Downtown Vancouver Updates - Page 719

logan5 · #**14361** Posted **Nov 15, 2016, 3:50 AM**

To each their own, but it doesn't look remotely close to me. The Landmark Tower is just a plain jane concrete tower. You'll find dozen of other examples of these in Metrotown and Lougheed.

http://skyrisecities.com/news/2016/09/va...mpire-landmark-hotel-targeted-demolition

https://www.flickr.com/photos/entheos_fog/4486973679

mcminsen · #**14362** Posted **Nov 15, 2016, 4:33 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcminsen

nə́c̓aʔmat ct on Hastings (near Heatley) is coming along nicely. I had not noticed the big open space on the ground floor before.

May 17 '16, my pics

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcminsen

An update on nə́c̓aʔmat ct.

Click on the link in my quoted post above for previous pictures, information and a link to hear the pronunciation of the name of the new Strathcona library and social housing.

July 15 '16, my pics

Nov.7 '16, my pics

Metro-One · #**14363** Posted **Nov 15, 2016, 5:27 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by logan5

To each their own, but it doesn't look remotely close to me. The Landmark Tower is just a plain jane concrete tower. You'll find dozen of other examples of these in Metrotown and Lougheed.

http://skyrisecities.com/news/2016/09/va...mpire-landmark-hotel-targeted-demolition

https://www.flickr.com/photos/entheos_fog/4486973679

Actually, there are not many towers with the same ultra slim / height ratio with a classic revolving restaurant on top built in that era with such prominence throughout the metro.

Again, love the irony in these attitudes and inability to see context.

I am sure that many felt that the Birks building was "run of the mill" for its era and there were many other buildings like it throughout the metro

logan5 · #**14364** Posted **Nov 15, 2016, 5:35 AM**

Not sure what you mean by "context". Both buildings were built decades ago, so there shouldn't be any "new and modern" bias (or vice versa). If that's what you mean.

It looks like the main goal here was to build something tall and that's about it.

Metro-One · #**14365** Posted **Nov 15, 2016, 5:43 AM**

The Birks building would have been similar in age as the Landmark is now (essentially a generation / generation and a half old) when it was torn down. Both are / were seen as outdated designs aesthetically when the wrecking ball was / has been decided. It really seems that around 30 to 40 years old is the most risky age for a building and any appreciation for its corresponding architectural style.

If you can`t see history repeating itself here, then no reason to continue this debate.

Metro-One · #**14366** Posted **Nov 15, 2016, 5:56 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by phesto

Apparently the site is limited to about 200 feet in height as the City will not allow shadows on the North side of Robson Street.

Seeing how we have already seen proposals chopped down in height, despite being proposed on sites in the "higher buildings" policy, due to other policies (what is the point for the higher buildings policy then?) can anyone make a map or list that honestly shows the sites that have a real chance (and are not hindered by other view cones / policies) to go taller?

Anorak · #**14367** Posted **Nov 15, 2016, 6:32 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Seeing how we have already seen proposals chopped down in height, despite being proposed on sites in the "higher buildings" policy, due to other policies (what is the point for the higher buildings policy then?) can anyone make a map or list that honestly shows the sites that have a real chance (and are not hindered by other view cones / policies) to go taller?

On page two of this document there is a map which shows the areas that don't have any view cones or are only impacted by the QE Park view cone which city officials and the UDP is generally more lenient about. Outside of these areas it doesn't matter if they designated the height in a community plan to be higher than what the view cone allows, it almost always won't be allowed to be built to that height.

However, based on this map it looks like the site on the listing in question just misses the view cones, so it may be able to built to the full 550'.

Also of note on this map there is an allocation for a 700' tall tower on the corner of Burrard and Georgia. I believe another member of this forum may have commented on the possibility for a 'landmark' tower on this corner, so that could be interesting. It is infuriating however that most of the Central Business District is blocked off due to view cones

jollyburger · #**14368** Posted **Nov 15, 2016, 7:39 AM**

What did designs aesthetically have to do with tearing down the Birks building?

mcminsen · #**14369** Posted **Nov 15, 2016, 8:36 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BodomReaper

Unpopular opinion: I wish the church would have been redeveloped. It's nothing special architecturally, and there are two similar churches a few blocks south on Burrard. It deadens what should be one of the most intensely urban intersections in the city.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GlassCity

I agree. It's such a regular looking church. It's just not special enough to sit in what should be the flagship intersection of Vancouver. It could be our Bay & King, but not with the church there.

One thing I would miss with a large office tower in place of Christchurch Cathedral would be this view you get as you ascend Burrard Street from the Convention Centre. I have often seen visitors stopped in their tracks to absorb the view of Hotel Vancouver and take pictures.

Nov.14 '16, my pic

jollyburger · #**14370** Posted **Nov 15, 2016, 9:37 AM**

Too bad the second Hotel Vancouver was even nicer.

