The Exchange | 115.7m | 31fl, 13fl | 400,000sqft. | Completed - Page 25

trofirhen · #**481** Posted **Apr 6, 2014, 4:09 PM**

Funny with this building; people seem to either really like it, or else cringe at it. No accounting for taste, I guess, in whatever domain.

officedweller · #**482** Posted **Apr 7, 2014, 11:40 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delirium

i'm liking this building more and more. here's a couple renderings i haven't seen before. sorry for the mega size -

photo: www.aasarchitecture.com

The mullions will have the same effect as the Fins on 725 Granville
- it'll give the facade some visual weight.

Not sure what to think about the spandrel colour shown above
- but the mullions/fins will over power whatever colour they end up being.

osirisboy · #**483** Posted **Apr 8, 2014, 1:04 AM**

True^. However for all we know the spandrel colour could end up being black or any other colour lol

Jimbo604 · #**484** Posted **Apr 22, 2014, 5:39 AM**

It's unfortunate they did not incorporate the Edward Chapman building.. Now this building will be another orphan property sandwiched between two larger developments.

Source: me

officedweller · #**485** Posted **Apr 30, 2014, 4:20 AM**

New pics (?) from the Iredale website:

http://iredale.ca/our-work/commercial/old-stock-exchange.aspx

trofirhen · #**486** Posted **Apr 30, 2014, 11:02 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimbo604

It's unfortunate they did not incorporate the Edward Chapman building.. Now this building will be another orphan property sandwiched between two larger developments.

Source: me

That irks me, too. Hopefully, the Edward Chapman site could be included into one property that will (presumably) be redeveloped in the future.
As it is, it will look pretty dreary and forlorn squished next to the Exchange, and that brick building on the west.
Hey, maybe the site could be made into a small-but-elegant shopping galleria, such as a number of which are scattered along the av des Champs (and elsewhere) in Paris and other European cities. Worth a thought, anyway.

officedweller · #**487** Posted **May 1, 2014, 7:47 PM**

Article from the Sun today touting the green features of the building:

Green construction means ‘good business’ for new downtown Vancouver office tower

Environmental certification signals a healthier, more energy-efficient building

By Bill Metcalf, Vancouver Sun May 1, 2014 12:28 PM

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/business/com...story.html?__lsa=9748-6604#ixzz30UlCfdCk

scrapin · #**488** Posted **May 6, 2014, 1:17 AM**

Its a sad state of affairs when a city of 2.5 million people is excited for a 377 foot "skyscraper".

While i appreciate the hard work of everybody that builds this building, and its a good looking one at that, but still.

Metro-One · #**489** Posted **May 6, 2014, 1:26 AM**

Why not be excited? it is a beautiful looking tower that is wrapping itself around an existing historic tower in a dense location downtown.

Far more interesting than a 700 foot tower standing in the middle of a low density lot IMO.

Cypherus · #**490** Posted **May 6, 2014, 2:33 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by scrapin

Its a sad state of affairs when a city of 2.5 million people is excited for a 377 foot "skyscraper".

While i appreciate the hard work of everybody that builds this building, and its a good looking one at that, but still.

It's not just about height, but about so much more. This building adds character to the city, looks very nice, and is economically feasible. Sure, everyone wishes we had a tall tower - and it will come - but such buildings like this one deserve attention and praise (IMO anyway).

Prometheus · #**491** Posted **May 6, 2014, 3:24 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cypherus

It's not just about height, but about so much more. This building adds character to the city, looks very nice, and is economically feasible.

Okay, but let's be clear about something: this building has the exact height it does because of artificial height constraints imposed by the city (i.e., viewcones), not because of economic feasibility. This building would be even more economically feasible (and more beautiful) if it had the freedom to go higher.

trofirhen · #**492** Posted **May 6, 2014, 12:56 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Okay, but let's be clear about something: this building has the exact height it does because of artificial height constraints imposed by the city (i.e., viewcones), not because of economic feasibility. This building would be even more economically feasible (and more beautiful) if it had the freedom to go higher.

