The Georgia | 157m | 48 fl | Completed

[Yume-sama]

The previous design definitely would have been a stunning landmark, assuming it wouldn't be clad in sea-foam green. Though, you can definitely understand why it was shot down. It's... architecturally daring!

Also, a building like that deserves to be taller, 800+ feet.

You'd also assume it would be a lot more expensive to build, so if the city didn't shoot it down, the developer probably would have eventually, in the recent economic climate.

Box is cheaper.

[itinerant]

The interesting thing about the crystal (looks like something out of Superman's Fortess of Solitude to me) was that it was designed to use a standard 8' x 8' module, that was ultimately expressed in the pinnacle. Presumably the argument was that this module would provide certain benefits in the construction of standardized components that would yield a cost-savings, especially in the heights that had been proposed.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by itinerant

There is a good comparison of before and after on this project (Bing Thom design versus what we have now) at PriceTags: http://pricetags.wordpress.com/2006/12/18/what-happened/

It is so sad and infuriating to see what the viewcone laws (and the UDP) have done to our city, i.e., how they have suppressed architectural daring, boldness, integrity and the ambitious spirit.

Many, many years ago, we were a city that proudly built the tallest (and most forward-looking) towers in the British Empire.

[vansky]

vancouver should forget about the mountain skyline, and start thinking about creating views...with taller and more interesting buildings

but every time i think about erickson's last piece of work, i feel a little bit sad, let's guess who would be the next vancouver architectural legend to die~~? j/k

[PaperTiger]

I don't believe the City or the UDP shot down the crystal design, (though they would have it was proposed at 800 feet). The property changed hands and the new owner went with there own designs. I suspect construction cost played a major roll in their design choice.

I 'm still sad that the Thom design won't be built, but you can't blame everything on the city.

[dreambrother808]

Yeah, why do people so readily assume that the city and the UDP are responsible for every perceived architectural shortcoming? I would assume that creative designs are more expensive and therefore risky on the part of the developers.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by PaperTiger

I don't believe the City or the UDP shot down the crystal design (though they would have if it was proposed at 800 feet). The property changed hands and the new owner went with there own designs. I suspect construction cost played a major roll in their design choice.

It always does. But how tall (i.e., dense) their building was permitted to be also played a major roll in their projected revenue. Thus, a bold and visionary (but costly) design may be profitable at 68 floors but not at 48. Hence, viewcone policy directly interferes with the economics of development to the detriment of ambitious and challenging architecture.

[Metro-One]

While I do wish the original proposal was built, I am still content with what is being built currently.

I actually like the Georgia's design (much more than most towers built in vancouver over the last 10 years).

I also think it will add some decent height (remember, it is taller than 1 Wall) in the perfect area.

[itinerant]

I wouldn't go so far as to say creative designs are more expensive or risky. It really depends what you're building, where it is, and who its for.

If you are putting up a stack of flats, then a creative design solution might be to prefab units on the ground and hoist them into place. If you do enough of these, you overcome the setup cost of creating the module fabrication plant on the ground, and it becomes competitive with the cost of a typical build in situ type of construction using conventional methods. In that case, creative design = efficient and practical building ($$).

On the sales and marketing side, interesting designs with inspiring architecture with extravagant or exceptionally crafted details will draw crowds of buyers and leasers who want that sort of thing and are willing to pay a premium price for it ($$$$).

The places where people live, and the environments they surround themselves with, say a lot about who they are and their feelings about quality and craftsmanship. For businesses, it says a great deal about what they are selling. So they will locate themselves in a building that screams "this is who we are and what we make". BMW follows this design philosophy.

Developers who go for creative designs measure their risk in terms of what marginal gain in return they can achieve by knowing their customers or creating markets their customers will flock to. For condos, that means selling a lifestyle. For commercial buildings, that means selling an address, prestige, and quality. For industrial buildings, it means efficiency.

So, a 'creative' design is one that isn't necessarily expensive or risky to a developer who knows their business, but it is almost always exciting and worthwhile.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

While I do wish the original proposal was built, I am still content with what is being built currently.

I think you perfectly sum-up an attitude which has helped suppress Vancouver's full potential for architectural richness and beauty: contentment with mediocrity.

[itinerant]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

It always does. But how tall (i.e., dense) their building was permitted to be also played a major roll in their projected revenue. Thus, a bold and visionary (but costly) design may be profitable at 68 floors but not at 48. Hence, viewcone policy directly affects the economics of development to the detriment of ambitious and original architecture.

Agreed on the economics of height. I think some adjustment in the view cones over the centre of the downtown core should be considered. Otherwise, we may end up with a very flat, dense, sprawling horizontal city. That said, the retention of height restrictions doesn't stifle creativity in and of itself. Cities with much lower restrictions than Vancouver have spectacular non-tall urban environments.

