The Exchange | 115.7m | 31fl, 13fl | 400,000sqft. | Completed - Page 33

Delirium · #**641** Posted **Dec 15, 2015, 2:50 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Well, folks. We're stuck with it now. Look upon the construction site, and behold!! Yet another blaaah "Vancouver Special" (highrise variety) on the way. Better than nothing, I guess.

and this is based on looking at rebar and a construction site

funny because i heard the same thing with MNP, 980 Howe, 745 Thurlowe and guess what, they all turned out pretty damn good.

CurtisVerbatim · #**642** Posted **Dec 15, 2015, 5:09 AM**

Other than the height, this building is fantastic. Who knows, I might get to work on it too!

csbvan · #**643** Posted **Dec 15, 2015, 5:11 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by osirisboy

What? I'm really looking forward to this building. I think it could look great

I agree. The heritage aspect was handled well, and I have a feeling that the quality of this building will be top notch.

mcminsen · #**644** Posted **Dec 22, 2015, 11:05 AM**

Dec.21 '15, my pics

Jebby · #**645** Posted **Dec 22, 2015, 5:02 PM**

Why doesn't the thread title have the name of the tower? Isn't it called The Exchange?

trofirhen · #**646** Posted **Dec 22, 2015, 9:20 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Well, folks. We're stuck with it now. Look upon the construction site, and behold!! Yet another blaaah "Vancouver Special" (highrise variety) on the way. Better than nothing, I guess.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delirium

and this is based on looking at rebar and a construction site

funny because i heard the same thing with MNP, 980 Howe, 745 Thurlowe and guess what, they all turned out pretty damn good.

No, this based on looking at the renders of the finished product. I was just stating what to expect, another potentially dramatic site with a dumbed down prduct.

Vin · #**647** Posted **Dec 22, 2015, 9:27 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delirium

and this is based on looking at rebar and a construction site

funny because i heard the same thing with MNP, 980 Howe, 745 Thurlowe and guess what, they all turned out pretty damn good.

I don't recall anyone saying that about those 3 projects, at least not me: been liking them from the very start as there had never been better prior proposals. I have reservations for this one though, especially since it's so short and fat. Only the details like fins and type of glass can save this building.

Jebby · #**648** Posted **Dec 22, 2015, 9:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Well, folks. We're stuck with it now. Look upon the construction site, and behold!! Yet another blaaah "Vancouver Special" (highrise variety) on the way. Better than nothing, I guess.

What the hell are you talking about? This is nothing like a "Vancouver Special"...it's not even residential.

And I have no idea why you went back to quote things from 2013...

trofirhen · #**649** Posted **Dec 22, 2015, 9:57 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jebby

What the hell are you talking about? This is nothing like a "Vancouver Special"...it's not even residential.

And I have no idea why you went back to quote things from 2013...

I meant "Vancouver Special" in terms of a potentially dramatic building site being "dumbed down," that's all. That dumbing down of projects seems to be a syndrome here.

Jebby · #**650** Posted **Dec 22, 2015, 10:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by trofirhen

I meant "Vancouver Special" in terms of a potentially dramatic building site being "dumbed down," that's all. That dumbing down of projects seems to be a syndrome here.

This stuff happens in every single city in the world. It's called living in the real world of economics and politics. You can't just build a 200m iconic tower whenever and where ever you want. It all costs $$$ and usually the economics don't justify it.

officedweller · #**651** Posted **Dec 22, 2015, 11:11 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by trofirhen

I meant "Vancouver Special" in terms of a potentially dramatic building site being "dumbed down," that's all. That dumbing down of projects seems to be a syndrome here.

I don't really recall any 100% office towers being "dumbed down"
- they are owned by the developers and need to appeal to their corporate tenants.

The only dumbed down office building is Rogers Centre West (which is also part residential).

745 Thurlow doesn't seem to have a lighting feature that was illustrated in renderings, but the quality of the glass is good.

The dumbed down buildings are residential condos.

s211 · #**652** Posted **Dec 23, 2015, 1:12 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by officedweller

745 Thurlow doesn't seem to have a lighting feature that was illustrated in renderings, but the quality of the glass is good.

I'm hearing rumours they are having problems with cracking spandrel panels.

red-paladin · #**653** Posted **Dec 23, 2015, 4:35 AM**

Title corrected.

