The Georgia | 157m | 48 fl | Completed

[SpikePhanta]

That sidewalk is going to be quite crowded, with the trees and all.

[officedweller]

I think the frosted glass is probably to hide the raindrops that accumulate on the glass.

[Locked In]

It's gloomy out and hard to tell, but it looks like some enormous grey spandrel panels have started to go up on the north side of the building. Ugh - did the UDP forget about this corner of the building or something (cue UDP bashers...)

My photos, today:


Full Size


Full Size

[Hed Kandi]

..

[LeftCoaster]

Let the usual talk to biggest architectural disaster of all time begin!

I love what this forum has degenerated into...

[SFUVancouver]

^ Yeah. It's getting discouraging to come into the forum and see so many negative nonconstructive posts.

The UDP meddles too much. Why didn't the UDP catch this?

Well, which is it?

I am going to make an educated guess and say that nearly all of the forumers who feel the UDP is unhelpful, overbearing, omnipotent, or dictatorial have never actually attended a meeting. If they had they would see that City staff request input from the Panel on specific questions that the planning department have been grappling with and this is what most of the Panel comment on. Some Panellist will speak their mind about the level of detail that forumers here expect, the majority do not, especially considering the diversity of professional expertise around the table. Engineers and Landscape Architects often choose to not comment on the architectural expression of the building, deferring instead to the architects around the table to comment on their area of expertise. With that said, while the applicant team hears all of the comments that are offered only the consensus items, or particularly salient comments, make it into the Chair's summary and the official minutes which are referred to by the DPB. Plus, there are four or five items a meeting, routinely resulting in five hour-plus commitment for the volunteer Panellists after they have put in a full day of work, and there is simply a limit to the amount of detailed input the Panellists can offer. The meetings are open to the public, take place bi-weekly at City Hall in Committee Room 1 beginning at 4pm.

[Locked In]

Whoops, didn't mean to be a downer about UDP - I was being facetious, but I should know better than to stir the pot with this crowd. I'm just a bit disappointed to see 30 stories of window wall and spandrels going up outside my window, especially when the south-west corner looks so great. Ah well.

[officedweller]

UDP aside - what is/was the developer thinking?
Delta Land has produced a number of great towers - Carina, Callisto & Cielo - some of the details on this one appear to be lacking.
Or maybe it's just its location with so many eyes trained on it!

If the panels were some sort of lighting feature, it may be interesting, but even the size and proportion for that use is odd.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Hed Kandi

Another one bites the dust.

Another WHAT bites the dust ????

[dleung]

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

^ Yeah. It's getting discouraging to come into the forum and see so many negative nonconstructive posts.

The UDP meddles too much. Why didn't the UDP catch this?

Well, which is it?

I am going to make an educated guess and say that nearly all of the forumers who feel the UDP is unhelpful, overbearing, omnipotent, or dictatorial have never actually attended a meeting. If they had they would see that City staff request input from the Panel on specific questions that the planning department have been grappling with and this is what most of the Panel comment on. Some Panellist will speak their mind about the level of detail that forumers here expect, the majority do not, especially considering the diversity of professional expertise around the table. Engineers and Landscape Architects often choose to not comment on the architectural expression of the building, deferring instead to the architects around the table to comment on their area of expertise. With that said, while the applicant team hears all of the comments that are offered only the consensus items, or particularly salient comments, make it into the Chair's summary and the official minutes which are referred to by the DPB. Plus, there are four or five items a meeting, routinely resulting in five hour-plus commitment for the volunteer Panellists after they have put in a full day of work, and there is simply a limit to the amount of detailed input the Panellists can offer. The meetings are open to the public, take place bi-weekly at City Hall in Committee Room 1 beginning at 4pm.

It's no question that the UDP has done well for architecture and urbanism here, but there's nothing wrong with calling it out when it does fail to catch something or when it "meddles too much". The Georgia is supposed to be a high-quality building, yet the design is full of contradictions, such as the sloped glass being canceled out by the straight volume protruding beside it; the office level curtain wall being concealed by fake louvers that blocks non-existant sunlight; having curtainwall on the west corner while using windowwall for an identically-patterned east corner,; the emasculated precast the the base, the list goes on...

[LeftCoaster]

Of course criticism is more than welcome when it is thoughtful and appropriate, but I think a lot of us are just getting sick of every thread devolving into "worse building ever" and a continual tirade against the UDP, know nothing architect hacks, viewcones etc... its just getting tired.

It seems there are more and more people on here who have absolutely nothing but negative comments to make, and honestly, it gets boring.

One little issue is found in a building and all of a sudden the world is coming down. I know everyone has their own opinion, and I know we will not always all agree, but some people just need some new talking points I guess.

