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

[canucks23]

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

My point a couple pages back was that the city has had a dozen really cool design applications that didn't get approved, but this one does? They turn down so many "unique" and "different" designs, yet this one of all designs get the go ahead... that's what confuses me.

Yes we are all desperate for unique and different buildings, which is why for many people this is a breath of fresh air, but honestly its completely awkward and there is a great chance it could end up looking like a total mess. But the city was willing to take a risk with this design but not the others? Here's to hoping I'm wrong and that this actually does turn out to be a breath taking building. But like I said, I'm skeptical.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by canucks23

My point a couple pages back was that the city has had a dozen really cool design applications that didn't get approved, but this one does? They turn down so many "unique" and "different" designs, yet this one of all designs get the go ahead... that's what confuses me.

Yes we are all desperate for unique and different buildings, which is why for many people this is a breath of fresh air, but honestly its completely awkward and there is a great chance it could end up looking like a total mess. But the city was willing to take a risk with this design but not the others? Here's to hoping I'm wrong and that this actually does turn out to be a breath taking building. But like I said, I'm skeptical.

This exactly.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by canucks23

My point a couple pages back was that the city has had a dozen really cool design applications that didn't get approved, but this one does? They turn down so many "unique" and "different" designs, yet this one of all designs get the go ahead... that's what confuses me.

Yes we are all desperate for unique and different buildings, which is why for many people this is a breath of fresh air, but honestly its completely awkward and there is a great chance it could end up looking like a total mess. But the city was willing to take a risk with this design but not the others? Here's to hoping I'm wrong and that this actually does turn out to be a breath taking building. But like I said, I'm skeptical.

Originally Posted by GlassCity

This exactly.

Be might interesting to declassify the designs that got turned down, take 'em out and compare 'em.

[SFUVancouver]

Originally Posted by canucks23

My point a couple pages back was that the city has had a dozen really cool design applications that didn't get approved, [snip]

To which designs are you referring?

[giallo]

It's great that we have differing opinions here. SSP would be bland if we all agreed.

That being said, this building looks awesome, and all of you that don't like it are wrong.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by giallo

It's great that we have differing opinions here. SSP would be bland if we all agreed.

That being said, this building looks awesome, and all of you that don't like it are wrong.

To me the fact that people get into raging arguments over things most people don't give a crap about is what makes this place so special

[canucks23]

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

To which designs are you referring?

OK I may have been exaggerating a bit on the number of proposals, but one that really stands out in my mind is one of the original Hotel Georgia designs. I remember seeing renderings for that years back before we got the design that we see today. Of course Im sure there are many more that the public never even got the chance to see before they were quickly rejected by the city.

[axestone]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

Unique doesn't always mean good.

That's for sure.

Originally Posted by canucks23

My point a couple pages back was that the city has had a dozen really cool design applications that didn't get approved, but this one does? They turn down so many "unique" and "different" designs, yet this one of all designs get the go ahead... that's what confuses me.

I would take "good" over "unique any day. This city has too many uniquely awful looking buildings and not enough "good" ones.

Originally Posted by giallo

That being said, this building looks awesome

I never said the building didn't look interesting. But just because it's interesting doesn't mean that it isn't dumb. It seems kinda dumb to me to take a marginal site and then try to pump up its value through a bunch of manufactured hoopla. This building is going to cost more than twice what it should, it's going to be on a marginallzed site surrounded by a bunch of off-ramps with the constant noise and hum of traffic — it's dumb! I'm not seeing how the marketing hoopla is going to be able to pump up the cost per sq. ft. to a level that works for the pro forma. It sure didnt' work over at Millenium Waters — never mind the hit it took from the US economy tanking — that place was doomed when the development was overspent… kinda like Vancouver House is going to be.

Anyway, even if/when Gillespie doesn't make any money on this thing it isn't going to matter. He can certainly afford it and he will benefit in the long run from the publicity.

Oh, and the Wall Centre over Shangri-la? LOL! Yeah right, good one!!!

[Vin]

Overall, I love the design and concept. Not so thrilled about the face from the south because it looks like a boring rectangular block, but the north view is out of this world. Love it! Also love those prism blocks of offices and retail stores.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

i like this building. i think it has some really cool architectural designs as well as being interesting from an engineering aspect.

