Burrard Place | 168m, 112m, 56m | 54fl, 36fl, 13fl | 938,000 sqft | U/C

[ckkelley]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

There's no need to attack anyone for not liking this tower... seriously.

Ckkelley, that was one of the most ridiculous comments I've read here in a long time. If you can't handle the fact that someone else disagrees with you about the aesthetics of a development that really has nothing personal to do with anyone's life, you have some issues.

Well I *guess* that's your opinion. Or is that fact?

Anyway, using the above reasoning you espouse, should you not have made those personal attacks on me?

It strikes me as more than a tad hypocritical. In my opinion.

[flight_from_kamakura]

hopefully it was rejected because of the burrard st. side. podium there works alright on drake, but just seems oddly insulting to burrard. site orientation is really weird, i guess there must be some reason the height isn't running along burrard, view cone restrictions or stepping requirements or something, because otherwise there's no sense in it. actually don't mind the design, despite the miami beach look (hah, totally), the color and raygun finish break up the monotony. anyway, thanks for the great photos, sfu, much appreciated.

[Chikinlittle]

1) I agree that it's a relatively busy design
2) There are numerous complaints about how all the glass towers look the same, spandrel, seaform, blah blah blah. Finally something different and guess what? Complaints!
3) Overall, take it or leave it, I would say take it. But, I don't like the duplication of the design in the second shorter tower. I think the design would stand much stronger if the tall tower were unique in its own and that more variation from that design were incorporated into the shorter tower.

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by ckkelley

Well I *guess* that's your opinion. Or is that fact?

Anyway, using the above reasoning you espouse, should you not have made those personal attacks on me?

It strikes me as more than a tad hypocritical. In my opinion.

I'm sorry to have become entangled in your childish world. Next time I'll know better than to reply.

[ckkelley]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

I'm sorry to have become entangled in your childish world. Next time I'll know better than to reply.

You did it again. I don't think you can help yourself. Being a hypocrite is not the least bit becoming. I think perhaps my comments hit a little too close home. Hmm?

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by ckkelley

You didn't like it? What a surprise! Is there a single building in Vancouver you do like?

I will give you credit for putting some thought into your criticism though, I just think you shouldn't pass off opinion as fact is all.

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

I think it's obvious that most of what anyone posts here is opinion.

As for the design, the word suburban came to my mind as well, particularly Brentwood. I thought of the Holdum towers, in part due to the cheesy colour combo. This design is just a more complicated version of something that would be more acceptable in Burnaby.

Originally Posted by ckkelley

I think what's obvious is that 90% of the negative remarks are driven by envy and jealousy by those that can't afford to live in such towers. Sour grapes, if you will.

In my opinion.

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

There's no need to attack anyone for not liking this tower... seriously.

Ckkelley, that was one of the most ridiculous comments I've read here in a long time. If you can't handle the fact that someone else disagrees with you about the aesthetics of a development that really has nothing personal to do with anyone's life, you have some issues.

As for Metro-one, I do think there is a difference between most suburban and downtown towers. Some, however, are to a degree interchangeable.

Originally Posted by ckkelley

Well I *guess* that's your opinion. Or is that fact?

Anyway, using the above reasoning you espouse, should you not have made those personal attacks on me?

It strikes me as more than a tad hypocritical. In my opinion.

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

I'm sorry to have become entangled in your childish world. Next time I'll know better than to reply.

Originally Posted by ckkelley

You did it again. I don't think you can help yourself. Being a hypocrite is not the least bit becoming. I think perhaps my comments hit a little too close home. Hmm?

Could we avoid the "ad hominem" attacks here, please? They take up space (yea yea; look who's talking ...) but more importantly, they digress away from the topic here ... which is Burrard Gateway.

Go slug it out using private messaging.

[phesto]

Funny, the first thing I thought of when I saw the model photos was the original model presented to the UDP for The Melville project, which was rejected and redesigned. (what we got in the end was good, so hopefully the same occurs here)

I may have a tendency to favour simpler designs, but I agree with those comments that it looks far too busy. I think the massing is fine though.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by Chikinlittle

1) I agree that it's a relatively busy design
2) There are numerous complaints about how all the glass towers look the same, spandrel, seaform, blah blah blah. Finally something different and guess what? Complaints!
3) Overall, take it or leave it, I would say take it. But, I don't like the duplication of the design in the second shorter tower. I think the design would stand much stronger if the tall tower were unique in its own and that more variation from that design were incorporated into the shorter tower.

I definitely agree with this, i think you pretty much nailed it. The tallest tower only needs some tweaks, the second tower does need a redesign.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

I definitely agree with this, i think you pretty much nailed it. The tallest tower only needs some tweaks, the second tower does need a redesign.

Metro, I agree that the second tower needs a redesign away from the first, and the the tallest tower just needs some "tweaks" as you put it.

One of my little peeves is that yellow striping. It somehow clashes with the white concrete. I'm not 100% gung-ho on this overall design, really, but with a bit of refinement, that main tower could be quite dynamic.

