Central (1618 Quebec St.) | 18 & 19 st | Completed - Page 6

VanCityDeveloper · #**101** Posted **Apr 29, 2013, 4:03 PM**

I personally find this project in concept phenomenal...in practice and delivery a huge disappointment. The buildings should have been orientated the other way with the bridge covering towards False Creek, the building would actually be an architectural pop and coming from Onni that's a shocker...however I feel the way its orientated it will just blend in. Disappointing.

Porfiry · #**102** Posted **Apr 29, 2013, 4:17 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by VanCityDeveloper

I personally find this project in concept phenomenal...in practice and delivery a huge disappointment. The buildings should have been orientated the other way with the bridge covering towards False Creek, the building would actually be an architectural pop and coming from Onni that's a shocker...however I feel the way its orientated it will just blend in. Disappointing.

Isn't that a constraint of the site itself? The site is roughly rectangular and it would not fit the way you want it.

officedweller · #**103** Posted **Apr 29, 2013, 5:00 PM**

I agree that it should have been oriented the other way - even at an angle (the building could have been designed around an east-west gap - maybe not in its existing form, but it could have been done).
No one driving down Main or Quebec will see the "gap" under the bridge element (at least not clearly) - and from the seawall, the west block will block the columns so it'll just look like a setback on a conventional tower.

The opportunity to "open up" Main St. to the water view has been lost.

djh · #**104** Posted **Apr 29, 2013, 6:28 PM**

Connecting this to @jlousa's recent comments in another thread:

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlousa

You don't need to buy it, I'm not selling it just stating the truth. The reason you don't see more so called iconic buildings isn't because of urban planners, or engineers shooting them down, it's because the developers aren't proposing them to begin with, they cost a lot more money for minimal return. We are in a city where buyers are stretched to the max to buy as is, and you'd be hard pressed to find enough people willing to spend an extra 10-15% for a buiding that looks better exteriorly.
Look at your own budgets and tell me you'd rather spend an extra 50K for a building that looked better or would you spend that 50K for a bigger unit or one in a better location?
We need to stop expecting every building to be iconic, it just doesn't happen in any city. Think about how many buildings stand out in any given city, you there are probably only a half dozen in the largest cities, in a city the size of Vancouver you'd be hard pressed to have more then a couple of iconic buildings. We are acutally doing quite well, that's not to say we shouldn't strive to do better, but lets call it for what it really is.

This building, on paper, had the potential to be iconic.
All of the mistakes that have happened along the way have taken what would have been an interesting and iconic building, and made it, as mentioned above, aligned the wrong way so it will barely be noticed. It was also dumbed-down in the various processes, and lost its original elegance and beauty. I don't think that was heavily related to final cost, really. We're not talking a 50% increase in cost to make the building look less boxy and less like any other mid-rise.

And just from my perspective, "iconic" does not mean "tallest" or "phallic" or "bizarre gravity-defying architecture", so that's not what I'm expecting in a city. Just more variety in design - both on a macro and micro scale. I think I see local developers/architects/planners etc getting defensive about the building design because they're varying their designs within some extremely narrow parameters and so they think they have "variety". In reality, nobody apart from the professionals notices these tiny differences, so to the masses, "all the buildings look the same".

And people will definitely pay premium to live in an iconic building. Jameson House, Grace, One Wall Centre and (presumably) the BIG tower all prove this. The building will find the right buyer.

jlousa · #**105** Posted **Apr 29, 2013, 6:56 PM**

The above buildings you just listed all had a diffilcult time to find purchasers even though they were only ~10% above a comparable units at the time. I cross shopped the Jameson before buying my current unit and it wasn't much more, it did however take years to sell as opposed to days/hours of other developments, and hence why developers do not go iconic often.

Sir Conga · #**106** Posted **Apr 30, 2013, 7:13 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by VanCityDeveloper

I personally find this project in concept phenomenal...in practice and delivery a huge disappointment. The buildings should have been orientated the other way with the bridge covering towards False Creek, the building would actually be an architectural pop and coming from Onni that's a shocker...however I feel the way its orientated it will just blend in. Disappointing.

I agree there is a minimal impact from the Main Street vantage, where it will blend in... especially after the surrounding projects are complete. I do think the project will look stunning from Pacific (especially as it turns to Quebec), as it already stands out quite nicely. It won't necessarily stand out as an iconic building, but will certainly serve to add variety to the area and city.

hollywoodnorth · #**107** Posted **Apr 30, 2013, 9:28 AM**

there will be a new street built between Main and Quebec between this building and the McDonalds......so from that street the project will be pretty epic .... IMO. also that street and the other new street to be build to the south of LIDO will help to open up the area for sure

officedweller · #**108** Posted **Apr 30, 2013, 10:47 PM**

Ultimatley the view of it will depend on what is built of the McDonald's site and the empty gas station site on Terminal.

rsxstock · #**109** Posted **May 1, 2013, 2:10 AM**

the lot is a rectangle so if they did orient it the other way, the gap would be much smaller and would only have the same effect as a lane which it is already getting on both sides. also, the 2 sides blocking off quebec and main creates an area of calmness in the middle where the entrances will be. and speaking of calmness, the way it is oriented now makes it so that no suite is directly exposed to the noise of both streets except for maybe the skybridge where it should be high enough to not be a problem.

huenthar · #**110** Posted **May 1, 2013, 2:47 AM**

Those straight columns looks ridiculous... really too bad they abandoned the asymetrical "chopsticks" columns, would have been far more pleasant to look at

Sir Conga · #**111** Posted **May 4, 2013, 12:30 AM**

Got a couple of shots today, starting with what I think will be my favorite view.

Klazu · #**112** Posted **May 5, 2013, 2:06 AM**

Different angle to the site from today:

VanCityDeveloper · #**113** Posted **May 6, 2013, 2:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by rsxstock

the lot is a rectangle so if they did orient it the other way, the gap would be much smaller and would only have the same effect as a lane which it is already getting on both sides. also, the 2 sides blocking off quebec and main creates an area of calmness in the middle where the entrances will be. and speaking of calmness, the way it is oriented now makes it so that no suite is directly exposed to the noise of both streets except for maybe the skybridge where it should be high enough to not be a problem.

Yes. That has some bearing, the building doesn't have to be completed twisted the other way, it could have been built angled across the site so as to open the view of that site from all sides really, orientating it in the manner they did restricts, and while from Pacific I agree it already looks pretty cool, it'll depend on how the Mcdonalds site and the parking lot get de-development down the road.