Vancouver House (1400 Howe St) | 151.5m | 52Fl | Completed

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Also got a chuckle with the PR flack breathlessly claiming Arthur Erickson was predicting Vancouverism with his drawing of pointy towers in the Fifites.

I thought they looked like Montreal Olympic Village, with curves...

http://www.claude.dupras.com/apropo8.jpg

[Vin]

Originally Posted by canucks23

I'm very skeptical about this building. It looks kind of awkward in the renderings. Am I the only one to feel this way?

The building is supposed to look awkward and out of this world. That makes it stand out so much in this city.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by spm2013

They have a sample of all the materials and the models were pretty cool. Though it is essentially a glorified presentation centre.

Actually according to someone there, they will be building another show and sales centre behind the current exhibition centre.

[Delirium]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Aaah, that makes sense.
I was wondering why they used the copper for the exhibit.

I was reading the UDP minutes, and here's more info on what materials they're using:

"The material strategy for the tower is two-toned as a contrast to the overall size and scale of the tower. They have upgraded from zinc to stainless steel as they had concerns about maintenance. The balcony infills will be copper that will keep it brightness"

Thought this part was great. I wish more architects pushed back like this!

"As for weather protection, Mr.Haden thought it would be a mistake to default to the standard condition as they are trying to make a space that is distinctive. As well people will be able to dash under the bridge to stay dry"
haha. totally agree.

[axestone]

Originally Posted by Delirium

Thought this part was great. I wish more architects pushed back like this!

"As for weather protection, Mr.Haden thought it would be a mistake to default to the standard condition as they are trying to make a space that is distinctive. As well people will be able to dash under the bridge to stay dry"
haha. totally agree.

Doesn't sound like pushing back to me, rather it sounds like the architect doesn't know how to integrate a simple, logical feature into the design of a building that has no sense of logic.

I mean, I guess that's understandable – why would they start to do so now? So far they have a schematic design with little resolution and a whole host of technical problems to resolve. All because they came up with the "brilliant" idea to design an upsidedown building that makes no sense from a structural or servicing perspective.

This project is the very definition of "smoke and mirrors" imo and reflects everything that is wrong with "design" today.

Personally, I couldn't care less that it is going to get built. Full props to Gillespie and his ability ($) to convince everyone that the project is a silk purse rather than a sow's ear.

I just don't understand all the love for a design that screams dumbness in every conceivable way. Sure, go ahead and build it — but don't try to convince me that the design makes sense and that it isn't inherently dumb. Cause it is dumb. Dumb to the bone.

[djh]

Originally Posted by axestone

Doesn't sound like pushing back to me, rather it sounds like the architect doesn't know how to integrate a simple, logical feature into the design of a building that has no sense of logic.

I mean, I guess that's understandable – why would they start to do so now? So far they have a schematic design with little resolution and a whole host of technical problems to resolve. All because they came up with the "brilliant" idea to design an upsidedown building that makes no sense from a structural or servicing perspective.

This project is the very definition of "smoke and mirrors" imo and reflects everything that is wrong with "design" today.

Personally, I couldn't care less that it is going to get built. Full props to Gillespie and his ability ($) to convince everyone that the project is a silk purse rather than a sow's ear.

I just don't understand all the love for a design that screams dumbness in every conceivable way. Sure, go ahead and build it — but don't try to convince me that the design makes sense and that it isn't inherently dumb. Cause it is dumb. Dumb to the bone.

Would be interested to hear your constructive criticism on why you think it is a "dumb design"

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by canucks23

I'm very skeptical about this building. It looks kind of awkward in the renderings. Am I the only one to feel this way?

No, you're not. Despite the unusual design and impressive enough size, this one just doesn't "do it" for me.
I get the feeling that it's "politically incorrect" not to be all enthusiastic about it, but sorry folks,
as original as it may be, it just doesn't strike a chord.
And yes, I've always found the renderings had an "awkward" look and feel to them.

^^^There, one person at least who concurs with you

[Pinion]

I don't think it's particularly attractive but "interesting" and "different" are about as good as we get in this city.

[axestone]

Originally Posted by djh

Would be interested to hear your constructive criticism on why you think it is a "dumb design"

I thought I was pretty clear as to why I think it's dumb:

Originally Posted by axestone

... a schematic design with little resolution and a whole host of technical problems... with the "brilliant" idea to design an upsidedown building that makes no sense from a structural or servicing perspective… and reflects everything that is wrong with "design" today.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Pinion

I don't think it's particularly attractive but "interesting" and "different" are about as good as we get in this city.