[giallo]

^ Fully agree. The Jameson thread is a perfect example.
If you've got to get something off your chest, at least add something to the discussion so it can be debated. The whole ''Vancouver's got the worst architecture ever, so why should we expect anything more'' diatribe that is constantly spouted by a few members here is tiring.

[EdinVan]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

It seems there are more and more people on here who have absolutely nothing but negative comments to make, and honestly, it gets boring.

Is someone forcing you to read them?

[dreambrother808]

I think that the issue is one of tone. Are your critiques balanced or hyperbolic? Do you erroneously extrapolate every flaw/issue into a generalizing rant?

For example, Jameson would probably look better without the exposed concrete, but does that cancel out the great beauty of the rest of the design, its grandeur as you walk eastward down Hastings? No.

Is the Georgia also flawed? IMO, yes, I agree with some of Dleung's complaints. Nevertheless, it succeeds in ways as well.

No one is being forced to read anything, but it would be nice to have some vaguely constructive direction to the flow of conversation.

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by EdinVan

Is someone forcing you to read them?

No, but for the most part I enjoy coming on this site, and I try to stay abreast of whats going on and read all the threads, and therefore I end up reading page after page of misdirected low value adding tirades.

[osirisboy]

Someone (Im thinking Dleung) should just start a thread specifically for voicing their negative comments so it frees up the rest of the threads for construction conversation. I agree its getting a bit tiresome hearing the same old shit from these negative Nelly's

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

It seems there are more and more people on here who have absolutely nothing but negative comments to make, and honestly, it gets boring.

For the last ten pages of this thread, you have had absolutely nothing to say about Georgia at all, positive or negative. Instead of using your time to scold others for not providing you with the kind of comments you deem acceptable, why don't you actually contribute some thoughtful, substantive analysis or criticism of your own?

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

I agree its getting a bit tiresome hearing the same old shit from these negative Nelly's

And you have had nothing to say about Georgia since June of 2010, when all you did was ask others to provide you with information about Georgia's glass and to say that you "hate" the glass rotunda across the street.

What's tiresome is people who have nothing to say about a building complaining about people who do.

[trofirhen]

OK. I'll try and post something positive. While it's true that many people are a bit disappointed that "the crystal" design for the Georgia was replaced by the more practical, and less $$$$ one that is there now, we cannot change that, so let's appreciate what we do have.

The Georgia is interesting in its use of angles. The colour of the glass on the main sides approaches sapphire (if we stretch our imaginations a bit, I will admit) and the brick and tera-cotta trimmings harmonize well with the adjacent buildings.

Remember, theoretically, it might have been a grotesque circular, mini-Taipei Tower, or a colourless grey rectangular bare concrete slab ... but it isn't.

It would be great if we could make the roof of the existing Hotel Georgia into a classy restaurant open to the public.

As it is, it's exclusive, and ultra-elitist. But they might find it more profitable as a rooftop restaurant. Wouldn't that add to the city's urbanity? Perfect location.

This isn't much of a contribution, but I'm trying to change the conversation arc around, so please bear with me, everybody.
Thank you

[Sprawl]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

For the last ten pages of this thread, you have had absolutely nothing to say about Georgia at all, positive or negative. Instead of using your time to scold others for not providing you with the kind of comments you deem acceptable, why don't you actually contribute some thoughtful, substantive analysis or criticism of your own?

Originally Posted by Prometheus

And you have had nothing to say about Georgia since June of 2010, when all you did was ask others to provide you with information about Georgia's glass and to say that you "hate" the glass rotunda across the street.

What's tiresome is people who have nothing to say about a building complaining about people who do.

Hi there, long time lurker, short time member.
I don't see how a lack of commentary about specific buildings precludes people from discussing this issue. I too am sick of the hyperbolic highfaluting that has begun to take hold in this forum and I don't see how my lack of commentary, constructive or otherwise, in any threads invalidates my opinion, let alone how it validates the comments in question, as you seem to suggest.

Having recently moved to a very different part of the world, I use this forum to keep up to date on Vancouver's development, not to read pages upon pages of diatribes re a few square metres of odd-coloured spandrel and suchlike.

No project is perfect, demanding so is completely unrealistic. Regarding The Georgia - and all other previous, current and future developments - I think everyone should take a step back and assess them on whether or not they make a positive contribution to Vancouver's urban fabric, rather than criticise them in their entirety on the basis of relatively minor problems.

I think it's fair to say that the Georgia makes a very positive contribution. Yes, there are also valid architectural criticisms to be made about certain aspects of it, but that doesn't change the fact that it is a fundamentally good building.

I agree with the motion for an individual thread for such discussion and I apologise for taking the thread further off topic.

So, how's about that Georgia, eh?