Nelson on the Park | Concept/Proposal

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by Klazu

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.

Also it was the closing of an airport that took away Edmontons height restrictions.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by Klazu

I will take quality over little more height on every day.

But that's an obvious false dichotomy, unworthy of an intelligent person. Height and quality are not mutually exclusive. On the contrary, greater height and density are often precisely what finance greater quality of architecture, materials, amenities and public realm. Indeed, it's the extra height and density allowed under the West End Community Plan that are paying for the higher level of architecture you admire in the new proposals. Just how much bolder and daring could the towers have afforded to be with even more income-generating height and density?

In Edmonton's case, the taller towers are propelling a part of that city to a whole new level of urbanity by helping create an astonishing-looking urban entertainment district unlike anything seen in Vancouver:

EDMONTON ARENA DISTRICT (U/C):


















Source: http://www.rogersplace.com/gallery/

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Also it was the closing of an airport that took away Edmontons height restrictions.

Exactly. At least Edmonton had an unavoidable excuse.

[Hot Rod]

Originally Posted by Klazu

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.

why not take both: quality AND height

[Metro-One]

What is happening with Edmonton and their new stadium is amazing. Vancouver had a similar chance to do the same around BC place only a couple years ago.

It was much more than height limits which killed or so called "entertainment zone."

It was mostly NIMBYism and a weak city council.

Instead we are getting an "entertainment" district complete with condos, a big grassy field, and a casino denied its expansion. All of this with what look to be lackluster lighting features and essentially no digital billboards (which are usually at home in entertainment districts).

This is why I love the Japanese approach to urban mix use. Yes, people do live in the entertainment districts, but they are usually the bar / club / restaurant owners and staff and young people who love the vibe. Not captain Mr. and Mrs. Yuppie with spoilt precious Yuppie Jr.

I think it is great to see Edmonton doing that aspect of their city correctly.

With that being said, despite the lower heights and in regards to the towers themselves, I would still take our recent wave of amazing tower proposals over Edmontons taller towers.

[Vancity]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

What is happening with Edmonton and their new stadium is amazing. Vancouver had a similar chance to do the same around BC place only a couple years ago.

It was much more than height limits which killed or so called "entertainment zone."

It was mostly NIMBYism and a weak city council.

Instead we are getting an "entertainment" district complete with condos, a big grassy field, and a casino denied its expansion. All of this with what look to be lackluster lighting features and essentially no digital billboards (which are usually at home in entertainment districts).

This is why I love the Japanese approach to urban mix use. Yes, people do live in the entertainment districts, but they are usually the bar / club / restaurant owners and staff and young people who love the vibe. Not captain Mr. and Mrs. Yuppie with spoilt precious Yuppie Jr.

I think it is great to see Edmonton doing that aspect of their city correctly.

With that being said, despite the lower heights and in regards to the towers themselves, I would still take our recent wave of amazing tower proposals over Edmontons taller towers.

Vancouver has never had a strong council. We've never had strong leadership in this city. WEAK leadership leading to, well, all kinds of issues and problems...

[EdinVan]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Vancouver is a big, growing, dynamic city

Let's not get carried away...

[Sprawl]

I hope I live to see the day when Vancouver reaches the level of Edmonton. Having some skyscrapers that are a couple dozen metres taller than the ones we have now would truly revolutionise our city. What with their slightly longer shadows, their marginally better ROI for developers, their... um...

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

despite the lower heights and in regards to the towers themselves, I would still take our recent wave of amazing tower proposals over Edmontons taller towers.

You are getting confused and perpetuating the same false dichotomy as Klazu.

The choice before us has nothing to do with Edmonton. The choice Vancouver faces is not between "our recent wave of amazing tower proposals" and Edmonton's taller towers, but rather between our recent wave of amazing tower proposals and a larger wave of even more amazing tower proposals all over downtown, not just along parts of the Burrard/Thurlow/Alberni corridors.

Don't forget, the "recent wave of amazing tower proposals" which you admire is the immediate response on the part of developers to the recently released West End Community Plan, which finally loosened a few of the stifling height restrictions along parts of the Burrard/Thurlow/Alberni corridors.

Observe futhermore the fact that the only relatively exciting and original towers currently under construction or being proposed (i.e., Vancouver House, Trump, the "Jenga" tower, the Kengo Kuma tower, First Baptist, Nelson on the Park) all take place on sites that fall within the city's new Higher Building Policy or the West End Community Plan. This give you a glimpse of the potent effect of fewer artificial barriers and restrictions to growth.

Therefore, greater height and density would not have made these amazing proposals worse (as your false dichotomy implies), but possibly better, since it's greater height and density that generally finance higher quality of architecture, materials and public realm. And expanding the zone of increased freedom would not have led to fewer proposals, but even more.

If it is an even larger wave of even more amazing tower proposals you want, then it is calls for even greater freedom you should be making.

[Klazu]

Yeah, I have seen those Edmonton renderings before and said it before that the stadium and the square look both awesome, but the towers look boring. I am sure it will still work together and be a huge improvement for Edmonton. I also doubt that the square will be that lively through most of the year... It's a cool project nonetheless.

The should dig part of Pacific underground to make it possible to build such an entertainment square between the new casino and the current casino lot. There would be room for something just as great. I hope plans for that area will still change.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by Klazu

Yeah, I have seen those Edmonton renderings before and said it before that the stadium and the square look both awesome, but the towers look boring. I am sure it will still work together and be a huge improvement for Edmonton. I also doubt that the square will be that lively through most of the year... It's a cool project nonetheless.

