Downtown Vancouver Updates

[204]

Originally Posted by EdinVan

Why don't we just stick them in a forest somewhere -- because, really, that's where most people on this forum would like them to go. Out of sight, out of mind, right?

Shame.

No, leave the forests please, that would be an environmental mistake.

But, it is true that these buildings need not be so crowded together in the downtown core.

[Metro-One]

Pretty slick looking tower...at that height, I am not always angry about the height of towers (like some members, I am happy with the heights of many buildings u/c and proposed currently) but this is really disappointing. This had to be reduced, really?? Who's view would this tower offend so horribly?

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Pretty slick looking tower...at that height, I am not always angry about the height of towers (like some members, I am happy with the heights of many buildings u/c and proposed currently) but this is really disappointing. This had to be reduced, really?? Who's view would this tower offend so horribly?

I know we disagree on the MNP Tower. But in my opinion this tower falls into the exact same aesthetic category: a beautiful but vertically arrested design. In other words, another potentially brilliant but incompletely realized idea that could have been truly iconic--and fundamentally pushed the dynamism of Vancouver's skyline and urban fabric forward--but for its lack of vertical boldness. Another potential diamond to be lost in the rough forever.

[Locked In]

Thanks Prometheus.
I like the design a lot, and I think it looks good at that height - too bad it's going to be cut down.

Edit: That said, I entirely agree with your comment above - that location in particular would be fantastic for a signature tower (no shadowing, unobstructed visibility to the north, on top of the city's transit hub, etc...).

[Prometheus]

It looks like city hall will compel the design to be reduced by about 4 floors. From the minutes of the Gastown Historic Area Planning Committee, posted by officedweller in November:

Paul Cheng, Development Planner noted that it had been discovered on November 18, 2014 that, due to a miscommunication earlier in the process, the height of the building exceeded the Council-imposed view cone by 13 metres, and that the design of the building would need to be revisited.

And the consequences of city hall's viewcones continue:

It was further noted that due to the view cone restriction, the applicant would not be able to take advantage of the possibility of building a taller, thinner tower to reduce the impediment on the adjacent heritage building as suggested by Committee resolution on December 18, 2013.

http://vancouver.ca/files/cov/committees...ric-area-planning-committee-20141119.pdf

[Metro-One]

View cones to this extent are a bizarre level of bureaucracy. They should be more akin to lose guidelines, not so set in stone. A great design comes along that intrudes 10 or 20 meters, sure, go ahead (maybe have some donation made in the form of funding for a daycare or other public amenity), a mediocre design comes along and does the same, nope.

Seriously, I wish I didn't see those images, that tower would fit amazingly well into the waterfront, really helping to anchor the CBD feel to that corner.

[Prometheus]

Here is the video of the too-tall version of Waterfront Tower, which confirms that, like the MNP Tower, it will be lost in the skyline from most downtown vantage points.

Imagine a tower of this quality and in this location twice as tall. We could have looked upon it with awe, not because it was tall but because it had the proper--and thus most faithful and beautiful--dimensions for the idea suggested in this design, this location, and this city. We would have witnessed the majesty of the natural and the man-made co-existing symbiotically, neither one being subordinated to the other, but both ascending together in harmony. It would have been truly iconic and a Vancouver landmark for a century to come.

I speak from a purely aesthetic standpoint, of course. I realize that developers can only build what is economically justifiable, although I suspect that if city hall threw off the yoke and embraced a culture of economic freedom, such towers would most definitely come along. Indeed, from the minutes of the Gastown Historic Area Planning Committee, we already know that the developers wanted to go even taller than this version, in spite of Vancouver's current economic culture.

Unfortunately, despite all its potential beauty and quality, the video demonstrates that this tower--which could have altered the very landscape of Vancouver forever--will not really change the city that much at all.

Video Link

[hollywoodnorth]

wow wow wee waa! thanks for the pics and video .... love it ... now if only we could get rid of some of these pesky view cones

[urbancanadian]

Thanks for all the info. That is really a great looking building. The roofline makes me think of Two World Trade Center in NYC.

Is there any chance that part of the site sits inside a "view shadow"? Maybe of the Harbour Centre or Granville Square?

Could anyone look into that?

