Burrard Place | 168m, 112m, 56m | 54fl, 36fl, 13fl | 938,000 sqft | U/C - Page 34

Bcasey25raptor · #**661** Posted **Jun 28, 2015, 4:38 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Again, I get the feeling that I am "supposed" to like this project. The height is great, yes, but the overall design just doesn't do it for me.
Sorry if this breaks the Politically Correct Rules of Taste here. I wonder how many, if any, feel the same way I do.

It's an ok project but it screams typical Vancouver at me and it doesn't break any boundaries.

Secondly, 168 meters isn't that tall when burnaby is building projects taller as we speak.

scrapin · #**662** Posted **Jun 28, 2015, 4:49 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Thank you for that confirming feedback. It's a real shame in this case, considering it will be one of our tallest and most prominent buildings.

No doubt the height and the presence it will bring to that area is great, but its just another vancouver special condo tower...just taller, i still look forward to it though for the other factors i mentioned above.

scrapin · #**663** Posted **Jun 28, 2015, 4:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bcasey25raptor

It's an ok project but it screams typical Vancouver at me and it doesn't break any boundaries.

Secondly, 168 meters isn't that tall when burnaby is building projects taller as we speak.

Burnaby and Surrey are probably gonna have 200+ meter towers in
the near future, gonna be good.

osirisboy · #**664** Posted **Jun 28, 2015, 5:17 PM**

I think I will like the tower if the glass is dark as shown in model. The dark glass would contrast nicely with the white honeycomb.

And yes! the city had to get over this fear of height.

Klazu · #**665** Posted **Jun 28, 2015, 5:30 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by osirisboy

I think I will like the tower if the glass is dark as shown in model. The dark glass would contrast nicely with the white honeycomb.

Exactly! Shape is a bit meh, but the colors and darkness/shades of glass can either make ot break this. I hope they would have kept the orange/brown look of the original proposal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by scrapin

Burnaby and Surrey are probably gonna have 200+ meter towers in the near future, gonna be good.

This topic has been touch on in the Suburban threads and it is not expected to happen anytime soon. There is just no financial reason to build that tall in the suburbs for many years. We will see many 150m+ projects but I doubt 200 meters will broken for a long time.

trofirhen · #**666** Posted **Jun 28, 2015, 6:32 PM**

I must admit that with the dark glass, I can better accept it. The original blueish colour was sort of "1970s Wakalui Hilton" if you get the metaphor.

officedweller · #**667** Posted **Jun 29, 2015, 3:38 AM**

Thanks!
The glass looks similar to West Pender Place (hopefully).

Interesting (weird) how phase 2 will abut and overhang the podium of phase 1 (you can see it in the transparent model)

The cut-out on the corner seems more prominent than before - looks cleaner, overall.
The grid proportions are better.
... and the green fins appear to be gone from the alley side (?) -
so will the green be gone from Phase 2, as well?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delirium

http://www.mikestewart.ca/burrard-gatewa...properties-and-jim-pattison-developments

Quote:

Originally Posted by Built Form

Here's the updated model.

pix by Built Form

dleung · #**668** Posted **Jun 29, 2015, 4:48 AM**

Still hate this fussy bi-polar pile. I don't mind a Vancouver-special-design at a Vancouver-special-height, but unfortunately this will be very visible.

city guy · #**669** Posted **Jun 29, 2015, 6:16 AM**

they are throwing so many disconnected cliches at this development...what a lost opportunity ...its a grab-bag of junk

city guy · #**670** Posted **Jun 29, 2015, 6:17 AM**

forgot to say...with this degree of visibility there was an opportunity to really go for it...its in the same camp as salt across the street...the architects need to be put on ritalin

trofirhen · #**671** Posted **Jun 29, 2015, 6:47 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by dleung

Still hate this fussy bi-polar pile. I don't mind a Vancouver-special-design at a Vancouver-special-height, but unfortunately this will be very visible.

Quote:

Originally Posted by city guy

they are throwing so many disconnected cliches at this development...what a lost opportunity ...its a grab-bag of junk

Quote:

Originally Posted by city guy

forgot to say...with this degree of visibility there was an opportunity to really go for it...its in the same camp as salt across the street...the architects need to be put on ritalin

Hate to swallow the cyanide, but I have to .... this is the biggest fukkup of many years! You're all right! Much as I try to kid myself I appreciate Burrard Place, I can't. WE BLEW IT!!!

rofina · #**672** Posted **Jun 29, 2015, 4:02 PM**

Yikes.

What do you get when you add:

- The curve on the Georgia Residences tower.
- The white grid from Vancouver house.
- The same floor plate as a "Vancouver Special Tower."
- Balconies from Opsal.

Congratulations if you guessed Burrard Place!

Hopefully this one surprises to the upside in person.

Klazu · #**673** Posted **Jun 29, 2015, 4:35 PM**

One can hope that with the emergence of starchitects in Vancouver and several upscale projects currently/soon selling, they realize that mediocre shit will not sell and they have to at least invest in high-quality materials if the architecture itself is not noteworthy.

Bcasey25raptor · #**674** Posted **Jun 29, 2015, 6:34 PM**

It's by no means a horrible development. It's just not landmark material.

trofirhen · #**675** Posted **Jun 29, 2015, 8:17 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bcasey25raptor

It's by no means a horrible development. It's just not landmark material.

OK, true enough. But it's in a landmark location, and therein lies the problem.

Vin · #**676** Posted **Jun 29, 2015, 9:00 PM**

Jim Pattison is so well known locally, so it would've been great to create a legacy project.

Klazu · #**677** Posted **Jun 29, 2015, 10:28 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vin

Jim Pattison is so well known locally, so it would've been great to create a legacy project.

Yeah, Peter Wall built his legacy landmark with One Wall Centre and Pattison should be doing the same. Just taller as it is.

jlousa · #**678** Posted **Jun 29, 2015, 11:08 PM**

*l* you guys crack me up. This project will turn out fine, Just wait and see. In the meantime take a look at West Pender Place, and 568 Beatty for an idea of what Reliance has done recently. This project will come together have patience.

Cypherus · #**679** Posted **Jun 29, 2015, 11:17 PM**

I agree with jlousa the final outcome can be a lot different. The design is okay - it's sleek, and is as Vancouver as it gets (which is why the design fits with the Vancouverism ethos). We've also seen renderings of towers that looked glorious compared to the final disaster. I am sure this one will be much better to look at in real life than its rendered version.

officedweller · #**680** Posted **Jun 29, 2015, 11:47 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlousa

*l* you guys crack me up. This project will turn out fine, Just wait and see. In the meantime take a look at West Pender Place, and 568 Beatty for an idea of what Reliance has done recently. This project will come together have patience.

Ahh - makes sense, then that this and West Pender Place are both Reliance projects.

It really does look like the same colour of slate blue - which is also similar to the blue on the Hotel Georgia condo tower.

That slate blue is a pretty conservative colour - that will tie-in with the office tower, I suppose.

It may also make the black micro-suite tower next door look out of place.

WRT being a landmark tower
- it ceased to be a landmark when they oriented the "prow" to the Drake & Hornby corner,
instead of facing the Burrard Bridge (along Drake or on the Drake & alley corner).

You can get an idea from this old rendering:

Quote:

Originally Posted by officedweller

http://changingcitybook.com/2013/03/21/burrard-gateway/