Paradox Hotel (1151 W Georgia) | 188m | 67 Fl | Completed - Page 150

Klazu · #**2981** Posted **Nov 3, 2014, 3:54 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by thefew32

745 Thurlow could be taller.

What happened to it being a perfect transition from the low-rises of Robson Street to the high-rises of West Georgia Street?

Quote:

Originally Posted by thefew32

On the whole though, we have a damn good skyline that's always getting better.

Totally agree with you. There is a lot of interesting development happening all the time.

thefew32 · #**2982** Posted **Nov 3, 2014, 4:40 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Klazu

What happened to it being a perfect transition from the low-rises of Robson Street to the high-rises of West Georgia Street?

Totally agree with you. There is a lot of interesting development happening all the time.

As for 745 Thurlow

I hate overlays and wish a building on that location could have challenged some old tradition. Imagine a 240m tower right there.

Tetsuo · #**2983** Posted **Nov 3, 2014, 4:46 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Infrequent Poster

I think you are mistaken. To me a week ago it looked to be on floor 49 or 50.

Mind you internally, we don't skip the 13's and everything with 4s

Klazu · #**2984** Posted **Nov 3, 2014, 5:12 AM**

Trump is located on lower ground than One Wall Centre and I can visually tell that they are several floors past our 45th floor height, so they must be around 50th floor by now. Which must mean we have a new skyscraper and second tallest in town!

uzi · #**2985** Posted **Nov 3, 2014, 11:07 PM**

^

Vin · #**2986** Posted **Nov 4, 2014, 5:03 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Klazu

What happened to it being a perfect transition from the low-rises of Robson Street to the high-rises of West Georgia Street?

Totally agree with you. There is a lot of interesting development happening all the time.

For a downtown location, Robson, Demman and Davie streets are already anti-urban as they are. There shouldn't even be such a 'transition' in this location in the first place. Seems strange that before the 80s, people could accept larger structures in these shopping locations, but then came the shacks that occupied much of these streets after, which stunted growth downtown until Yaletown and Coal Harbour started to rise.

Remember, Vancouver is already restricting heights to such a degree that the city is practically flat once you venture out of downtown, so there is no reason to reject big and tall structures in the peninsula. Ignoring the viewcones, I say this building should go way higher to complement Shangrila and Trump.

red-paladin · #**2987** Posted **Nov 4, 2014, 6:33 AM**

It is my understanding, after speaking with a businessman in the West End, that the city is intent on keeping buildings on Robson, Davie and Denman just a few stories, to maintain their 'village' atmosphere. The businessman didn't agree with it, saying if you can't build at least an 8 storey building, very little redevelopment will happen.

To say nothing about towers.

officedweller · #**2988** Posted **Nov 4, 2014, 9:40 PM**

They also want to maintain sunlight on the shopping streets.

NewWester · #**2989** Posted **Nov 5, 2014, 2:52 AM**

Is it really a problem to have three streets that have lower rise buildings? I'm not sure why this is an issue. Do we need development everywhere? I for one like the openness of these shopping streets.

spm2013 · #**2990** Posted **Nov 5, 2014, 3:01 AM**

...

trofirhen · #**2991** Posted **Nov 5, 2014, 6:43 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by NewWester

Is it really a problem to have three streets that have lower rise buildings? I'm not sure why this is an issue. Do we need development everywhere? I for one like the openness of these shopping streets.

Same here. A Robson Canyon wouldn't do it for me.

red-paladin · #**2992** Posted **Nov 5, 2014, 7:22 AM**

I agree that we don't need towers on Robson and Davie, but I think 8 storey buildings should be ok.

Jebby · #**2993** Posted **Nov 5, 2014, 4:32 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by red-paladin

I agree that we don't need towers on Robson and Davie, but I think 8 storey buildings should be ok.

6-8 stories with an additional 2 metre setback would be nice.

osirisboy · #**2994** Posted **Nov 5, 2014, 4:38 PM**

No we don't need towers everywhere but I wouldn't mind one retail strip that is built up with towers. I love the section of robson east of Granville. Wouldn't mind seeing that continue along robson. Every retail street in the city is low rise. Having one that isn't would be nice. Sometimes I don't want to feel like I'm in a "village" lol

officedweller · #**2995** Posted **Nov 5, 2014, 7:58 PM**

I think you'd need to maintain sunlight penetration to the street.
As an east-west street with very long blocks, on Robson there is the potential for consolidation and a long streetwall.

East of Granville, the Robson street grid changes to "ends of blocks" - so you have a lot more light coming through from cross streets - so the taller podiums seem to work well.

What you'd want to avoid is a shadowy canyon.

I think the best comparison would be to ask
- do you want 1100 block of Robson to be in shadow like the 1100 block of Alberni (or moreso with taller podiums)?

osirisboy · #**2996** Posted **Nov 5, 2014, 8:14 PM**

The most obvious solution to the shadow problem is just not allow a continuous street wall of towers. You could still allow taller buildings with shorter ones in between to allow sunlight. And then of course it doesnt matter on the north side of the street as it wouldn't be blocking lig(personally I've never felt alberni to be too shadowy)