I especially like the "zig zag" way they've installed some of the balconies. Gives is a "daring" look (for Vancouver, anyway)

[itinerant]

I think the residential towers would be more effective if they were mirrors of each other rather than big brother and 'mini-me'. Perhaps if the shorter tower were elevated to the same height as the larger. Of the 4 sides on the towers, I think glass side is the worst (and least imaginative).

I like the effect of the white concrete 'lattice' screen, and the variation in its pattern overall--nice concept. However, I wish the architect would carry it down to the sidewalk--at least in one corner on each tower. It would have the effect of heightening the tower and connecting it to the street. I find Vancouver's podium+tower layer cake condos to be a real disappointment in this respect.

The podium and office tower are unmemorable. In the case of the Hornby side, where the podium supports the towers, the glass box is at least a fairly clean contrast. The office tower, however, would benefit from some more attention to design. Even if it remains largely glazing, it could mirror some of the design elements of the towers (e.g. angular glass curtain wall, rhomboid volume). Small tweaks to streamline the office could make it seem part of the project aesthetic instead of the ugly step-child it appears to be right now.

Generally, I think that some tweaks (some big, some small) will improve this project with one more iteration. I hope the UDP is encouraging height, design innovation, and uniqueness--because as-is, there isn't quite enough yet on any of these.

[golog]

I'm happy enough with the design. I don't believe we should be interfere too much after taking care of the basics like how it affects everyone around it minus aesthetics. I mean what's the cost of failure, really? The Eiffel tower was hated even after it was built, let's allow people to take some more chances. Allow feedback, play around a little, but be ready to step back and allow an aesthetic lead balloon through. How much in costs or time gets added with the UDP design by committee process? There's a limit to how much good the UDP can do, and to what extent it should intervene

[itinerant]

Golog, do you mean to suggest the UDP may have too much influence? ;-)

[officedweller]

I agree that it is busy.
I don't understand the UDP comment that the lattice shouldn't be on the sides that don't need the sun shading. It's a design element on the other sides. What they're saying is that you could never have a building with 4 sides that look the same?

The context model shows a substantial tower at Howe & Drake (i.e. even taller than "Salt")

Likes and dislikes:

Likes:

- The white concrete lattice. It sets the towers apart among the glass towers. 5 transitions will look better than the 3 shown. The first transition in lattice grid is too jarring.

- Twin towers. It provides cohesiveness and flags it as a larger more significant complex.

Dislikes:

- The blue curtain walls with orange fins. Ditch the orange fins and keep the blue glass or move to green glass (would work well with the white).

- SW corner balconies on the taller tower - they should wrap the lattice around the balconies to hide them and better define the corner. Ditto for the shorter tower.

- The proportions of the mechanical penthouses are not the same. On the short tower, the lattice stops a couple of floors from the top compared to the taller tower - that makes the "cap" on the shorter tower appear larger. They should be treated the same or the taller tower should have the bigger "cap".

- The podium facades need work. Burrard looks chopped up. Why is there a driveway off Burrard (should be off the lane). I'd like to see some oversized box elements in white concrete on the podium facade to mimic the boxes of the lattice.

- I'd rather see the office tower mimic the other two towers with the lattice.

[golog]

Originally Posted by itinerant

Golog, do you mean to suggest the UDP may have too much influence? ;-)

I've never even attended a meeting. I just like to follow the progression of developments from afar. I've heard members here and people like Bing Thom point out the value of the UDP and its influence over time -- and I trust that is correct. But scrolling through the comments, I can't find a reason that I would be comfortable with of why the developer should not be able to build the design/texture they want to. The higher you raise the bar/uncertainty for approval, the more you stop new projects from being proposed or the ones submitted from being daring enough to spawn a whole new style... or you just get a system where election contributions and other bribe-like donations are used to get anything passed.

I would rather spend the time upgrading the permitting for SFHs where you get problems like the rubberstamp approval of a minor renovation with no public notice retroactively sanctioning prior undisclosed or unapproved changes. Think of all the NIMBY outrage to rezoning that could be avoided if for each new project neighbours had access to all relevant information as soon as possible where their comment could be heard and taken into account since everything costs less the earlier it is brought up.

The current system encourages all or nothing battles imo. It is too fickle and doesn't work as well as it should.

[dreambrother808]

Without the UDP, I imagine that architectural quality would go down rather than up. Why do people think that they dumb down projects? Community input seems to be the greater culprit there, as well as developers' practical concerns with regard to cost and being marketable to the status quo.

If I could make one change to this project, it would be the colour scheme. Something more pleasant than orange and blue, which make me gag a bit in combination, would go a long way to mitigating any other issues I have with the design. I wouldn't love it but whatever.

The office tower, to me, is the best part. It feels a little West Pender Place.

[phesto]

Originally Posted by officedweller

I agree that it is busy.
I don't understand the UDP comment that the lattice shouldn't be on the sides that don't need the sun shading. It's a design element on the other sides. What they're saying is that you could never have a building with 4 sides that look the same?