[Metro-One]

Its too late, the city has already demanded for it to be reduced. I really wish I never saw there pics.

[madog222]

Looks like a solar panel roof.

[a very long weekend]

yowza, the lower levels look incredible, a great addition no matter the height.

i guess the idea of running a road through there for a transit bay is dead?

also, talk about amateur hour with the miscommunications on the view cones, wonder how many hundreds of thousands that ended up costing the developers...

[dleung]

Honestly, I rather it be shorter. Right now it's contributing to the table-top effect, and has the same proportions of our stubby office towers, as well as an unsympathetic massing relationship with the Harbour Centre.

Give me either a MNP-style sliver or a squat box proportioned like Telus Garden/745 Thurlow.

I think some of you are too easily impressed by well-rendered glass in video. This will be the country's 4th or 5th glass box with diagonal folds if complete.

[canucks23]

So how much shorter are we looking at?

[giallo]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Seriously, I wish I didn't see those images, that tower would fit amazingly well into the waterfront, really helping to anchor the CBD feel to that corner.

That's exactly what I thought to myself. "I wish I didn't see the before pic"

I think the view cone issue needs to be addressed. Like you mentioned, it's important for the city to help foster good design, and if that means it may intrude on a certain view cone for the better of the building and the city, then I think it should be discussed on those merits before it's considered "too tall".

I also agree with dleung. Either build it tall or reduce it, helping to give a nice layered effect on the cityscape. I dislike tabletop skylines.

[officedweller]

Awesome video, thanks!

The lower levels of the tower look really impressive - love the high level of "techie / euro" finishing.

The roof looks great, too, esp. since Harbour Centre's lookout will look onto it.

The faceted design looks good, and in terms of massing (not necessarily finish) - it resembles Oxford's Deloitte Tower in Toronto (big sister to Oxford's MNP Tower), and in terms of angularity, it might also resemble or at least relate to 520 Granville (the parkade site @ Cordova).

WRT the height, apparently the design has already been shortened and brought into compliance.

[Vin]

So how can we get rid of downtown's viewcones? Anyone knows? Street protest? Art gallery demonstration?

[Infrequent Poster]

Originally Posted by Vin

So how can we get rid of downtown's viewcones? Anyone knows? Street protest? Art gallery demonstration?

Perhaps a(media)campaign based on shame, or lack of, or perceived relevance to other cities. Or even Vancouvers own suburbs. I dont know maybe thats a stupid idea but, I sure hope some change happens soon. When a 30 floor office tower being built in the middle of the cbd has to have 5 floors knocked off it, because its too tall. Something isnt making much sense to me. Especially in a city as built out as Vancouver is. Its soul crushing to see the city keep squandering these opportunities.

[Locked In]

Originally Posted by a very long weekend

i guess the idea of running a road through there for a transit bay is dead?

There appears to be a gap between the proposed tower and the existing building to the east on Cordova/Water Street (see 2:08 of the video) - presumably a road could go through there? I assume that's why the east face of the tower is angled.

The "Cordova Connector" is listed as a specific requirement of the transportation network in the City's Waterfront Hub framework (approved by council in 2009), so I doubt the City would approve this tower if it precludes the connector.

Link to the City's Waterfront Hub Plan (15MB PDF)

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Infrequent Poster

Perhaps a(media)campaign based on shame, or lack of, or perceived relevance to other cities. Or even Vancouvers own suburbs. I dont know maybe thats a stupid idea but, I sure hope some change happens soon. When a 30 floor office tower being built in the middle of the cbd has to have 5 floors knocked off it, because its too tall. Something isnt making much sense to me. Especially in a city as built out as Vancouver is. Its soul crushing to see the city keep squandering these opportunities.

Total agreement, yes. I just got back from Christmas upcoast from Vancouver, but had had a couple of days to spend walking around the city, looking at all the new developments in person.
This viewcone thing has gone from the sublime to the ridiculous. Do civic leaders think people will be traumatized if there's a building 5 or 10 floors "over the limit?" It's getting absurd.
The "Pleasantville People" seem the only ardent supporters of the viewcones, and this is 'inversely mutilating' the city skyline.
Get rid of those ******* viewcones. Take it to the streets, raise an uproar, but please people, get out there and make it noticed. I think you'd garner more support than you realize is there.