The Exchange | 115.7m | 31fl, 13fl | 400,000sqft. | Completed - Page 21

red-paladin · #**401** Posted **Nov 8, 2013, 5:28 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by EdinVan

So I guess this is another example of 'form follows function' :-)

More like that 'Scooby Doo' type of architecture where a gentleman's club looks like a giant top hat or a pool house looks like an 8 ball.

EdinVan · #**402** Posted **Nov 9, 2013, 12:43 AM**

I just remembered that the MacBlo building was intended to resemble, in a very subtle way, a tapering tree trunk.

Jebby · #**403** Posted **Nov 9, 2013, 1:41 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by EdinVan

I just remembered that the MacBlo building was intended to resemble, in a very subtle way, a tapering tree trunk.

Not a waffle iron?

officedweller · #**404** Posted **Nov 9, 2013, 2:12 AM**

The tree trunk is the end-on view, which isn't as visible since Royal Bank Tower was built.

Joat · #**405** Posted **Nov 19, 2013, 8:47 AM**

Has there been much activity with this one recently?

Klazu · #**406** Posted **Nov 19, 2013, 2:59 PM**

Not that i have noticed and I walk by every day.

hankthetank · #**407** Posted **Nov 19, 2013, 7:43 PM**

I'm really not excited about this building. Looks very 1970's. Other than those pop out boxes this building is quite bland.

Vancity · #**408** Posted **Nov 19, 2013, 7:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by hankthetank

I'm really not excited about this building. Looks very 1970's. Other than those pop out boxes this building is quite bland.

Sooo...what your saying is that this project is already dated, before it's begun..

Would love to see what our city would look like in like 100 years. if some of the architecture stands the test of time like some of the buildings out east (i.e. montreal, toronto, ny, boston, etc).

spm2013 · #**409** Posted **Nov 19, 2013, 7:54 PM**

I think the building is very futuristic.

Pinion · #**410** Posted **Nov 19, 2013, 8:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vancity

Sooo...what your saying is that this project is already dated, before it's begun..

Would love to see what our city would look like in like 100 years. if some of the architecture stands the test of time like some of the buildings out east (i.e. montreal, toronto, ny, boston, etc).

I don't expect much of it to still be standing in 100 years, just like the stuff built 100 years ago.

jlousa · #**411** Posted **Nov 19, 2013, 8:48 PM**

Signs it's progressing, they've agreed to pay the city $606,000 for the 30 commercial parking stalls they fall beneath the minimal with.

djh · #**412** Posted **Nov 19, 2013, 8:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlousa

Signs it's progressing, they've agreed to pay the city $606,000 for the 30 commercial parking stalls they fall beneath the minimal with.

Care to translate?

jlousa · #**413** Posted **Nov 19, 2013, 9:12 PM**

They will be providing less stalls then the minimal requirements, so they have to pay the city $20,200 per stall that they are below that requirement. I didn't think the original msg was unclear, but perhaps it was.

Hopefully I explained it better this time.

wrenegade · #**414** Posted **Nov 19, 2013, 9:16 PM**

They are below the parking bylaw, so the $606k is to pay for parking-in-lieu.

WarrenC12 · #**415** Posted **Nov 19, 2013, 9:22 PM**

Why are they proposing so few spots? Forecasted demand? Design? Structural limitation?

officedweller · #**416** Posted **Nov 19, 2013, 10:02 PM**

Retaining the heritage building in its entirety means a smaller physical footprint for the parking levels.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hankthetank

I'm really not excited about this building. Looks very 1970's. Other than those pop out boxes this building is quite bland.

It does somewhat remind me of Tower 42 in London (still a classic, and has survived the test of time on the skyline):

http://www.panoramio.com/photo/40755938

Robertpuant · #**417** Posted **Nov 20, 2013, 5:28 AM**

That's a classy tower, looks like it's from London.

Hot Rod · #**418** Posted **Nov 21, 2013, 10:52 AM**

I think they should get an exemption from this bylaw since 1) they are smack dab in the CBD/Financial District, 2) they are building an OFFICE TOWER of significant size and (I wish) height, and 3) they are retaining existing building façade integrating it into they new tower. Does any other commercial office skyscraper downtown have parking of any substantial amount?

Why would a commercial office skyscraper be required to have parking spots anyway? Shouldn't a city like Vancouver be encouraging use of transit - particularly with a subway stop just a block or two away in Burrard station? I would think parking would be required for a residential or hotel tower or mixed use tower but not an office tower.

Sometimes, I have to really question the city of Vancouver and its motives.

wrenegade · #**419** Posted **Nov 21, 2013, 5:08 PM**

The City of Vancouver has taken big steps to reduce parking requirements, including the minimums in the bylaw. If the CoV is asking for a payment for parking-in-lieu then the proposal is definitely low on parking. It's unrealistic to build a AAA office building with NO parking. The people making the big decisions on where their company is going to lease space still probably drive in from West Van or Point Grey or Shaughnessy, and they'll want parking for their executives. For all of CoV's faults in the planning/bylaw department, reducing parking the CBD is NOT one of them.

jlousa · #**420** Posted **Nov 21, 2013, 5:19 PM**

The parking requirements are pretty low (on a sqft basis) for commercial space these days. There will always be a need for minimal spaces though, you can't expect senior management to take public transit to work. You need spaces for clients/contractors etc. Even if the city allowed you to make a tower w/o parking spaces you would find it very difficult to lease it out to anyone.

Beaten to the punch.