1021 W Hastings | 143M | 36Fl | Completed - Page 7

officedweller · #**121** Posted **Feb 10, 2011, 11:16 PM**

My comment was in reference to making it even higher to be taller than Shaw Tower.

Canadian Mind · #**122** Posted **Feb 10, 2011, 11:38 PM**

I agree with the comment I saw about making the crown steeper. Could be a way of getting it up over 160 without throwing in another elevator core. Personally I feel it would look best if it were exactly twice the height of the Marine Building.

Big question though, will the crown be lit up?

Regardless, I'm joining the choir, the new building design is outstanding!

officedweller · #**123** Posted **Feb 11, 2011, 12:41 AM**

Here's the entrance canopy to the Bishopsgate Tower (The Pinnacle) in London
- It would be nice if 1021's canopy extended further over the sidewalk (even if as an "add-on" canopy).

Pic posted on SSC:

http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/2839TheBishopsgateTower_pic2.jpg

http://www.willfox.com/images/skyscrapers/bishopsgatetower/base.jpg

wrenegade · #**124** Posted **Feb 11, 2011, 12:50 AM**

That glazing is pretty fantastic, I'd love to see that here! The entrance canopy is also pretty wicked there, but won't most of the entrance be integrated into the old University Club building?

Canadian Mind · #**125** Posted **Feb 11, 2011, 12:54 AM**

I love the look of the canopy, but wont there be concern for falling glass in the event of an earthquake?

officedweller · #**126** Posted **Feb 11, 2011, 12:58 AM**

Vancouver already has tons of glass canopies - this would be no different in a 'quake.
Not sure where the entrance to the tower would be - I thought the University Club Building was going to be retail.
I could see a canopy overlapping a few feet in front of the University Club and wrapping all the way around to the Cordova side.

BTW - I just noticed that the 3 corners of the 1021 tower are all different.

- NE is chamfered (a bevelled corner)
- the SE is pointed
- SW is rounded

navazan · #**127** Posted **Feb 11, 2011, 3:18 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Canadian Mind

I love the look of the canopy, but wont there be concern for falling glass in the event of an earthquake?

if the big one ever hits, a bit of extra falling glass aint gonna make a difference to the fact that most of us will be totally f**ked

Cypherus · #**128** Posted **Feb 11, 2011, 4:15 PM**

Looks like the view cone restriction for that site is 550' (with flexible increase to 600'). If Dubai can build supertalls in the sand, I don't see why this tower can't increase its height by another 100' despite its small footprint. I love this tower's menacing design and I'd hate to see it buried under the sea of Vancouver's other 450' towers.

trofirhen · #**129** Posted **Feb 11, 2011, 5:18 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cypherus

Looks like the view cone restriction for that site is 550' (with flexible increase to 600'). If Dubai can build supertalls in the sand, I don't see why this tower can't increase its height by another 100' despite its small footprint. I love this tower's menacing design and I'd hate to see it buried under the sea of Vancouver's other 450' towers.

Agreed! .... 100% ... word for word ....

(this 450 tower baloney has Got to GO!!

)

Mininari · #**130** Posted **Feb 11, 2011, 5:49 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Agreed! .... 100% ... word for word ....

(this 450 tower baloney has Got to GO!!

)

Not to mention that if the view cone map shows permissivity up to 550', AND its a prominent design, AND its going to be in the view shadow of other buildings anyway...

So a little of the building sticks out into a 400' zone. BIG DEAL.
This is a tremendous opportunity to add a prominent, signature OFFICE TOWER to the skyline. Even if it doesn't meet the top-quality architectural expectations of everyone, its still a very nice design given the constrained site. Plus, lets not forget we're talking about a potential new "tallest office-only" tower!

Come on, council... show us you're serious about improving the skyline, and let them push this one up to the height it deserves so that it can properly "stand above the Shaw and Fairmont."

PaperTiger · #**131** Posted **Feb 11, 2011, 7:23 PM**

I think this building is great, and not the place for the ultimate signature office tower. A little more height would be nice, if unlikely.

Personally I think the Telus site, The Bay parkade, the post office and Larwill Park (either in front or behind the new VAG) are the sites we should be looking for true signature towers.

For all you UDP hater’s, Look at this proposal and look at the previous one and try and tell me the first one was better. I can guarantee that it would have been cheaper to build and therefore more profitable.

EastVanMark · #**132** Posted **Feb 11, 2011, 8:28 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaperTiger

I think this building is great, and not the place for the ultimate signature office tower.