Vin · #**14371** Posted **Nov 15, 2016, 4:52 PM**

Just leave the Christchurch or the Landmark tower alone. People in Vancouver have no sense of history and heritage.

Want to tear something down? Tons of shacks along Denman, Davie, Granville and Robson to be torn down. Go target those. Want more? Go target those along East Hastings, Broadway, Kingsway, Main, etc.

Jebby · #**14372** Posted **Nov 15, 2016, 6:40 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Thank you for providing that pitch perfect example of what many would have thought when it was decided to take down the Birks building

It is amazing how few people can actually think of context.

The Birks Building was a wonderful example of craftsmanship and attention to detail.

The Landmark tower is nothing special. It's typical modernist concrete garbage of the post-war era.

whatnext · #**14373** Posted **Nov 15, 2016, 11:29 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by logan5

Not sure what you mean by "context". Both buildings were built decades ago, so there shouldn't be any "new and modern" bias (or vice versa). If that's what you mean.

It looks like the main goal here was to build something tall and that's about it.

LOL and that's not what a lot of SSP fanboyism is about?

trofirhen · #**14374** Posted **Nov 15, 2016, 11:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jebby

The Birks Building was a wonderful example of craftsmanship and attention to detail.

The Landmark tower is nothing special. It's typical modernist concrete garbage of the post-war era.

Agreed on both points. The Birks Building had a façade done in the Edwardian style, with curved glass, and scintillating sales floor spaces.
Looking at the piece of suburban trash that now sits in its place is enough to make one weep. I wish someone would come up with a "new" Birks building, done in the Edwardian style.
Same exteriors, same windows, maybe even a little taller. Wouldn't it make for a great part of a streetwall somewhere, preferably on a corner, as before?
*and yes, sorry but I cannot wax sentimental over the Landmark. Height is all it has going for it, little else.

Metro-One · #**14375** Posted **Nov 16, 2016, 12:56 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jebby

The Birks Building was a wonderful example of craftsmanship and attention to detail.

The Landmark tower is nothing special. It's typical modernist concrete garbage of the post-war era.

Again, I am sure this is the exact sentiment shared by those who tore down the Birks buildings. That is what is meant by context.

At the time that it was torn down it was similar in age to what The Landmark Tower is now.

At the time it was torn down it was also seen as nothing special, a typical structure from 40 or so years ago.

Still amazes me that you people can't see the parallels in your arguments.

Give it another 40 years and the Landmark Tower will be seen as a lost great example of a dwindling stock of post war modernism

And finally, for a city where everyone complains lacks variety and has too many glass condos, so ironic to see the championing of the destruction of a major non glass condo tower for more glass condo towers.

BodomReaper · #**14376** Posted **Nov 16, 2016, 1:34 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Again, I am sure this is the exact sentiment shared by those who tore down the Birks buildings. That is what is meant by context.

At the time that it was torn down it was similar in age to what The Landmark Tower is now.

At the time it was torn down it was also seen as nothing special, a typical structure from 40 or so years ago.

Still amazes me that you people can't see the parallels in your arguments.

Give it another 40 years and the Landmark Tower will be seen as a lost great example of a dwindling stock of post war modernism

And finally, for a city where everyone complains lacks variety and has too many glass condos, so ironic to see the championing of the destruction of a major non glass condo tower for more glass condo towers.

This equivalency is a bit silly. The Empire Landmark is only remarkable for its height - similar or better examples of the style are dime-a-dozen throughout the West End, and even Kerrisdale and the 'burbs. How many buildings of similar stature, scale, and craftsmanship to the Birks Building have ever existed in the region?

MIPS · #**14377** Posted **Nov 16, 2016, 2:36 AM**

I'm hearing rumors that plans for redevelopment of the Pacific Centre dome has been approved.

....well, there goes another landmark.

dreambrother808 · #**14378** Posted **Nov 16, 2016, 2:48 AM**

Not quite a landmark. I'd be happy to see it go for something with greater creativity. This proposal is the Vancouver Special of downtown retail.

If it turns out better than that, I'll happily eat my words.

jlousa · #**14379** Posted **Nov 16, 2016, 2:49 AM**

I agree, as much as I think that corner needed to be improved, I am really disliking the retraction of public amenity space. It doesn't matter if there is a square kitty korner. Same things with the area at Seymour and Hastings that will be lost for the office tower . The previous development permits were granted based on receiving that public benefit and now the city is allowing the developer to renege on them. If the space can not be saved so be it, I'm flexible but the developer should need to replace the space in the immediate area and that should not included as part of the CACs for the new project.

dreambrother808 · #**14380** Posted **Nov 16, 2016, 2:50 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BodomReaper

This equivalency is a bit silly. The Empire Landmark is only remarkable for its height - similar or better examples of the style are dime-a-dozen throughout the West End, and even Kerrisdale and the 'burbs. How many buildings of similar stature, scale, and craftsmanship to the Birks Building have ever existed in the region?

Agreed. Build something of similar height that equally fills out the skyline and I'd be happy.