Nelson on the Park | Concept/Proposal

[Infrequent Poster]

If this building is 550' excluding the "nest" or whatever. I would guess total height to be about 580'. Not bad if this is the case.

Unless of course I misunderstood what I was reading.

[Sprawl]

Originally Posted by connect2source

If you look at the third to last page, they'll be applying a 'living wall' to the east facing blank walls of Washington Court, thereby incorporating the building into the podium area, very well thought out IMO. Also love look and functionality of the 'clean energy nest' with the solar panels!!

Yes, the roof looked interesting but understanding the clear sustainability rationale behind it makes it all the more exciting.

[aSeattleite93]

Vancouver's "midtown" is really exciting. Can't wait for the area around One Wall Centre and Patina to fill in

[Klazu]

I kind of feel sorry for people that bought in Patina. They are going to be surrounded with four taller towers. Bye-bye views unless you are facing east.

Just imagine the cluster in this view.

[aSeattleite93]

from Wordpress.com, Changing City Updates (page)
not sure who the creator is
https://changingcitybook.files.wordp...n-the-park.jpg

[aSeattleite93]

woops now I see that this pic was already posted! anyway very wonderful. I don't even know what those two large looking buildings in the background are. is one the 700 footer I've heard a little about? I hope Vancouver gets at least like a 720ft (219.5m for my Canadian friends), 68/70 storey building. but I guess that's another thread(?)

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by aSeattleite93

woops now I see that this pic was already posted! anyway very wonderful. I don't even know what those two large looking buildings in the background are. is one the 700 footer I've heard a little about? I hope Vancouver gets at least like a 720ft (219.5m for my Canadian friends), 68/70 storey building. but I guess that's another thread(?)

That equally tall building with the triple rounded edges was, I believe, supposed to be around 700' (or at least about the same as Nelson on the Park),
but got cut Back to 550'. #§ Viewcone regualations §# ....... if you can't see parts of the mountain slopes and peaks from most city streets,
legend has it that a Black Raven will come and eat your spirit. Enjoy the Canadian mentality, you, our pragmatic US friend and visitor.

[Klazu]

There is nothing concrete about that site, but I don't recall anything stating that it would have been cut back to. Even the West End community plan allows for a Shangri-La height tower to be built there, so I think 200 meters or over is still possible.

I remember someone saying that there is a lease active for the current building for another 10 years, so nothing is going to happen anytime soon. But the longer we have to wait to hear any plans for that site, the more likely it is to be a tall tower.

I don't think there is any view cone limiting that site which is why it is The One to bring balance to The Force.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by Sprawl

Open House boards are here: http://wallfinancialcorporation.com/...0brds%20LR.pdf

Thanks!

A few snips from the pdf.

The corner treatment looks revised from the initial renderings. (no triangular panels).
The ground level looks too stilt-like for my liking.


http://wallfinancialcorporation.com/...0brds%20LR.pdf


http://wallfinancialcorporation.com/...0brds%20LR.pdf


http://wallfinancialcorporation.com/...0brds%20LR.pdf

[LowerLonsdaleMike]

If my math is correct and my info is right in terms of altitudes of Shangri La VS Nelson On the Park, there will only be about a 15-20 metre difference in the overall visual height of these two buildings (EXCLUDING ROOFTOP
APPURTENANCE), so this building will definitely stand out. Let's hope the city doesn't make them scale back the height of this beauty.

[red-paladin]

The base is a bit like the Guinness tower.

[Vanelevatorman]

I'm not feeling the base on this that much...

[Klazu]

It's a very small footprint. I think they utilize the space well.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by red-paladin

The base is a bit like the Guinness tower.

The columns on Guinness are a bit beefier (or maybe because they're black?)
and there's an element at the ends of the floorplate that go to the top of the tower to avoid the stilt-like appearance.

[SFUVancouver]

This feels to me like the most 'Toronto'-style proposal in the pipeline; a tower extruded straight up to a considerable height. I'm looking forward to it.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

This feels to me like the most 'Toronto'-style proposal in the pipeline; a tower extruded straight up to a considerable height. I'm looking forward to it.

