The Exchange | 115.7m | 31fl, 13fl | 400,000sqft. | Completed - Page 34

Metro-One · #**661** Posted **Dec 23, 2015, 11:01 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prometheus

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 office towers of the CBD from 1985 with one from 2015, they look essentially the same. The downtown peninsula may look quite different due to all the new residential towers, but the differences within the CBD due to new commercial tower construction (or lack thereof) are marginal at best. No office tower (or group of office towers) since the 80s has remotely re-defined it.

Yeah, but again that is more to do with sheer mass than B5 itself. Nearly all of the largest office towers are from the 70's and 80's, but none of them alone define the skyline either. B5 for me has just as much of an individual impact in the CBD as any other individual tower from the 70s and 80s.

Also nearly all of the new office towers recently have been infill, filling in gaps between sites already developed, while pre 70s / 80s there essentially were next to no large office towers in the modern CBD. This also makes new towers seem to have less of an impact.

Prometheus · #**662** Posted **Dec 23, 2015, 11:21 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Nearly all of the largest office towers are from the 70's and 80's, but none of them alone define the skyline either. B5 for me has just as much of an individual impact in the CBD as any other individual tower from the 70s and 80s.

Well, if no tower from the 70s or 80s alone defines the skyline and Bentall 5 is equal in impact to any other individual tower from the 70s or 80s, then, ipso facto, Bentall 5 does not define the skyline. And that which does not define the skyline cannot possibly re-define it. And that, of course, has been my point all along.

However, if Bentall 5 had been 10+ storeys taller, for instance, (i.e., if it had soared above the herd) then it would have re-defined the CBD skyline, regardless of the pre-established core's mass. Plus, it would have been a better skyscraper in its own right.

Klazu · #**663** Posted **Dec 23, 2015, 3:30 PM**

I have to agree that our 70s and 80s office towers are beefy and nice. I quite like all of them and hope newer ones would be able to match them in terms of presence.

trofirhen · #**664** Posted **Dec 23, 2015, 4:28 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metro-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.

I can see that, and IMO iot's largely due to to the location. Right across the street is a rather modest-sized, yet classy, older building, and several older buildings
going North on Howe. Gives it all a "big city," dare I say 'New Yorkish' kind of feeling along that modest canyon. (Which is still a canyon, however modest).

officedweller · #**665** Posted **Dec 23, 2015, 10:05 PM**

The older towers also have more solid surface, contrasting colours and/or darker colour palettes. That makes them stand out.

Klazu · #**666** Posted **Dec 23, 2015, 10:06 PM**

True, but there is something about the use of concrete that makes a building look "heavy" (i.e. feel beefy) vs. glass towers. I guess that's what you mean my solid surfaces, eh?

officedweller · #**667** Posted **Dec 23, 2015, 10:11 PM**

Yeah, stone cladding, raw concrete or concrete composite.

The last office tower with that beefy look would have been Library Square (?)

Klazu · #**668** Posted **Dec 24, 2015, 5:04 AM**

Yeah, I am always amazed how tall and "beefy" Library Square looks like. Especially when considering that it is standing all alone in an otherwise empty and open area. It doesn't even have very many floors, yet it appears tall. I quite like the whole complex.

Sorry for the off-topic.

trofirhen · #**669** Posted **Dec 24, 2015, 5:32 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by officedweller

The older towers also have more solid surface, contrasting colours and/or darker colour palettes. That makes them stand out.

That building directly across from it has a warm grayish hue, sort of a sculpted top, and tall, arched windows at street level. Understatedly elegant, and will complement "The Exchange" well.

Vin · #**670** Posted **Dec 24, 2015, 7:29 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jebby

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.

We all know very well that's not really the reason why this building is short and stout.

Quote:

Originally Posted by logan5

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...

Totally agreed, especially before the introduction of viewcones.

trofirhen · #**671** Posted **Dec 24, 2015, 11:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vin

We all know very well that's not really the reason why this building is short and stout.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Totally agreed, especially before the introduction of viewcones.

Gee willikers, Vin, you're not implying that the stifling-but-politically-correct Viewcones dumb down the skyline, are ya?

mcminsen · #**672** Posted **Dec 26, 2015, 5:26 AM**

A quick shot of the front today and then a look south on Howe Street from Canada Place. The gap on the right will fill in over the next year.

Dec.25 '15, my pics