Downtown Vancouver Updates

[osirisboy]

Originally Posted by logan5

I would cite Richards Street as a good example of how tower/podium should be done. What's your example from "any other city"? Are you able to provide one?

My point was that most other cities have taller podiums/buildings in their downtowns (and they can feel lively etc) Olympic village and gastown have higher than 2 storey townhomes and they seem to be fine. Is woodwards cold? I would say Richards between Davie and drake is way under built

[logan5]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

My point was that most other cities have taller podiums/buildings in their downtowns (and they can feel lively etc) Olympic village and gastown have higher than 2 storey townhomes and they seem to be fine. Is woodwards cold? I would say Richards between Davie and drake is way under built

At street level Woodwards is cold, especially on the Hastings side where the London Drugs is. It's nothing but blank wall. But you obviously disagree. Luckily the other side of Hastings is lined with historic buildings.

If they used quality materials, these large podiums wouldn't be so bad. CityPlace in Toronto is shining example of city building gone completely wrong. The podiums aren't all huge but you see what happens when you line the streets with glass. Compare that to Richards Street with its brick townhomes. A lot of people are calling CityPlace the next St James Town.

I wouldn't call Olympic Village a tower/podium set up, but that's not a bad example. There's a mix of colour and materials, which, sadly the rest of SEFC is not aspiring to.

[osirisboy]

I agree Olympic village doesn't have towers, obviously lol But it isn't lined with 2 storey podiums. And yes I agree that side of woodwards isn't the best. But as you mention the other side is. Which isn't 2 storey townhomes. My point was that streets can still be warm and lively even if they don't have those townhome podiums. It's more the materials used and how it interacts with the street is more important

[Klazu]

Originally Posted by logan5

I would cite Richards Street as a good example of how tower/podium should be done.

+1

Originally Posted by trofirhen

From the renders this thing seems uglier than The Mark, which people seem to love hating.

There is definitely a resemblance between the two, which might actually end up beign quite cool remembering that they stand in align on the opposite sides of the Granville loops. It may end up looking quite interesting actually.

The taller podium is fine IMO since the loop begins from in front of this building. Anything smaller would get "buried" behind the loop. Also, I don't think the podium will be any more massive than the current hotel building is.

[osirisboy]

Originally Posted by logan5

I would cite Richards Street as a good example of how tower/podium should be done.

Yea I agree like Richards between robson and Georgia

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by logan5

I would cite Richards Street as a good example of how tower/podium should be done. What's your example from "any other city"? Are you able to provide one?

You should check out Madrid, specifically the areas along Paseo de la Castellana around the Bernabeu stadium. It's all 10-12 story buildings and the scale looks and feels great.

[SFUVancouver]

Originally Posted by Jebby

You should check out Madrid, specifically the areas along Paseo de la Castellana around the Bernabeu stadium. It's all 10-12 story buildings and the scale looks and feels great.

How wide are the streets there?

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

How wide are the streets there?

Around the same as DT Vancouver. To me it looks about the same as Richards.

https://www.google.com.mx/maps/place/Cuz...1!1s0xd42291c64b1c869:0x5baf4747d689f14e

[giallo]

Originally Posted by Delirium

1335 howe went to the UDP last week and passed. this looks like garbage and of course, it has the mandatory sea foam coloured spandrel. shock!

Photo https://cityhallwatch.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/40-storeys-1335_howe.jpg

I think the UDP are trolling us here at SSP now.

[SFUVancouver]

Originally Posted by giallo

I think the UDP are trolling us here at SSP now.

To repeat a tired refrain, for a rezoning, which is what this stage of 1335 Howe's approval process is, the UDP is only tasked with reflecting on the Use, Form, and Density of the project.

Use: is the building program supportable and appropriate for its site?
Form: is the massing of the building supportable and appropriate for its site?
Density: is the density of the building supportable and appropriate for its site?

For a rezoning, the UDP will undoubtedly have given their professional opinions on the presented details of the building, including: architectural expression (fenestration, material pallet, colouration, etc.); landscape design; planned building systems; and role in implementing policy and advancing City goals. However, while these comments are conveyed to the applicant and noted by Staff, they are not relevant to the Panel's official commentary on the project at the rezoning stage where their mandate is to comment on Use, Form, and Density. All commentary extraneous to this focus is struck from the minutes and only the Panel's consensus items and noted contrarian points of view will be noted.