So true. The 'stupidity seepage' from the tree-hugger syndrome gets in everywhere and messes up everything.

red-paladin · #**493** Posted **May 6, 2014, 5:40 PM**

Personally, ie not as a mod, I think you guys are out to lunch on this topic.

PaperTiger · #**494** Posted **May 6, 2014, 5:45 PM**

^^^ I tend to agree. It must be comforting to see the world in black and white though. (Ie City policy = Bad, Tall = good)

a very long weekend · #**495** Posted **May 6, 2014, 6:25 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by scrapin

Its a sad state of affairs when a city of 2.5 million people is excited for a 377 foot "skyscraper".

well, it's a city of ~575,000, you have to remember that. i doubt that if the dozens of cities that comprise the region were amalgamated with a metro city hall in burnaby or whereever that vancouver's downtown peninsula would be zoned the way it is. the big voting majority of suburban and quasi urban non-vancouverites in that situation wouldn't have nearly the investment in the urban fabric and unique features of the city that do vancouverites. i.e. it makes a lot of sense for people in vancouver to be excited at handsome buildings coming up with moderate heights.

anyway, though i suppose it contributes to the table-top effect, it really is quite a nice tower and vancouver is lucky that it's moving forward.

spm2013 · #**496** Posted **May 6, 2014, 6:47 PM**

It's okay Burnaby will have the skyscrapers

Vin · #**497** Posted **May 6, 2014, 7:08 PM**

Not really excited about another short building such as this one. A more economically-feasible and environmentally-friendly tower could have been constructed on this DOWNTOWN site. Yet another wasted opportunity.

Frankly speaking, why are so many people excited about short buildings when they come to this forum called Skyscraperpage? There should be another one called "Groundscraperpage" to satisfy their desires.

Pinion · #**498** Posted **May 6, 2014, 7:44 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vin

Frankly speaking, why are so many people excited about short buildings when they come to this forum called Skyscraperpage? There should be another one called "Groundscraperpage" to satisfy their desires.

We have our own thread, it's called North Shore updates.

Some of us our more interested in the urban planning/renewal side of it than the size of the penis tower. Although I do think viewcones are silly and would like taller ones.

trofirhen · #**499** Posted **May 6, 2014, 8:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by red-paladin

Personally, ie not as a mod, I think you guys are out to lunch on this topic.

Yes, if you are personally content with this building as is, I could see why you think that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaperTiger

^^^ I tend to agree. It must be comforting to see the world in black and white though. (Ie City policy = Bad, Tall = good)

It's not quite as simplistic as you put it. Some buildings are not "height-dependant" for their character, and also, I don't think "HIGH IS GOOD; LOW IS NOT GOOD."
It's just that when a major project, smack downtown comes onstream, with a dramatic, no-nonsense design like this one, an extra 8 or 9 floors would be nice and "downtownish."
As it is, it somehow seems 'truncated.'

Bcasey25raptor · #**500** Posted **May 6, 2014, 8:48 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by a very long weekend

well, it's a city of ~575,000, you have to remember that. i doubt that if the dozens of cities that comprise the region were amalgamated with a metro city hall in burnaby or whereever that vancouver's downtown peninsula would be zoned the way it is. the big voting majority of suburban and quasi urban non-vancouverites in that situation wouldn't have nearly the investment in the urban fabric and unique features of the city that do vancouverites. i.e. it makes a lot of sense for people in vancouver to be excited at handsome buildings coming up with moderate heights.

anyway, though i suppose it contributes to the table-top effect, it really is quite a nice tower and vancouver is lucky that it's moving forward.

Last census pegged the city of Vancouver at 603 000 people, the provincial estimates are around 650 000 people for this year.

Greater vancouver is just shy of 2.5 million people. You do not measure cities by their municipal boundaries. Thats plain ridiculous, you measure it by it's census metropolitan areas.

In terms of what the commenter was referring to, he's referring to greater Vancouver, not the city of Vancouver.