Stop getting hung up on Edmonton. The original reference to Edmonton was to make two simple points:

1) That if a small town like Edmonton can handle tall skyscrapers, then so can a much bigger and sophisticated city like Vancouver, which has the hottest real estate market on the continent. Indeed, the First Baptist proposal wanted to create a new landmark for Vancouver at 750 feet. It wasn't physics or the economy that cut it down to only 550 feet. It wasn't even the city-fabricated viewcones, since none go over the site. It was the small town mentality of city council and staff.

2) Although you may not like the design of Edmonton's first foray into tall skyscrapers (something to be expected given the city's relative immaturity), these skyscrpaers are nevertheless creating an impressive skyline and bringing levels of urbanity to the public realm not before seen in that city. Imagine what can be done in a more advanced and architecturally refined city like Vancouver, in the absence of political interference and contrivances.

Regarding Vancouver, the essential point is that the choice between height and quality is a false one. Indeed, greater height and density are what usually finance bolder designs, higher quality materials, and more ambitious public realms. This crop of bolder towers we are seeing in Vancouver, for example, is a direct result of the city's recent relaxation of height limits along the corridors where the proposals are being made, in conjunction with Vancouver's growing architectural maturity.

Given these latest proposals, one can only imagine the qualtiy and number of proposals we might be seeing if the city were to relax their controls on height and density even further and in other parts of the city too.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Hot Rod

why not take both: quality AND height

This is Vancouver; we have viewcones. Calgary and Edmonton don't.
Anyway, what's this obsession with height for height'ssake. I agree that the Edmonton concept is breath taking.
But consider Seattle: big economic PNW powerhouse, beautiful setting, and a scrappy, ugly d/t punctuated with 70 and 80 storey towers.
Like, all the tall towers you want can't take away from the overall bleakness of Seattle downtown. Height is good, but it isn't everything.
But, as Prometheus notes above, taller, bigger towers seem to getter better financing for better materials.
......... and chopping back the First Baptist project was small-minded and stupid.

[red-paladin]

We need to get back on topic.
A few comments about height restriction politics are relevant, but not the same old debate about Vancouver viewcone/height restriction policy ad nauseum again.
That's what This thread is for.

[LeftCoaster]

I just did a quick measurement based on scaling the main bulk of the tower to 550' as indicated in the open house boards, and it appears as though the total height of the tower is 188.7M, including the crown.

Not sure how accurate my method will prove to be, and I'm sure the height is still subject to vary given their stage in the process, but I will be interested to see where it ends up compared to this guess.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

I just did a quick measurement based on scaling the main bulk of the tower to 550' as indicated in the open house boards, and it appears as though the total height of the tower is 188.7M, including the crown.

Not sure how accurate my method will prove to be, and I'm sure the height is still subject to vary given their stage in the process, but I will be interested to see where it ends up compared to this guess.

For what it is worth, the authors of Changing City Updates think the height will likely be scaled back:

One issue is that it seems to be proposed at 550 feet high plus a complicated solar panel array rooftop that looks to add another 50 feet – our reading of the plan suggests that’s more than was contemplated, so we suspect that either that feature will be reduced or the tower will shorten a bit – maybe both.

Source: http://changingcitybook.com/2015/10/10/nelson-on-the-park-1075-nelson-street/

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

For what it is worth, the authors of Changing City Updates think the height will likely be scaled back:

Source: http://changingcitybook.com/2015/10/10/nelson-on-the-park-1075-nelson-street/

Aww, Scheissssss! I hope not. But then, 550 feet is higher than most other downtown buildings, and that part of Burrard is somewhat elevated...... (Trying to console myself here .... )

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

I just did a quick measurement based on scaling the main bulk of the tower to 550' as indicated in the open house boards, and it appears as though the total height of the tower is 188.7M, including the crown.

Not sure how accurate my method will prove to be, and I'm sure the height is still subject to vary given their stage in the process, but I will be interested to see where it ends up compared to this guess.

As a casual follower of city policies is that not 4.296 meters over the allowed height of 550' + 10% mechanical space...605 feet basically or 184.404 meters. I don't think they would needlessly complicate the process over 4.296 meters so I would think your guess is a tinny bit too high. No?

[phesto]

Apparently the height to the top of the rooftop appurtenance is 610 ft., and no, it won't be scaled back due to misinterpretation of the West End Plan as Changingcity implied that it might - there is a provision to allow additional height for mechancial features etc. The 550 ft. height applies to the top of the highest habitable floor. The design will have to go through a higher-building review with guest architects etc.

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

'Backwater', 'small town'... nice to see Vancouverites Vancouvering still.

Our apologies for making you feel a little self-consious and soured that this pickup driving, Budweiser drinking, shithole has a comprehensive development of design, material use and appeal you envy a little. I look forward to looking down at you from 250.8m.

Cold what has happened to you lately? Why are you trying to pick fights all over the forum?

Klazu merely said Edmonton will still be Edmonton, inferring from the conversation that the city's built form still has a lot of catching up to do, regardless of the height of 2 or 3 buildings.

No one except you called your city a redneck shithole.

[red-paladin]

To repeat, no off topic posts. Off topic posts will be deleted.