considered by the City of Vancouver.
An underground bikeade at the Pacific Centre would be best located in the first
underground parking level below grade, integrated with the Canada Line station
elevator (to best make use of existing infrastructure and provide a link to transit).
It is not desirable to provide additional access to this facility via the vehicle ramps
to the parkade given the mix of traffic and design of the ramps (see Section 2.3.
This facility would remove approximately 40 - 45 vehicle parking stalls based on a
preliminary size estimate of 12,000 – 14,000 sq.ft. The centre would be difficult to
link to the street beyond a ceremonial entrance, which may be overshadowed by
the entrance to the Canada Line station. The location may also become too
cluttered at the Canada Line entrance with the addition of street-level services
related to the bike centre. This option seems to be the least preferred.

7.3.2 Georgia Street/Granville Street Redevelopment
This is the preferred option of Cadillac Fairview as space can be dedicated
appropriately as part of the future redevelopment of the Sears site. This would be
the best location for the bike centre in terms of visibility and accessibility. The
major concern with this option is the timing of the redevelopment of this site and
the potential for lost retail revenue. The latter could be relieved through
relaxation of the site density for part or all of the bike centre

7.3.3 Georgia Street/Howe Street Redevelopment
This option provides a less visibile site from the street-front than the Sears site,
however has the benefit of the “novelty factor” of being located on the rooftop of a
building that could develop this location as a landmark for cyclists in the City.
There is also more opportunity to link associated services to the street level.
Revenue loss is minimized at this location and it also provides the most
expandable location.
Connectivity of this site to the downtown cycle network would need to be
addressed as the fronting roads (Georgia Street and Howe Street) are not
comfortable for cyclists of all levels. This could be in the form of on-street cycle
lanes or separated cycle facilities.
Other concerns with this site include:
• The link to transit, particularly for bike park-and-ride trips that will need to
park, walk across Georgia Street and then enter the Canada Line Station.
• Constructability: it has been advised by Cadillac Fairview that the new
building will be constructed on existing footings and will push design
strengths to their limits and in so doing, will likely not allow roof occupancy
of any kind.
With the constructability issues aside, this site may be a good temporary solution
prior to the redevelopment of the Sears site, depending on its timing.

Gotta love those planners - they plan for it even if it can't be constructed and occupied safely.

[fever]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Above ground?
i.e. the City is aware that the plaza in front of Sears is above the mall, aren't they? Unless they mean reducing the available parking spaces in the Pacific Centre parkade or occupying unused floors in Sears itself.
Maybe there's virgin soil under the Art Gallery lawn?

It mentions that the parkade entrances are too far away. The art gallery is further from the City Centre station, but more visible than a parkade entrance. Fixing the connections between bridgeheads and connecting bike routes ought to be done first. The survey results in the report show distance/environment being more of a concern (if the survey can be taken seriously, with the apparently unclear choices/categories)

[jlousa]

You beat me to it. There is alot more planned on the bike front, the next 6 months will be very busy with planning.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by fever

The art gallery is further from the City Centre station, but more visible than a parkade entrance.

I mentioned the Art Gallery because the critical mass folk have no problem congregating there.

I also find it odd that there's a need to co-locate the bike facility with a rapid transit station.
Why not bigger bike facilities at the outlying stations so that bikes don't take up room inside trains?
Or is it for the counter commuters who live downtown and ride Skytrain to the burbs?!?
i.e. You wouldn't ride your bike into town from an outliying area only to ride Skytrain back out?
The distances on the downtown penninsula are relatively short, so would people ride a bike,
pay to park the bike then pay to ride Skytrain out of the core?

I would expect that the preferred location would be near the cycling paths/network, independent of Skytrain.

[fever]

Originally Posted by officedweller

I also find it odd that there's a need to co-locate the bike facility with a rapid transit station.
Why not bigger bike facilities at the outlying stations so that bikes don't take up room inside trains?

I agree, to an extent. I think this type of facility would be useful in some form (with some features) downtown. Biking makes a lot of sense for trips between 1 km and 4 km, about the distance from this facility to King Ed or Commercial. For these trips, biking is almost always faster than the bus (and often driving), and you don't need to shower or bring a change of clothes. This area encompasses the bulk of the City of Vancouver's jobs and probably most of its population.

That said, this would probably be more useful in Richmond Centre (no hills!)), Metrotown or Edmonds (where it could also serving uptown New West), or Surrey Central (where I hear the bus service sucks).


I should add that I think you're right about the colocation. There's no reason to transfer from bike to Skytrain at Granville station. They need a central location that's easy to get to on a bike, and that doesn't describe Granville station particularly well.

[officedweller]

Yeah, I think it's more politically motivated - the City needs a visible place to show it is supporting cycling - even if it is not the optimum location for the cyclists.

[jlousa]

Okay just to clarify something, this is a condition for the Pacific Centre rezoning, in order to be rezoned they would need to provide ~367 bike stalls under current regulations so thats why they are focusing on this location. It will serve the citys interest as well as Cadillac Fairviews.
The original plan for a bike parkade was at Granville and Robson where Future Shop is now, it was to be an office tower back in 91 but never happened.
The same thing will happen when it's Oakridges' turn for rezoning, and I'm sure some of the other cities will start doing to same.