The viewcones are a shameful affront to individual liberty, human achievement and architectural integrity. They cannot be supported on any rational grounds.
Okay. I'm not sure if one, both, or neither of you is being sarcastic. As somebody else pointed out, view cone policy is not necessary to design and build interesting architecture. But, if you think that this building would have been at all architecturally interesting without the view-cone policy, you haven't been living in Vancouver for very long.
With the rare exception, the developers in this city are interested in one thing and one thing only: squeezing as much profit out of their land as possible. This certainly makes sense from an economic point-of-view, but it doesn't provide any public benefits.
It would certainly be more interesting than, say...a hole in the ground. But thats just my opinion. Also, even if the tower didnt have the 45 degree twist, it would still look pretty slick.
But, if you think that this building would have been at all architecturally interesting without the view-cone policy, you haven't been living in Vancouver for very long.
Okay, I am not sure if you are being sarcastic or not, but it is pretty funny either way.
wpp is a very neat building, one of my favs. Looks like its leaning from some angles. The view cones had a part in its design, but surely architects would've made it similar and taller if it werent for the viewcones.
wpp is a very neat building, one of my favs. Looks like its leaning from some angles. The view cones had a part in its design, but surely architects would've made it similar and taller if it werent for the viewcones.
They might have, but probably not. Often creativity of design comes from solving unique challenges, artificially imposed or otherwise.
Also in my experience developers only give their designers just enough leeway to get a project approved, only in very rare cases do developers volunteer a truly fantastic building out of the goodness of their hearts.
i want to smoke in your face, in a public building, do you think that is supported by individual liberty? no. you can extend the same argument for view cones because council has decided they offer a positive benefit for citizens of vancouver, trumping any individual property rights.
Hate to bring up calgary again, but it has no viewcones, yet the Bow and Eighth Avenue Place both look pretty righteous. Also, they have 3 newer towers at around 160m tall, each looks quite nice. Long story short, unless designers out here are mentally challenged, i say that view cones are not the only factor (or even a factor at all) in what makes a building look neat. The Bow could've been a simple rectangle.
I realize that was off topic, so i'll redeem myself with this- wpp has a relatively small footprint, and its height is nice and proportional. So in this rare instance, excessive height wasnt necessary to make a striking creation. Though of course it would be nice if it were wider and taller, to better show off its fancy design.
Height ≠Good-looking building
Case in point: Shangri-La. Boring
So adding height to West Pender Place doesn't mean it would look any more attractive
Conversely, think of all the cities that have low-height buildings and are attractive. Paris, Rome and Barcelona come to mind immediately.
Let's get over the obsession that the city would look better if everything was taller. It's great architecture that makes a building nice, not the height. And I'm definitely not against height. I think a few supertalls would add to the skyline, but if everything was tall, it would defeat the point of having some tall buildings - to make them stand out, because of their great design.
i want to smoke in your face, in a public building, do you think that is supported by individual liberty? no. you can extend the same argument for view cones because council has decided they offer a positive benefit for citizens of vancouver, trumping any individual property rights.
Well said. I'll have to reconsider. It's that view cones were imposed on the city arbitrarily, and while views are always nice, I don't know how effective they really are; not in the downtown area, anyway.
They may help maintain the mountain views for Kits and Point Grey residents, though (and maintain their property values a little, too,) but that's not the point here, I know.
Good points DJH, I agree. I will even take it a step further and say that you don't need great architecture to make a great city. (though it helps)
One of the complaints we constanly hear about vancouver is the sameness of all the buildings. But you never hear people say that about paris, where most of the buildings are even more similar than they are here. A certain conformity of design helps create a sense of place and a back drop for the really great buildings (like WPP) to shine from.
Places like dubai have more unique and stricking architecture but they haven't created great cities IMO.
Well said. I'll have to reconsider. It's that view cones were imposed on the city arbitrarily, and while views are always nice, I don't know how effective they really are; not in the downtown area, anyway.
They may help maintain the mountain views for Kits and Point Grey residents, though (and maintain their property values a little, too,) but that's not the point here, I know.
Except that as we all like to forget here on this forum, last year the city conducted a survey and citizens overwhelmingly voted in favour of keeping the viewcones. It's not arbitrary, anymore. I would include a link but there was a thread about it on here so I think we all remember it?
I'm not sure what these strips are. They go all the way up at regular intervals. A lighting feature, perhaps? Taken by SFUVancouver, November 9th, 2010.
__________________ VANCOUVER | Beautiful, Multicultural | Canada's Pacific Metropolis
Prev
Agreed, this one turned out very nice!
Linear Mode