Pretty pessimistic outlook, there .... don't you think the MNP Tower will break that meniscus?

[GlassCity]

There are a bunch of fantastic proposed and under construction buildings in Vancouver. This is not one of them.

[SpongeG]

people bitch and whine that all the buildings look the same and than something different comes along and people bitch and whine about it

its not like the last building to be built in the city ever, at least it will be pretty to look at who cares about the rest really its not going to affect anyone here

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

people bitch and whine that all the buildings look the same and than something different comes along and people bitch and whine about it

its not like the last building to be built in the city ever, at least it will be pretty to look at who cares about the rest really its not going to affect anyone here

Thank you! I honestly can't believe what I am reading on the last page of this thread. This is one of the most (if not the most) unique and interesting building to be built / proposed in Vancouver. The fact that it looks as if it will defy physics and engineering is what makes it so interesting!

I love how everyone hates every building looks the same here, something unique comes along, and they bitch and complain about it, have to love SSP!

[Infrequent Poster]

To carry on with the bitching and whining here, to be something different and unique in Vancouver all a building would have to do is be tall. Like 200+ metres tall, this alone would make it so different then all the other buildings in Vancouver. I'm not suggesting that we need to build something of the same quality as the Mark at 200 metres (because I know the go to argument on here against height is, we don't need to build a tall building that is a piece of crap just for the sake of being tall) Just saying in a height restrained city like Vancouver a bit of (real) height can go a long way. I actually like the design of this building.

[djh]

@Infrequent Poster: Height alone may make a building "different" and "unique" in the dictionary definition of the words. It doesn't make them interesting or a great example of architecture. Look at one of the most boring edifices on our skyline for evidence (Shangri-La). Compare it to the far more interesting Wall Centre - tall, but also different and unique.

Vancouver House fits more into the Wall Centre category. It is relatively tall (although not the tallest), it is very different to everything around it, and thus it is unique. All of those qualities put it near the very top of the most interesting Vancouver projects alone.

@axestone: You have to assume that any developer willing to spend hundreds of millions on a project is going to do a large amount of due diligence on picking their team. They will definitely have considered the architectural, structural, geophysical and environmental issues in this project, so calling the building "dumb" is very naive. Westbank and BIG didn't become successful by building dumb, unsafe or poorly-designed projects. You may not personally trust or like the building, but I'm sure many thoughtful people will buy into it and prove it successful.

I agree that there's too much complaining about homogeneity and then distrust of the original. I guess that's the tension the developers have to fight through with every project anyway, but just remember the developer has more important considerations than if Joe Uninformed likes the look of the building. I think a city would look very strange if every single tall tower looked completely different - much like a forest would look weird if every tree was a different species. What makes a forest - or city - look more interesting is if you can see a general style between many of the structures, and then you occasionally have a standout that has its own look.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Thank you! I honestly can't believe what I am reading on the last page of this thread. This is one of the most (if not the most) unique and interesting building to be built / proposed in Vancouver. The fact that it looks as if it will defy physics and engineering is what makes it so interesting!

I love how everyone hates every building looks the same here, something unique comes along, and they bitch and complain about it, have to love SSP!

Unique doesn't always mean good. I mostly just don't like how it's covered in squares, reminds me of a beehive.

[vanman]

It's called texture and is what most buildings in Vancouver lack. (Painted concrete and oddly spaced spandrel don't count.) I'm personally very excited for this project. Especially after checking out the Gwerk exhibit and seeing the scale model in person.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Thank you! I honestly can't believe what I am reading on the last page of this thread. This is one of the most (if not the most) unique and interesting building to be built / proposed in Vancouver. The fact that it looks as if it will defy physics and engineering is what makes it so interesting!

I love how everyone hates every building looks the same here, something unique comes along, and they bitch and complain about it, have to love SSP!

I dunno, axestone has a point, especially in a residential condominium context. Would you want to be an owner there 20 years down the road and responsible for maintenance?

[Pinion]

You can have unique designs and be visually pleasing. This one is an improvement over the norm but only because the bar is so low here.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

Unique doesn't always mean good. I mostly just don't like how it's covered in squares, reminds me of a beehive.

That's true, and I also why it has to be at a 90° angle with a piece gouged out. That contributes, for me, to that "awkward" quality I mentioned earlier.
I'd be more accepting of something that had a wall curved to the same angle of the ramp, sleeker, in angular harmonywith the road, but still with plenty of density/height/angle options.
Just curved, not perpendicular, as now. Thank you.