Quote:
Originally Posted by NewWester
I think I've said this before, but if MNP were substantially taller it would lose a lot of it's cool relationship with the Marine building. As it is, the organic, mountain like peak of the thing is still low enough to contrast with the ornate, artdeco structure of the older building. Much taller, and the two would disconnect and you would get the MNP peak in isolation, or the Marine building in front of a wall of glass. From a design perspective I still think the proportions of MNP are PERFECT for the site.
(Which is all, I think, evidence that aesthetics relies on context more than sheer height.)
|
I don't agree with you.
To begin with, you have created a false dichotomy between the actual building and a "substantially taller" building, as if there could be nothing in between. A
slightly taller building, on the other hand, would not only maintain a "cool relationship with the Marine Building" but likely enhance it. The actual difference in height between the old building and the modern tower is actually a little too subtle and the satisfying evolution in height from the one to the other is lost too quickly as one approaches near on Hastings. Indeed, inside a half a block from the Marine Building, one will almost be unable to see the MNP Tower at all. A slightly taller tower, by contrast, would preserve the desired effect from closer vantage points without becoming overly domineering from any other vantage point.
Secondly, "a mountain-like peak" soaring in "isolation" and a marine-themed building framed by a shimmering sea of glass sound like intriguing and coherent aesthetic concepts, not things to fear.
Lastly, you profess a concern with contextual awareness but then demonstrate tunnel vision by focusing on a single relationship. The full context of the MNP Tower encompasses far more than just the Marine Building. The MNP Tower exists within a
city; it shares important relationships with the Shaw Tower, the Fairmont Pacific Rim, Bentall Five, Park Place and the entire downtown skyline.
When completed, the MNP Tower will be virtually identical in height to the Shaw Tower, Fairmont Pacific Rim, Bentall Five, Park Place, Royal Centre and all the other table-top towers that surround it. This means that the most beautiful, singular office tower to be built in the city in a very long time will be lost in the crowd from day one. Instead of soaring above the herd as it deserves and creating a more dynamic urban topography, it will be reinforcing Vancouver's table-top skyline even further. This not only diminishes the aesthetic appeal of the MNP Tower itself but the skyline as a whole. A slightly taller building, however, would have the virtue of creating a more varied, aesthetically-pleasing relationship with the entire community of office towers--elevating both itself and all of downtown--while still maintaining a harmonious relationship with the Marine Building. Even members of the notoriously cautious Urban Design Panel expressed a desire for slightly greater height as a way to optimize the project's contextual existence.
So, I think a more complete contextual awareness supports a different conclusion than yours. The MNP Tower is a beautiful building, but one with slightly arrested height. The MNP Tower, the Marine Building
and the entire city would have benefited aesthetically from the addition of four or five more floors.
NOTE: The above considerations are entirely
aesthetic, not economic.
Prev
......
Linear Mode