[vanman]

Originally Posted by canucks23

OK I may have been exaggerating a bit on the number of proposals, but one that really stands out in my mind is one of the original Hotel Georgia designs. I remember seeing renderings for that years back before we got the design that we see today. Of course Im sure there are many more that the public never even got the chance to see before they were quickly rejected by the city.

The original Hotel Georgia design WAS approved by the city. The developer Allied Holdings didn't get the height increase to 600ft that it was looking for but it was approved at over 500ft. The developer ended up selling the site to Seattle based developer Goodman Real Estate and they subsequently came up with there own plans for the site.

[canucks23]

Originally Posted by vanman

The original Hotel Georgia design WAS approved by the city. The developer Allied Holdings didn't get the height increase to 600ft that it was looking for but it was approved at over 500ft. The developer ended up selling the site to Seattle based developer Goodman Real Estate and they subsequently came up with there own plans for the site.

Oh ok, thanks for the clarification on that. That's such a shame.

[Genauso]

I like it, as much as one can before it is constructed.

I am certain I won't regret it being built in decades' time provided the building is safe as expected.

[spm2013]

The old Hotel Georgia proposal:

http://www.bingthomarchitects.com/project/georgia-hotel-proposal/

[LeftCoaster]

This thread is making my brain hurt. First off as was already pointed out the UDP did not shoot down the design of the original Hotel Georgia. In fact one of the only decent proposals they have ever shot down was the original Ritz Carlton, and look what it got replaced with. Clearly a far superior design. The UDP is not perfect by any means, but I can't think of very many instances where they shot down a good looking building for an ugly one, but I can think of many where the inverse is true. My main criticism of the UDP is how much mediocre design they let through, not how much good design they overtly shoot down.

And saying a project is dumb because it takes a difficult plot of land and tries to develop it is quite baffling. MNP tower took an existing building and a very constrained site and built a 8,000 sq ft floorplate office tower, something completely against the grain of traditional office development, but it has been a smash success.

And besides the money being used is not public, so who really cares? Westbank is taking a risk (a risk that exists on all real estate developments) and is using their own capital to execute a development which may or may not sell successfully. If it fails then you can call it dumb but until then you are just throwing rocks at Westbank, one of the most successful development shops in the country, and if I were a betting man I'd assume Gillespie knows a lot more than anyone else on this forum about how to execute a successful development.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by spm2013

The old Hotel Georgia proposal:

http://www.bingthomarchitects.com/project/georgia-hotel-proposal/

I would much rather have had something like that than the current project ..... oh well ....

[SFUVancouver]

Originally Posted by spm2013

The old Hotel Georgia proposal:

http://www.bingthomarchitects.com/project/georgia-hotel-proposal/

While it can never be proven since the project wasn't built, I would bet that the Bing Thom 'Crystal' development would have been spandrel city and look nothing like the model. It would have been value engineered to nip and tuck and normalize the irregular flootplates and even with extremely high quality glazing it would never have approached the purity promised by the 'crystal' moniker. It would have been lambasted by many on this forum and decried with a colourful variety of superlatives and epithets.

I think LeftCoaster is dead-on in his evaluation of the UDP and that matches my observations and experience.

[officedweller]

Bing Thom had a mock up of the Georgia Tower curtain wall erected at their office next to Burrard Bridge:


Experimenting with the variegations in transparent and reflective qualities of glazing systems for the Hotel Georgia tower.

http://www.canadianarchitect.com/news/master-builders/1000191217/?&er=NA

The unfortunate part of the Bing Thom design was the 7 or 10 storey above-ground automated parkade (i.e. a fritted glass-clad box).
The as-built design is much better at grade.

[radacal]

I went down to the GKW exhibit as well. Not as much on the history of Vancouver as I would have liked. It is a cleverly marketed presentation centre.

With regard to the tower - the initial reaction was 'wow' but the more I study it, the less I like it. The flat top in particular seems unfinished or not completely thought through.

[NewWester]

Personally I like the idea of the tower, but it's so hard to tell until it is actually built. I also get that it's polarizing, most of the more adventurous towers seem to gather lovers and haters: Credit Suisse and Jameson House both spring to mind. But at the same time, I feel like you could chart this forums mean reaction to ambitious buildings as universal excitement, followed by a post-approval, pre-construction skepticism that is swept away in obsessive enthusiasm (mixed with kvetching about glazes and spandrel) during construction, followed by measured judgement when its actually done.