1021 W Hastings | 143M | 36Fl | Completed

[red-paladin]

Do we know which restaurant will be on the second floor?

[Klazu]

Originally Posted by Doctorboffin

Fun fact one of the main shots in that movie was filmed right their.

Yeah, I saw them film it there. In the movie I also loved how that flying monster destroys the Auberge Hotel building in that same scene.

[osirisboy]

Originally Posted by red-paladin

Do we know which restaurant will be on the second floor?

Yes I believe it's hawksworth

[sacrifice333]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

Yes I believe it's hawksworth

Indeed. New concept by Hawksworth.

[Klazu]

• Video Link

[officedweller]

By Yellow Fever posted March 18th:

Originally Posted by Yellow Fever

IMG_9289 by Yellow Fever @ SkyscraperCity, on Flickr

IMG_9809 by Yellow Fever @ SkyscraperCity, on Flickr

[Vancity]

that building is a beauty. nicest looking building thus far in that area.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Vancity

that building is a beauty. nicest looking building thus far in that area.

The Marine Building: "What about me, what about me!?"

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Vin

The Marine Building: "What about me, what about me!?"

As the glittery, and larger, newcomer to the 'hood, it might be understandable how MNP is getting all the attention, and the Marine Building
being shorter, might seem a little bit lost and overwhelmed.
Nevertheless, when you're standing there, or walking west on Hastings, it is still the iconic Marine Building itself that anchors everything together.

[Canadian Mind]

I really like the shots where you see the Marine building in the foreground and this building in the background. The proportions and the contrast are perfect. Unfortunately, I think that the building is going to be lost in the crowd otherwise. in every other aspect it would have done well with another 5-10 stories; however, it would have overpowered the Marine building.

I think in the end it's better to have the harmony with the marine building that it has, then to be a punctual building. It'll always be a hidden gem, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. Plenty of other sites down there which someday could be candidates for punctual 180-200m buildings.

For instance, I think a 180-190m tower in place of the Guinness building would make for a fantastic stepped skyline effect. Both from Coal harbour in to the downtown, and from the Marine building up.

You can see what I mean from the second photo officedweller shared above

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by Canadian Mind

I think that the building is going to be lost in the crowd otherwise. in every other aspect it would have done well with another 5-10 stories; however, it would have overpowered the Marine building.

I think in the end it's better to have the harmony with the marine building that it has...

I think the Marine Building would have stood-up very well beside a taller MNP Tower. Indeed, I think the natural relation between the MNP Tower and the Marine Building--i.e., between the modern and the historic--would have been greatly enhanced had the former been given its proper due.

As things stand currently, it appears that the future has been artificially constrained for the sake of the past. But such an approach is actually a disservice to the past as much as it is to the future. It is a denial of the MNP Tower's full potential and a betrayal of the pioneering spirit that built the Marine Building, once the tallest building in the British Empire, a building which dominated all its neighbours upon completion. And Vancouver was no worse off for it. Indeed, the neighbourhood and entire city was forever elevated.

I believe the Marine Building would have been much more honoured to have stood side-by-side a proper skyscraper, a 21st century kindred spirit.

NOTE: the above comment is in regards to aesthetics and philosophy, not the economic details of office tower construction.

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

As things stand currently, it appears that the future has been artificially constrained for the sake of the past.

NOTE: the above comment is in regards to aesthetics and philosophy, not the economic details of office tower construction.

I think you already know this but these two statements contradict themselves.

The future was not constrained for the sake of the past. It was constrained for economic reasons, as you noted.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

these two statements contradict themselves.

No, they do not. Contradictory statements are statements that cannot both be true. I try to choose my words carefully and I specifically stated that "it appears the future has been artificially constrained for the sake of the past," not that the future has in fact been artificially constrained for the sake of the past. And such an appearance is one possible impression a person who is not privy to the actual reasons for the MNP Tower's height could have. The 'apparent' and the 'real' are conceptually distinct and it goes without saying that a statement regarding the one can be entirely different than a statement regarding the other and yet both can be true.

But as I said, my comment was aesthetic/philosophical. Its point was to express a fundamental disagreement with those who assert that even if economics justified a taller structure, the MNP Tower's height ought to be constrained either out of a perceived respect for the Marine Building or because its current height allegedly achieves a more harmonious relationship with its predecessor.

[LeftCoaster]

Well if you're going to get pedantic on me, the context in which you used appears, then contrast that with your opinion that it is in fact a disservice to the building does not say that.

What your sentence structure actually said was that that it appears as though it was done as a benefit for the the Marine Building when its in fact detrimental, not that it appears as though it was done for the sake of the building and was actually an economic decision. Your use of the conjunction "but" refers the subject of the sentence in which it was used to the previous sentence, thereby tying the second sentence to the first. Your economic comment came in a subsequent note and does is not referenced in the previous paragraph, so yes in fact as you phrased it those two statements were contradictory. Whether you intended for that I can't pretend to know, but from a grammatical standpoint that's how it reads.

Anyway I wasn't looking for some argument, I was just reiterating your note that viewcones or the UDP are not the reason this tower is the height it is.

For what it's worth, if it were possible I'd love to see MNP tower, but I'm still pretty happy with how it turned out.

[Pinion]

I love the way the building looks from the north shore. Finally something that isn't a box.

Not the best photo, but the best I've got

Downtown Vancouver from Harbourside, North Vancouver by chrisjohann, on Flickr

[red-paladin]

I think it looks the exact right size for that location.

[Chadillaccc]

Omg this tower turned out freaking gorgeous. Better than I expected. Wow.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

Well if you're going to get pedantic on me, the context in which you used appears, then contrast that with your opinion that it is in fact a disservice to the building does not say that.

What your sentence structure actually said was that that it appears as though it was done as a benefit for the Marine Building when its in fact detrimental, not that it appears as though it was done for the sake of the building and was actually an economic decision. Your use of the conjunction "but" refers the subject of the sentence in which it was used to the previous sentence, thereby tying the second sentence to the first. Your economic comment came in a subsequent note and does is not referenced in the previous paragraph, so yes in fact as you phrased it those two statements were contradictory. Whether you intended for that I can't pretend to know, but from a grammatical standpoint that's how it reads.

I think a lack of attention to context is causing you to overcomplicate what should be very simple. My comment (as opposed to the note appended to it) was a response to a hypothetical scenario. It was clearly directed at those who argue that the MNP Tower's modest height is for the best--even in the hypothetical absence of any economic or legal limits--because it allegedly shows the proper respect for and/or has the most harmonious relationship with the historically important Marine Building. I explicitly quoted this argument in the very preface to my comment. Thus, every sentence in my comment is to be read as a response to the argument that the MNP Tower's current height is still the best even in the hypothetical absence of any economic or legal limits. Hypothetically, therefore, if the MNP Tower had been limited to its current height for the reasons that the people I was directly responding to advocate, then we would indeed be constraining the future for the sake of the past, and I laid out reasons why such an approach/philosophy would be a disservice to both buildings.

By then pointing out that the actual constraints on the MNP Tower's height were in fact economic, not aesthetic, the appended note was designed precisely to underscore the hypothetical nature of the analysis in the preceding comment. Claiming there is a contradiction between a hypothetical analysis and an appended note confirming the hypothetical nature of that analysis is nonsensical.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by red-paladin

I think it looks the exact right size for that location.

I agree, and anyway, as it is now built, people will have to accept it, as is. Sorry folks, but no more wishful thinking. Just enjoy.

[uzi]

I love the deep blue glass of the building as much as I like the architecture.
developers in Toronto should use same color of glass.