1021 W Hastings | 143M | 36Fl | Completed

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by Built Form

get ready to drool especially with the fly through rendering www.oxfordproperties.com/docs/wv/1021Webvid

🞵🞵🞵 happened to the north shore in this video? It looks like Kowloon! it even looks like they built highrises on Cap golf course...

[Phil McAvity]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

The only disappointment with this tower is the height. Six or eight more floors, and this would have been quite a striking and elegant tower. It also would have pierced Vancouver's infernal table-top skyline. Instead it will be reinforcing it even further, as it will be the same height as Shaw and Fairmont Pacific Rim.

I thought Wall Centre finally broke the table and then Shangri-La even more so.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

It sure would have been a magnificent addition to the skyline (as well as an aesthetic improvement to the building itself) if Hastings was to soar ten floors above Shaw and Fairmont Pacific Rim instead of just reinforcing Vancouver's truncated table-top even further.

Too bad.

Totally agreed. Yet ... I maybe naïve, but I see this tabletop as being a quality tabletop. And punctuating this tabletop will be some higher, truly landmark towers which must be of the utmost brilliance and beauty in architecture. There is still time to dramatize the skyline, but it may take a while.

[Mininari]

Considering that I never saw a tower on this site coming... I'll take this one!
More height would be nice... but you know what, this will be a beautiful addition to the Vancouver Skyline.

Hoping to be watching it rise soon.

[wrenegade]

Ha! Love the rendering of the North Shore in that video. Like that would ever happen.

The building is absolutely gorgeous though.

[Metro-One]

People are so funny on this forum, nothing is good enough.

We cry for an office tower, we finally get one.

We cry for inspired designs, we finally get one.

We cry fro hight, well, this one is our highest office tower proposal, and it is the one likely going ahead first.

How do we celebrate? We cry about it.

145M is nothing to shake a stick at. In fact if this is considered our table top now, that is a pretty high table top compared to the old "every tower is 100M tall table top" argument one use to hear in this city.

I for one love this tower and I am just fine with the height. Considering the location this is going to be a fantastic addition to our skyline.

[Metro-One]

People are so funny on this forum, nothing is good enough.

We cry for an office tower, we finally get one.

We cry for inspired designs, we finally get one.

We cry fro hight, well, this one is our highest office tower proposal, and it is the one likely going ahead first.

How do we celebrate? We cry about it.

145M is nothing to shake a stick at. In fact if this is considered our table top now, that is a pretty high table top compared to the old "every tower is 100M tall table top" argument one use to hear in this city.

I for one love this tower and I am just fine with the height. Considering the location this is going to be a fantastic addition to our skyline.

[officedweller]

Thanks for the link!

In part, the tabletop form at Burrrad Landing is due to the Convention Centre Expansion - the original plans for Burrard Landing was 3 or 4 shorter towers, but the VCCEP consolidated the space into two taller towers.
So if Burrard Landing (with more towers) was built at similar heights to Waterfront Centre, then you'd have the striking tower rising above the others.

[crazyjoeda]

I love this building but I could have been an amazing addition to the skyline if they allowed it to be 200M+ like the Shangri-La tower is. I'm disappointed to see the opportunity lost.

[djh]

^I think what people have to realize is that a tabletop happens when all buildings are built to the maximum allowed height over a uniformly-zoned height restriction, all in one phase of development. No matter what that height is, if everybody builds to it, you get a plateaued profile. The alternatives are to:

a) make the maximum height restrictions vary between adjacent locations based on other merits (would be seen as unfair; could actually create quite an unattractive profile)

b) raise the height restriction substantially (e.g, 1500 ft) - would cause undeveloped lots to skyrocket in value...and then ultimately not be developed to their potential as very very few local developers could afford to buy and then develop on such a lot; would cause massive other problems (street shadowing, block traffic congestion, wind tunnels, utility overload).

c) Generally stagger the height restrictions. Either temporally (e.g., start at say 100m, 10 years later raise it to 150m, then 200m, etc.) or geographically (e.g., 100m at the waterfront, 150m the blocks behind, 200m behind them, etc.). The city seems to be doing something similar to this, and although at the moment we are in the middle of this process and it's not complete so it doesn't look great, I think in future years, once it's allowed to mature, I think it could potentially look fantastic.

[Metro-One]

I would love to see the reaction on this forum if this tower was proposed as a 25 story tower, and would be the same height as Guinness and the Marine building.

That would be a true table top...

The fact that were are complaining about 145 meters as a table top makes me feel good about Vancouver, we have added a decent amount of height to our once dominantly 90 to 110 meter skyline.

[giallo]

^Some people are complaining, but not this guy.
1021 is the most exciting project to hit Vancouver since the Shangri-la. I can't wait for it to start.

[Metro-One]

Nice to see I am not alone this building essentially has everything I have been asking for, office, very beautiful design, great interaction at the base, good location and decent height at 145m. In fact, this building has perfect proportions IMO.

[Metro-One]

Here are a couple more renders from the official website:





http://www.1021westhastings.com/

Looks great!

[Coldrsx]

So 🞵🞵🞵🞵... Lucky

[quobobo]

Originally Posted by djh

b) raise the height restriction substantially (e.g, 1500 ft) - would cause undeveloped lots to skyrocket in value...and then ultimately not be developed to their potential as very very few local developers could afford to buy and then develop on such a lot; would cause massive other problems (street shadowing, block traffic congestion, wind tunnels, utility overload).

I've raised this point before, but: upzoning significantly raises the value of land because upzoned land is scarce. This isn't the case if large swaths of Vancouver are upzoned at the same time.

[jlousa]

You won't hear me complain about this one. In fact I hardly ever complain about a building not being taller.

What occurs in some cities (w/o view cones) is an area is just zoned to a certain height, it manages to avoid a tabletop effect due to the natural rising and falling of the terrain. It creates a fairer playing field with a more natural appearing skyline. The properties located on top of hills become more valuable then those at the bottom of the hill.
Wonder what d/t would look like with a 150m height limit across the core following the terrain.

[Architype]

Originally Posted by Built Form

from www.1021westhastings.com

This will still be a sharp looking addition to the skyline even at the proposed height.

[Metro-One]

once again the Coal Harbour skyline will further its advance as Vancouver's most interesting angle vs. the False Creek skyline IMO.

[Hed Kandi]

..