I believe that the present form of the project is much better than the original.

logan5 · #**654** Posted **Dec 23, 2015, 4:48 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by officedweller

I don't really recall any 100% office towers being "dumbed down"
- they are owned by the developers and need to appeal to their corporate tenants.

The only dumbed down office building is Rogers Centre West (which is also part residential).

745 Thurlow doesn't seem to have a lighting feature that was illustrated in renderings, but the quality of the glass is good.

The dumbed down buildings are residential condos.

Office towers are a cut above residential towers, but when you compare Telus and MNP and all the other recent builds, they don't compare to what was built in the 70's and 80's. Park Place crushes anything built today. As do all the other office towers built 30 or 40 years ago. Just my opinion...

Prometheus · #**655** Posted **Dec 23, 2015, 8:04 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by logan5

When you compare Telus and MNP and all the other recent builds, they don't compare to what was built in the 70's and 80's. Park Place crushes anything built today. As do all the other office towers built 30 or 40 years ago. Just my opinion...

One thing is for sure: that despite all the passing of the decades, the towers of the 70s and 80s (i.e., the Bentall Complex, the Scotia Tower, the TD Tower, the RBC Tower, Park Place, Harbour Centre, etc.) are still what define Vancouver's CBD. No office tower built since then has possessed the height, the girth or the gravitas to even remotely redefine the CBD skyline. (And, of course, there have been so few office towers built since the 70s and 80s anyway.) To this very day, the tallest office tower ever built in Vancouver was built 43 years ago in 1973!

Metro-One · #**656** Posted **Dec 23, 2015, 10:06 AM**

Bental 5 IMO is a very prominent recent addition to the CBD of Vancouver.

For me it defines the CBD as strongly as the office towers built in the 70s and 80s.

Prometheus · #**657** Posted **Dec 23, 2015, 10:26 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Bental 5 IMO is a very prominent recent addition to the CBD of Vancouver.

For me it defines the CBD as strongly as the office towers built in the 70s and 80s.

It's an addition. But it's no skyline buster, and in the overall scheme of things, this table-top building hardly makes a dent in the long-established CBD mass/skyline, much less re-defines it, in my opinion. It could have (had it been 10 storeys taller), but it didn't.

Metro-One · #**658** Posted **Dec 23, 2015, 10:34 AM**

But then no office tower in Vancouver does. There really is no major stand out, no Toronto style Scotia Tower.

B5 is a cog similar in presence as Bental 3, 4, Park Place, etc...

All I know is every time I entered downtown from Burrard Station, Park Place and B5 were the first two towers to give a looming presence, and then B3 and B4 when you turn around.

So may have to agree to disagree on this one

If the renders of this tower (The Exchange) are true to the final product, it may actually have the most presence of all the recent office towers constructed, despite being shorter than MNP.

officedweller · #**659** Posted **Dec 23, 2015, 10:45 AM**

Off topic, but some of the skyline prominence has to do with site.

Scotia Tower and TD Tower are on high points of land downtown, so they stick out, same with Royal Bank Tower.

Anything built down the hill from Georgia St. would have to be substantially taller to poke above the tabletop when viewed from the south (the view most people see) - which none of the recent proposals will be (except maybe Oxford's Melville Tower).

On top of that, a large floorplate tower would require the closure or diversion ("L") of a City alley (which all the big 70s & 80s towers did).
The only future alley buster seems to be the Bay Parkade site, but it's height limited.

Prometheus · #**660** Posted **Dec 23, 2015, 10:56 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metro-One

All I know is every time I entered downtown from Burrard Station, Park Place and B5 were the first two towers to give a looming presence, and then B3 and B4 when you turn around.

So may have to agree to disagree on this one

I am talking about when you step back from the city and look at the overall mass and/or skyline of the commercial portion of the CBD. For instance, when you compare an aerial photograph of the conglomeration of office towers within the CBD from 1985 with one from 2015, they look essentially the same. The downtown peninsula looks strikingly different due to all the new residential towers, but the differences within the CBD due to new commercial towers (or lack thereof) are marginal at best. A commercial tower here or there (such as Bentall 5) has given the office core some mild padding, but no commercial tower (or group of commercial towers) since the 80s has remotely re-defined it.