One of my biggest gripes about the UDP is that they get so concerned with the treatment of each facade that it becomes almost a requirement that each side is different. I understand the requirement to address contextual issues and energy performance, etc., but most of the time the architecture suffers. See Jameson House or Hotel Georgia and many more on the list.

Originally Posted by officedweller

The context model shows a substantial tower at Howe & Drake (i.e. even taller than "Salt")

I don't think a tower there is imminent as it requires the demolition of the small office building at 1265 Howe; but we will likely see a rezoning application in the next few years...

...Also, there's no view corridor restrictions on that site. I'm guessing they'd allow something up to 450 ft?

[officedweller]

It looks pretty tall - maybe not up to 450 ft though. I guess the downtown south height limit is still generally 300 ft?

Originally Posted by itinerant

I think the residential towers would be more effective if they were mirrors of each other rather than big brother and 'mini-me'. Perhaps if the shorter tower were elevated to the same height as the larger. Of the 4 sides on the towers, I think glass side is the worst (and least imaginative).

The two older Wall Centre towers that also have "prows" face adjacent corners of the block (the prows face 90 degress away from each other).

I wonder if there was any suggestion to move the taller tower to the mid-block? The shorter tower would gain more prominence if it were at Drake & Hornby and the large expanse of concrete lattice (if overbearing appearance is a concern) would be reduced.

[golog]

Maybe it's not the UDP at fault, but I thought they were the ones to vote the proposal down in this case.

We would naturally develop tastes and trends to stay inside the box even without a committee. Look at music, or fashion, or other cities without a UDP. Think of the brightly coloured houses in Halifax, a trend that accidentally started from re-using ship paint. Something like that would have never been approved, but it actually worked out pretty well.

Over time the boundaries of the box will move, and I think the UDP should keep that in mind to act more as a guide than a judge. Orange and blue? Why not, who said seafoam green was the ultimate in cool. Bring on a purple building if someone wants to build it. I think we can afford to allow the architects play a little with the outer shell instead of just producing stuff that has already been become accepted after testing elsewhere

On a smaller scale the Vancouver special, or pink stucco houses weren't the end of the world. Meanwhile there are some really cool houses out there that were ahead of their time at construction.

If most of the job is to stop developers from building communist bloc apartments, why not say they need to spend $x on the exterior just like we already do with community amenities. They'll try and spend it on whatever brings the most value, as decided by whoever buys or rents there.

If the UDP wants to encourage developers to push the envelope, set up an annual contest they can judge. The winner for the most exciting project gets to enjoy relaxed permitting. But if someone wants to build a skyscraper in the shape of a grizzly bear with golden glass, I can't think of why we should stop them on aesthetics alone. Who knows, maybe some personality or character will sprout up when we're not watching

[phesto]

Originally Posted by officedweller

It looks pretty tall - maybe not up to 450 ft though. I guess the downtown south height limit is still generally 300 ft?

The policy in that DD subarea is that the City will let you go up to the view corridor at the their discretion. Salt was allowed to go to 366 ft. but the extra height didn't make sense given the small floorplates.

There is no view corridor but since it is not a 'gateway' site I'm guessing it would max out around 400-425 ft. The site is 27,000 sq ft, so a taller tower is not out of the question. (Salt by comparison is only 12,000 sq ft).

[SFUVancouver]

Originally Posted by phesto

One of my biggest gripes about the UDP is that they get so concerned with the treatment of each facade that it becomes almost a requirement that each side is different.

You are pretty much right on the money with this criticism. In my experience the UDP does view different facade treatments to respond to solar orientation as a 'best practice' and one that is expected of new projects proposed for the city.

The City has thrown its support behind passive design as a central tool in making new buildings more energy efficient and ultimately carbon neutral. Currently this takes the form of the passive design tool kit, which the city created last year with the help of Cobalt Engineering, and general encouragement from each project's facilitator to the architects to have them consider solar orientation when designing their projects. The next tool is the requirement for rezoned buildings to meet LEED Gold certification with a minimum of 6 energy points. This all but forces high rise projects to take significant steps to mitigate solar heat gain through shading devices or lower window to wall ratios, which is where the recent profusion of spandrels on south and western elevations comes from. Alternatively projects can take a mechanical approach to meeting their heating and especially cooling loads through the use of ground source geo-exchange heat pumps, high efficiency HVAC systems, and, ideally, participation in an neighbourhood energy utility like the one up and running in SEFC. In the years ahead the Vancouver Building Code will likely be amended to require the mitigation of solar heat gain and energy performance comparable to LEED Gold for all new buildings, not just those that go through the rezoning process. The UDP members are aware of the existing policies and largely share the City's aspirations for making progress towards carbon neutral buildings and passive solar design is integral to achieving this. Plus the UDP has two professional building engineers in its composition and they take a leadership role in advocating for passive design and challenging applicants on their energy modelling numbers.