Perhaps Vancouver should build up where mountain views are not an issue... Kerrisdale?

[ozonemania]

What we really need is for Surrey to build some stellar buildings, and get Vancouver off its high horse. Maybe a bit of competition close to home will get them to realize they aren't the be all and end all. There is a bit of hubris that has developed since the concept of Vancouverism has emerged.

I am sad as well re: the Crystal design. I had almost forgot about it... I was very excited the first time I saw the renderings.

I'd also like to put forth that the view cone philosophy had good reasons to be effected at the onset, and I would argue that the impact of these guidelines have served the city very well and would not have traded it in if given a second chance to do things differently. However, the city is much different than it was 30-40 years ago, and sometimes things do need to change to stay relevant.

[itinerant]

Originally Posted by ozonemania

What we really need is for Surrey to build some stellar buildings, and get Vancouver off its high horse. Maybe a bit of competition close to home will get them to realize they aren't the be all and end all. There is a bit of hubris that has developed since the concept of Vancouverism has emerged.

I am sad as well re: the Crystal design. I had almost forgot about it... I was very excited the first time I saw the renderings.

I'd also like to put forth that the view cone philosophy had good reasons to be effected at the onset, and I would argue that the impact of these guidelines have served the city very well and would not have traded it in if given a second chance to do things differently. However, the city is much different than it was 30-40 years ago, and sometimes things do need to change to stay relevant.

Surrey has two great buildings already! Surrey Central and the new Surrey Central Library. Coincidentally, both by Bing Thom (designer of the crystal tower for Hotel Georgia). Seems he has come to a similar conclusion.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by ozonemania

I would argue that the impact of these [viewcone] guidelines have served the city very well and would not have traded it in if given a second chance to do things differently.

Let us hear your argument then. How precisely have they "served the city very well"? What precisely have they achieved and why is it best? Let us evaluate the soundness of your argument.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

I think you perfectly sum-up an attitude which has helped suppress Vancouver's full potential for architectural richness and beauty: contentment with mediocrity.

I am contempt with this tower because I still like the design that is being built, and the fact that it is our second tallest. I would not be contempt if another 100m bland condo was being built on that site.

Sometimes it seems nothing is good enough for some of the forum members on here.

I agree that the view cones need to be relaxed and Vancouver needs some more daring structures, but I am not going to complain about a tower such as this, one that has a decent design and good height. Complain about all the others, but not this one.

If the company was so keen on building the crystal than why did they not locate another property in the downtown core when they sold this one?

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by itinerant

There is a good comparison of before and after on this project (Bing Thom design versus what we have now) at PriceTags: http://pricetags.wordpress.com/2006/12/18/what-happened/

Took a look, thanks for the reference.
Sad. Money wins. As is usually the case.

[Vancouver_Highrise]

taken by me.

Can't wait for this one to finish.

[vansky]

how many floors to go, currently doesn't seem that tall with the surrounding...

[jlousa]

I'll take a stab on how the view cones have served us well and how they will continue to serve us well into the future

1) They retain the views both statically and dynamically for everyone to enjoy not just those in the uppermost floors of a few select buildings.
2) They have assisted in spreading out the density over a wider area then would probably have happened w/o them. Instead of 400 20 story buildings having being built we might have had 200 40 story buildings. While the 2nd might sound ideal to "skyscraper fans" the first provides for greater livability to the residents as density has already reached a critical mass at that stage and anything more would add a diminishing return of amenities but additional crowding.
3) Perhaps the most overlooked is the amount of sunlight that is introduced to ground level due to the viewcones. This was accidental and not by design but have all these paths carved out has allowed our downtown to suffer from minimal dark areas and has created a much more welcoming street experience.

Thats not to say that there can't be tweaks here or there but the current system has certainly provided may positives to our city. I would be interested in how people actually think our city would've been better w/o them. I wouldn't want to give up the above for the sake of having a building or 2 that might be taller then our current tallest.

The cost differences between the two proposals wouldn't have been too much material wise, in fact you could easily have made Bing's proposal for less then the current proposal depending on how you outfitted the units, but would they sell? The fact is the numbers would've been run and the marketing guys would've stated what would've been the easier sell and that's what they would've run with. The Jameson is a perfect example of a project that fans like to see but developers hate. Sales were very slow and continue to be a hard sell, one developer lost his shirt on the deal. It's why projects like it are the exceptions and not the rule.

[PROSTSHOCKER]

I love how the current tower meets the street, which in contrast to Bing's design - his had above grade parking.

Furthermore, I love how the light from the bottom of the pool will shine through shards in the ceiling of the building's street side atrium.

So, uh. I love it. And I'm excited to see it completed.