This tower and the city-imposed limitations which shaped it actually remind me of how far Vancouver is falling behind Toronto.

Toronto is currently constructing numerous residential towers which soar in height far beyond this tower (although none of them to my knowledge fetch as much per square foot as high-end towers in Vancouver). Of course, these Nelson towers wanted to do the same; indeed, the First Baptist Church site wanted to construct a new landmark for Vancouver at 750 feet, but the city swatted them down, even though the site did not even fall within any of their fabricated viewcone corridors (other than QE).

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

This tower and the city-imposed limitations which shaped it actually remind me of how far Vancouver is falling behind Toronto.

Toronto is currently constructing numerous residential towers which soar in height far beyond this tower (although none of them to my knowledge fetch as much per square foot as high-end towers in Vancouver). Of course, these Nelson towers wanted to do the same; indeed, the First Baptist Church site wanted to construct a new landmark for Vancouver at 750 feet, but the city swatted them down, even though the site did not even fall within any of their fabricated viewcone corridors (other than QE).

I think a compromise of something between 650 and 700 feet would have been the best solution IMO.

While I am more than happy to have more 550 feet towers in Vancouver (seeing how only a decade ago the best we ever saw was usually 400 to 450 feet) a few buildings between 650 to 700 feet would be ideal, with a single (or two) towers reaching around 750 feet in the CBD. That would really solidify downtown.

I dont think for the time being we need to build to Torontos heights.

But, in the end, the Vancouver skyline has added a lot of height over the last 10 years, and it looks to be continuing this trend with these recend 150 meter plus proposals, so it is not as if we are stuck in the same situation we were pre 2000.

[Klazu]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

I think a compromise of something between 650 and 700 feet would have been the best solution IMO.

Yeah, slightly taller would have been better, as now there will be three almost equal height towers next to each other. One popping up (and I would have preferref it to be this one) would have looked so cool.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

I think a compromise of something between 650 and 700 feet would have been the best solution IMO.

While I am more than happy to have more 550 feet towers in Vancouver (seeing how only a decade ago the best we ever saw was usually 400 to 450 feet) a few buildings between 650 to 700 feet would be ideal, with a single (or two) towers reaching around 750 feet in the CBD. That would really solidify downtown.

I dont think for the time being we need to build to Torontos heights.

But, in the end, the Vancouver skyline has added a lot of height over the last 10 years, and it looks to be continuing this trend with these recend 150 meter plus proposals...

The only trend that these 150-168 metre proposals represent is the latest artificial limitation the city has arbitrarily imposed on the natural progression of Vancouver's skyline. Vancouver is a big, growing, dynamic city. Builders currently have the desire and the economic case for more ambitious architecture, and the people could certainly benefit from the greater supply and lower prices that more height and density would bring. But the city continues to needlessly stand in the way, limiting supply, raising prices and stifling the natural growth of a potentially great city's skyline.

Far from being exciting, the document posted from the open house is quite demoralizing. It reveals that, if the current city council has its way, no tower taller than 700 feet (i.e., literally just a few floors taller than Shangri-La) will ever be permitted to be built before 2035, notwithstanding the economic case for larger buildings. That current scale of architecture is already incongruous with the size, power and needs of Vancouver. It will be even more so in the coming decades. Even Edmonton, a relative backwater, is currently constructing numerous taller towers, including one that will dwarf Shangri-La by more than 180 feet upon its completion in 2018, all of which was made possible by the city's recent relaxation of longstanding height limits.

It's past time to end the artificial limitations here in Vancouver too and allow our downtown to soar and flourish naturally.

[Klazu]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Even Edmonton, a relative backwater, is currently constructing numerous taller towers, including one that will dwarf Shangri-La by more than 180 feet upon its completion in 2018, all of which was made possible by the city's recent relaxation of longstanding height limits.

Edmonton will still be Edmonton even if they have taller towers than us. They may have taller towers under construction, but they are quite bulky and nothing as nice as the latest proposals we are seeing (or some towers we already have). I will take quality over little more height on every day.