Paradox Hotel (1151 W Georgia) | 188m | 67 Fl | Completed

[Jebby]

IMG_0919 by Surreyboy, on Flickr


IMG_0913 by Surreyboy, on Flickr


IMG_0908 by Surreyboy, on Flickr


IMG_0907 by Surreyboy, on Flickr


IMG_0910 by Surreyboy, on Flickr


IMG_0909 by Surreyboy, on Flickr


IMG_0912 by Surreyboy, on Flickr


IMG_0911 by Surreyboy, on Flickr

[Klazu]

Surreyboy is taking loads of good quality photos of all Metro projects. Very happy for that, thanks!

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by Klazu

Surreyboy is taking loads of good quality photos of all Metro projects. Very happy for that, thanks!

He posts on SkyscraperCity as "Yellow Fever." His updates are really great and very frequent and cover projects all over the lower mainland.

[Bcasey25raptor]

I was bored the other day so I decided to try and make a render of what Vancouver's skyline might look like once the Trump Tower and the Telus Gardens were complete.

I used the models of the buildings from SSP

The Photo used is from Wikipedia

[Prometheus]

Thank you.

However, you have rotated Telus Garden 90 degrees on its axis. Also, Telus Garden will be shorter than Scotiabank Tower (seen on the right), not taller.

[Bcasey25raptor]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Thank you.

However, you have rotated Telus Garden 90 degrees on its axis. Also, Telus Garden will be shorter than Scotiabank Tower (seen on the right), not taller.

I was mostly going off of crude estimations.

[Bcasey25raptor]

Vancouver really needs some more height. A building over 700 feet would be nice.

Seeing as I live in the west end and walk downtown frequently, the buildings are very short and stubby. It's kind of embarrassing vancouver calls itself world class.

Vancouver should try and at least one up the tallest seattle has.

[Calgarian]

I think a 1000' tower would look kinda dumb in Vancouver, Shangri-La already sticks out a lot and it isn't even 700'

One good thing about the shorter towers is more sun makes it to the street, this is one factor in why Vancouver's streets are much nicer than here.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by Calgarian

I think a 1000' tower would look kinda dumb in Vancouver, Shangri-La already sticks out a lot and it isn't even 700'

One good thing about the shorter towers is more sun makes it to the street, this is one factor in why Vancouver's streets are much nicer than here.

If you put it near to the water it wouldn't cast a shadow on much, since the north side of the building is worst affected.

[Calgarian]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

If you put it near to the water it wouldn't cast a shadow on much, since the north side of the building is worst affected.

Fair enough. Can you even build a 1000' tower in Van? I thought there were height restrictions and view cones to consider.

[Bcasey25raptor]

Originally Posted by Calgarian

Fair enough. Can you even build a 1000' tower in Van? I thought there were height restrictions and view cones to consider.

Yeah there is height restrictions and view corridors.

Sad really, it really limits what they can do with the skyline. The city has so much potential.

[Cypherus]

Vancouver's tall building policy permits a 700 foot tower at the corner of W Georgia and Burrard street - I believe the site where the Burrard building is currently located. Unless otherwise noted, there is no other location that is permitted to achieve that zoned height.

[spm2013]

....

[GlassCity]

Am I the only one here that likes the view cones? We've been given a gift with the mountains, might as well show them off. Plus it's given us quantity over height, so we have crazy density in the downtown core.

That being said, it'd be nice if our mountains were taller!

[osirisboy]

I don't like them. We could have taller buildings and still be able to see the mountains. A couple 200-300 metre towers aren't going to hide the mountains lol

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

I don't like them. We could have taller buildings and still be able to see the mountains. A couple 200-300 metre towers aren't going to hide the mountains lol

I could not agree more. This obsession with viewcones has gone to the limit, absolutely. (tell that to the artsy-fartsy tree huggers)

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

Am I the only one here that likes the view cones? We've been given a gift with the mountains, might as well show them off. Plus it's given us quantity over height, so we have crazy density in the downtown core.

That being said, it'd be nice if our mountains were taller!

Excuse a contradiction, but if the mountains were taller, we'd get even MORE rain, plus also, as OSIRISBOY said, a couple of tall buildings is not going to destroy the city. This thing with viewcones is gettiung a bit outlandish.

[jlousa]

I agree we all know how much better Paris would be with skyscrapers. La Defense is way better in every way.
There is a section for view cones if that's what you want to talk about then move the conversation there. This is for Trump Tower and it's progress.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by jlousa

I agree we all know how much better Paris would be with skyscrapers. La Defense is way better in every way.
There is a section for view cones if that's what you want to talk about then move the conversation there. This is for Trump Tower and it's progress.

ooops! awfully sorry awfully sorry. This touched on viewcones; hence the response. My mistake. (although I still think the viewcone thing has gone too far)

as far as the Paris with skyscrapers remark .... please ......

[Hot Rod]

but in all fairness Vancouver is not Paris and is arguably not living up to its potential as the premier city of western Canada. A few 900 foot office or multiuse towers would do wonders to the city image, workforce, economy and would ENHANCE the mountain views from the southside rim. (ala hong kong). Put a 1000 footer on the waterfront then we can affirm Vancouver's place as a world class city skyline.