Downtown Vancouver Updates

[TwoFace]

Similar colours to the Georgia one.
I somehow expected more neon and pastels. Will have to have a second look at night.

[Prometheus]

For contrast:


Photo by Wayne Lorentz: http://www.pnwarchitecture.com/Building/4666/The-Orpheum-Theatre.php

[David]

Thanks for posting the before picture, that is a beautiful sign and great work on the restoration

[jlousa]

I don't beleive it's a restoration and is instead a new sign that copied the old one. I could be wrong though.

[Klazu]

I am not sure if it's a new or old sign, but it took them two weeks or so to replace it.

[Built Form]

It's a new sign, the old one was too rusted to save.

[Built Form]

We don't have a thread for 68 Smithe yet but the application has been re-scheduled for January 28, 2013 before the Development Permit Board.
Here some other pix of the model.

http://former.vancouver.ca/devapps/68smithe/index.htm












All pix by Built Form

[phesto]

^Thanks for the pics.

I appreciate that this site poses some challenges in terms of massing, but this simply cannot be the best outcome...even for IBI this is bad.

[easy as pie]

wtf, it should be at least double the height.

[s211]

Originally Posted by easy as pie

wtf, it should be at least double the height.

And one-tenth as bloated.

[djh]

Originally Posted by phesto

^Thanks for the pics.

I appreciate that this site poses some challenges in terms of massing, but this simply cannot be the best outcome...even for IBI this is bad.

I like the fact that it's not a standard podium-point tower configuration, which does make it immediately interesting to look at. But I can't imagine it would be desireable to live in one of the suites on the inside of the concave curve: limited natural light, neighbours on both sides of you looking at your suite, and a limited corridor of a view that is not your own building.

I think if the towers were taller and maybe tapered, it would work with the economics of the building. Higher suites would have a more open view, and therefore they could be way more expensive than the lower, crowded suites. I know this happens in almost all building anyway, but I mean shifting the cost balance even more - they'll need significant cost reductions for those crowded suites to find buyers anyway, so they may as well make up for it with big premiums on higher suites that are less crowded.

But how much of a revision is this design likely to go through anyway?

[Jimbo604]

I agree, super bloated.

Not to mention you get your choice of facing
a) endless traffic on Cambie bridge
b) endless traffic on Expo Blvd
c) facing the giant electronic BC Place sign, that is literally across the street.

No specific 68 Smythe St thread yet, however, it is within the boundaries of the North East False Creek | Proposed thread:


Photo credit: jlousa on North East False Creek thread

[jlousa]

We can probably create a thread for it, it's kind of tied in with the Colours proposal which does have a thread.

[phesto]

Originally Posted by djh

I like the fact that it's not a standard podium-point tower configuration, which does make it immediately interesting to look at. But I can't imagine it would be desireable to live in one of the suites on the inside of the concave curve: limited natural light, neighbours on both sides of you looking at your suite, and a limited corridor of a view that is not your own building.

I think if the towers were taller and maybe tapered, it would work with the economics of the building. Higher suites would have a more open view, and therefore they could be way more expensive than the lower, crowded suites. I know this happens in almost all building anyway, but I mean shifting the cost balance even more - they'll need significant cost reductions for those crowded suites to find buyers anyway, so they may as well make up for it with big premiums on higher suites that are less crowded.

But how much of a revision is this design likely to go through anyway?

To be clear, the maximum height on this site is 190 ft, which they have maxed out. IBI wasn't attempting anything new or interesting here in terms of the massing, they are just trying to cram 5.3 FSR into the site.

It almost looks like they took their standard point tower model and melted it down to achieve this...mess!

Either they should allow more height or the density should be moved to another site.

[officedweller]

There's a lot less stepping than in the previous iteration, if I recall correctly.

Strange thing is - the only part of the building where height is not maxed out is the gap facing BC Place. Shouldn't that gap or stepping front Cambie Bridge to provide better sightlines through the gap? i..e. slab along Smithe and stepping down along the bridge?

They've tried to create some "waves" with the balconies, but when the railings are added, the effect will be muted.

[Klazu]

I don't find the proposal that bad, but the site itself is horrible. It puzzles me how such a noisy site can even be for a residential building. I like to see this site getting built, but I would not want to live there. Also it is a bit shame that the beautiful BC Place will become less visible.

[Dylan Leblanc]

I like it. I am really tired of the typical Vancouver point tower form. Too thin.

[jlousa]

Put me in the camp that doesn't like the design. The FSR can easily be squeezed onto the site and view cones. Think a terraced design would fit better then the stubby tower sticking out of the heavy podium. Maybe Dleung could grace us with his artistic vision. The current design just seems like a 70's Hawaiian resort.

[red-paladin]

I'm not a fan either, it's basically just an attempt to force as much density (to get as much profit), as cheaply as possible, into that parcel.

[BIMBAM]

Hey, whatever happened to the idea of putting the VAG in that proposed location in Northeast False Creek? Why did the idea die, I thought it'd have excellent tourist synergy with science world and the public spaces around the Olympic Village, a kind of museum district.