Now, this building definitely needs some design development, plus I think that this is the 'back', so it's not hard to imagine that the other side is cleaner and a more palatable expression. The sheer quantity of spandrel is depressing, but the offset balconies might turn out well and give the building some novel texture. I don't have an issue with the massing of the podium, which appears to reference the adjacent buildings and create a substantial street wall.

I'll reserve judgment until I see the front of the building and how it looks after design development when it comes before the DPB. Plus, if anyone is trolling SSP, it's the architects and their developer clients.

[officedweller]

Comments..

I think Logan5 is referring to Richards near Smithe & Nelson - i.e. Mondrian, etc. with 2-3 storey townhouses.

I don't think this podium is too tall (the taller podium is more "urban"), but the repetitiousness of it is a bit ungainly (though the height is similar to the streetwall on Hornby).

i.e. compare to L'Hermitage (also on Richards) that osirisboy likes which has a similarly tall podium but stepped back after the first few commercial storeys (but it's not midblock).

I think the difference between this building and The Mark, is that the Mark was trying to be sleek and refined
- I don't think anyone would suggest this building is trying to do that.

[Delirium]

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

To repeat a tired refrain, for a rezoning, which is what this stage of 1335 Howe's approval process is, the UDP is only tasked with reflecting on the Use, Form, and Density of the project.

Use: is the building program supportable and appropriate for its site?
Form: is the massing of the building supportable and appropriate for its site?
Density: is the density of the building supportable and appropriate for its site?

For a rezoning, the UDP will undoubtedly have given their professional opinions on the presented details of the building, including: architectural expression (fenestration, material pallet, colouration, etc.); landscape design; planned building systems; and role in implementing policy and advancing City goals. However, while these comments are conveyed to the applicant and noted by Staff, they are not relevant to the Panel's official commentary on the project at the rezoning stage where their mandate is to comment on Use, Form, and Density. All commentary extraneous to this focus is struck from the minutes and only the Panel's consensus items and noted contrarian points of view will be noted.

Now, this building definitely needs some design development, plus I think that this is the 'back', so it's not hard to imagine that the other side is cleaner and a more palatable expression. The sheer quantity of spandrel is depressing, but the offset balconies might turn out well and give the building some novel texture. I don't have an issue with the massing of the podium, which appears to reference the adjacent buildings and create a substantial street wall.

I'll reserve judgment until I see the front of the building and how it looks after design development when it comes before the DPB. Plus, if anyone is trolling SSP, it's the architects and their developer clients.

Yes but why not say right off the bat, ENOUGH of the same coloured spandrel as every other building in this city? Change it up for god's sake!

While the model shows the 'back side' it'll still be highly visible. here's the side facing howe street which appears to have to have application as the other side. IE> Spandrel mess.

Photo http://www.vancouvermarket.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/1335-Howe.jpg

I'm convinced local architects have run out of creative ideas on what to do with condos here. When you think what non-local architects come up with (think, jameson house, vancouver house, etc) we get so much more variety.
this city desperately needs more non-local influences when it comes to architecture.

[officedweller]

BTW - it looks like they chopped off a cruise ship's sun deck and glued it onto the top of the podium.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

To repeat a tired refrain, for a rezoning, which is what this stage of 1335 Howe's approval process is, the UDP is only tasked with reflecting on the Use, Form, and Density of the project.

Use: is the building program supportable and appropriate for its site?
Form: is the massing of the building supportable and appropriate for its site?
Density: is the density of the building supportable and appropriate for its site?

Then what do we need the UDP for. The way you've laid it out, all we need are a few mathematical formulas instead of a 13 member panel. On that panel there are 6 architects, 2 landscape architects, and 1 art professional. That's 9 of the 13 panel members representing architecture. The UDP has no say as far as architecture goes? What?

If it passes rezoning, is the proposal then brought back to the UDP to face further scrutiny? Is the architecture then finally addressed?