Agreed. The new design for the tower is fantastic but its location will dampen it's impact. This tower on the Telus site would be tremendous boost to the bland architecture in the downtown core. Instead its wedged between two buildings, one of which is historic landmark.

officedweller · #**133** Posted **Feb 11, 2011, 8:54 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cypherus

Looks like the view cone restriction for that site is 550' (with flexible increase to 600'). If Dubai can build supertalls in the sand, I don't see why this tower can't increase its height by another 100' despite its small footprint. I love this tower's menacing design and I'd hate to see it buried under the sea of Vancouver's other 450' towers.

Just a note that if the view cone limits it to 550', then that's the maximum height. The view cone takes precedence over the 600' discretionary limit.

Canadian Mind · #**134** Posted **Feb 11, 2011, 9:03 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by officedweller

Just a note that if the view cone limits it to 550', then that's the maximum height. The view cone takes precedence over the 600' discretionary limit.

That is still around 165 meters... Pretty good height if you ask me.

Prometheus · #**135** Posted **Feb 11, 2011, 9:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Canadian Mind

That is still around 165 meters...

167.64 metres, to be exact. Those extra 23 metres are vital to the design's successful achievement of its natural architectural telos. It is easy to see that the height of the current design stops about 6 stories short of self-perfection, like so many other buildings in Vancouver.

Canadian Mind · #**136** Posted **Feb 11, 2011, 10:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prometheus

167.64 metres, to be exact. Those extra 23 metres are vital to the design's successful achievement of its natural architectural telos. It is easy to see that the height of the current design stops about 6 stories short of self-perfection, like so many other buildings in Vancouver.

I'm not saying it is bad in it's current form. But as slender as it is, it still looks short butted up against the Marine building and the Guinness tower, and I think a greater height (approaching twice the height of both, but that isn't possible) would give it better proportions compared to the two adjacent buildings. It would also have the benefit of helping what appears to be a magnificent looking tower stand out more compared to the rest.

As well, a 25-30 meter elevation difference between it and the Shaw & Fairmont, stepping back from the Harbour would look good on it's own, and add to the big city feel of Vancouver's downtown. Effectively, it would make the two large towers that are right on the water seem small compared to what is behind it.

Prometheus · #**137** Posted **Feb 11, 2011, 10:14 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Canadian Mind

I think a greater height (approaching twice the height of both, but that isn't possible) would give it better proportions compared to the two adjacent buildings.

I think your intuition is correct. I think classical principles of proportion demand that it be twice the height of the Marine Building.

Canadian Mind · #**138** Posted **Feb 11, 2011, 10:35 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prometheus

I think your intuition is correct. I think classical principles of proportion demand that it be twice the height of the Marine Building.

If for nothing else it would make for a magnificent backdrop for the Marine building, it is an incredible contrast of design. And while I can't put my finger on why, I think having it too short ruins the concept of it being a backdrop.

officedweller · #**139** Posted **Feb 11, 2011, 10:48 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlousa

Agree with Leftcoaster, it will be very tough to make it higher, at 36flrs of office space already, the elevators are stretched as is. Add a few more floors you probably need an additional elevator wiping out a sizable amount of sqftage on every floor. They could certainly make each floor taller but they won't get much more money in lease rates for that. We'll see how things play out.

Just occurred to me...

Maybe the solution to adding more floors would be using double-decker elevators (for one bank of elevators i.e. the lower portion)?

Both First Canadain Place and Scotia Plaza in Toronto use double decker elevators.

Of course, that would require redesign of the lobby to a two-storey configuration (as well as educating tenants and slowing things down generally whenever the elevator cab is serving a "wrong" floor).

trofirhen · #**140** Posted **Feb 11, 2011, 11:52 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Canadian Mind

That is still around 165 meters... Pretty good height if you ask me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prometheus

167.64 metres, to be exact. Those extra 23 metres are vital to the design's successful achievement of its natural architectural telos. It is easy to see that the height of the current design stops about 6 stories short of self-perfection, like so many other buildings in Vancouver.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prometheus

I think your intuition is correct. I think classical principles of proportion demand that it be twice the height of the Marine Building.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Canadian Mind

If for nothing else it would make for a magnificent backdrop for the Marine building, it is an incredible contrast of design. And while I can't put my finger on why, I think having it too short ruins the concept of it being a backdrop.

Quote:

Originally Posted by officedweller

Just occurred to me...

Maybe the solution to adding more floors would be using double-decker elevators (for one bank of elevators i.e. the lower portion)?

Both First Canadain Place and Scotia Plaza in Toronto use double decker elevators.

Of course, that would require redesign of the lobby to a two-storey configuration (as well as educating tenants and slowing things down generally whenever the elevator cab is serving a "wrong" floor).

Please, God, there MUST be a way of getting this one the right height. If we pray, lobby, demonstrate ..... it has to be high, as Prometheus and C.M. say .... this is too good an opportunity to waste for a viewcone. If there is ever an exception to the viewcone ruling to be made ... please let this be it ......