[logan5]

My questions are somewhat rhetorical. We see what gets pumped out relentlessly despite a panel of 13 experts. Something is seriously wrong.

[Delirium]

my biggest question is don't these panel members LIVE in this city? don't they see they the crap going up and not question it? how can they drive across a bridge (pick one) and say, YES, I totally supported the Mark because it's such a great building! I mean, look at it!

seriously. Either this 'panel' is being bribed or they're just totally stupid and blind. i wish the UDP allowed public commentary because i'd be there in a sec with my views with photographic evidence of the monotony our city has become.

[SFUVancouver]

Originally Posted by logan5

If it passes rezoning, is the proposal then brought back to the UDP to face further scrutiny? Is the architecture then finally addressed?

Yes. When a project has its rezoning permit in hand, it then must obtain a development permit from the Development Permit and the UDP sees the project again and gives its advice to the DPB. Architectural expression is absolutely on the table for commentary.

Originally Posted by Delirium

i wish the UDP allowed public commentary because i'd be there in a sec with my views with photographic evidence of the monotony our city has become.

You can speak before Council during the rezoning stage and you can speak before the Development Permit Board.

http://vancouver.ca/your-government/urban-design-panel.aspx

[Delirium]

^ thanks. wasn't aware of that!

on another note, interesting proposal from ian gillespie/westbank:

Meanwhile, Gillespie intends to build a new office tower over top of the old Beatty Street plant, which will be retained to supply power during peak winter demands.

“We are working on a concept to put an office building on the corner of Georgia and Beatty. What would happen is the plant would stay in the basement of that building and we would literally build around the plant. The stacks would literally come up through the middle of the building and you would never even know that any of that is there,” he said.

The project is subject to rezoning and Gillespie’s Westbank Group, the developer, hasn’t made an application to the city.

Full article: http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Steam+returns+Vancouver/11009247/story.html

[djh]

Originally Posted by Delirium

^ thanks. wasn't aware of that!

on another note, interesting proposal from ian gillespie/westbank:

Meanwhile, Gillespie intends to build a new office tower over top of the old Beatty Street plant, which will be retained to supply power during peak winter demands.

“We are working on a concept to put an office building on the corner of Georgia and Beatty. What would happen is the plant would stay in the basement of that building and we would literally build around the plant. The stacks would literally come up through the middle of the building and you would never even know that any of that is there,” he said.

The project is subject to rezoning and Gillespie’s Westbank Group, the developer, hasn’t made an application to the city.

Full article: http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Steam+returns+Vancouver/11009247/story.html

That's an interesting read, but it raised 2 questions for me:

a) Why do we need a wood-burning steam plant, with it's "low carbon footprint"? Isn't the whole Lower Mainland powered from Hydroelectric dams, which have a "ZERO carbon footprint"?

b) The article states that Gillespe's project will provide steam power to the redevelopment of Oakridge. That sounds like an awfully long way to run steam pipes. It appears that there is an arterial steam pipe running along Burrard (?just downtown?) but still, I would imagine this would require major infrastructure construction to connect to Cambie/41st. Would the steam still carry enough energy at that distance to make it efficient and worthwhile? And hey, again back to point A - what's wrong with our existing carbon-free hydroelectric power?

Hopefully there is somebody in the know, or some engineers here, who have greater knowledge than me and can give some insight.

[Vancity]

Originally Posted by Delirium

Yes but why not say right off the bat, ENOUGH of the same coloured spandrel as every other building in this city? Change it up for god's sake!

While the model shows the 'back side' it'll still be highly visible. here's the side facing howe street which appears to have to have application as the other side. IE> Spandrel mess.

Photo http://www.vancouvermarket.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/1335-Howe.jpg

I'm convinced local architects have run out of creative ideas on what to do with condos here. When you think what non-local architects come up with (think, jameson house, vancouver house, etc) we get so much more variety.
this city desperately needs more non-local influences when it comes to architecture.

yeah, i agree. seems like we have some of the most uninspiring architecture in this otherwise, beautiful city. lol. i wonder why our local architects are so....bland when it comes to design. maybe we should hire more international firms to build.