Downtown Vancouver Updates

[Vin]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Tripping hazard at London Drugs:


http://dailyhive.com/vancouver/banana-sculpture-vancouver-preventable

Yup, for King Kong.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by dleung

This will not happen. It's just a bad dream from a 1930's fascist sci-fi movie. The only thing Vancouver should have in common with Manhattan is the tower density

We love 1930's fascist sci-fi, throw in King Kong and a couple of shooting bi-planes, even better.

[Skygazer]

Love the look of this project: http://www.theprovince.com/business/comm...uilding+poised+built/13417258/story.html

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Klazu

Oh wow! That looks FANTASTIC.

It's nice to see something different being proposed and hopefully built in the region and in the city. Different styles really make the urban landscape way more interesting. I think this will be way cool if built. The region definitely need more variety then spendral and town house/podium stuff we keep building over and over again.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by Jebby

Get rid of the bay windows and this looks amazing. I wouldn't call them PoMo either.

Could be a Stern trademark - they are on the One St. Thomas building too.

[Feathered Friend]

http://vancouver.ca/your-government/urban-design-panel.aspx

• Panel Consensus: Having reviewed the project it was moved by Mr. Yijin Wen and seconded by Ms. Helen Avini Besharat and was the decision of the Urban Design Panel: THAT the Panel recommend RESUBMISSION of the project after incorporating the following comments:
• All facades need design development for quality, light, solar gain, response to context and orientation, to provide meaning to the accents in the facades, and to incorporate a stronger design intent
• Look at the ASHRAE standards which will influence façade design
• Revisit height and massing to bring more light into the building, giving some relief to the side loading of the building
• Ensure a pedestrian friendly treatment at West Pender, including relocation of services to the lane
  
  Related Commentary: The design should be of a high quality as expected under the design guidelines for the Downtown District, but the quality has not found itself yet.
  It is a tight site and the form of the building is affected. It was suggested to eliminate the 8 internal rooms and provide an atrium to bring light into the entire building, revisit the height to relocate those rooms and move the lane massing closer to West Pender. Primarily, solve the façade problem. The window wall is not appropriate in terms of a quality treatment. Expression and materiality needs improvement and is not’ state of the art’. While there are no LEED requirements under the zoning, the panel noted that ASHRAE will need to be addressed in the façade design. The corner wrap of the windows as a bookend should be further developed in terms of detail. The panel had questions about the design rationale and detail for the accent panels. The panel noted that the common rooftop design is positive, but the roof garden should be all season.
  
  Pop up for stair and elevator needs work noting it is viewed from adjacent towers. Look at the structure of the building and solve issues before the DP stage
  
  The laneway function needs further study. There should be more detail on the location of services noting the project is at the DP stage, as well as adjacent services, treatments and parkade access at the lane, and traffic management at the car elevator. Strongly recommend lighting strategy from the beginning.
  
  Finally, the quality of the pedestrian experience should be further considered, particularly location of services. The sculpture is not suitable as public art. Look at the mechanical services and make sure they are at the lane.
  
  Applicant’s Response: The applicant team thanked the panel and added that they were struggling with the height.

I have to say, I wasn't expecting such an outright rejection of this tower. With how the commentary went, I'm half surprised the UDP didn't out right pour lighter fluid on the model! I can't imagine the applicant team having their vision so outright rejected and then having to say "thank you" for it.

[retro_orange]

Originally Posted by Feathered Friend

http://vancouver.ca/your-government/urban-design-panel.aspx




I have to say, I wasn't expecting such an outright rejection of this tower. With how the commentary went, I'm half surprised the UDP didn't out right pour lighter fluid on the model! I can't imagine the applicant team having their vision so outright rejected and then having to say "thank you" for it.

This is good, I was really hoping it would at least look similar to the Exchange. The flat and faceless concrete side wall facing the Exchange also made it look like a renovated SRO.

[logan5]

How is it that so many proposals get rejected? The developers should have a pretty good feel for what's expected from the development as there have been thousands of proposals go through UDP scrutiny. Is the UDP making up the rules as they go along, making it virtually impossible to know what's expected?

The UDP is useless. After all their babble speak, this building will look or function no better than the original proposal. It'll probly look worse.

[logan5]

This building would have limestone cladding at the base and copper coloured spandrel going up the building that's significant enough to give the building a good expression of colour, which nearly all new buildings in Vancouver lack.

I dunno. Maybe the UDP should just design all the buildings in Vancouver themselves.

http://development.vancouver.ca/833wpender/documents/swele.pdf

[dreambrother808]

The proposal is somewhere between bland and fugly. The developer can do better. The UDP made the right decision.

[jollyburger]

^^ logan: I think you got the answer but you refuse to admit it. There is a lot of ugly buildings that go by UDP and these guys got that part right but can't even build something functional that can get by UDP.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

i guess the UDP likes uniformity around the city no matter how ugly it is. i hope the twin towers for the West End pass. they look nice.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by red-paladin

I like this project.


From: http://dailyhive.com/vancouver/alberni-street-project-open-house-event-vancouver-2017

Really like these.

Just remove the bay windows and I would be very happy.

Any word on the official heights?

[dleung]

Originally Posted by Feathered Friend

http://vancouver.ca/your-government/urban-design-panel.aspx

I have to say, I wasn't expecting such an outright rejection of this tower. With how the commentary went, I'm half surprised the UDP didn't out right pour lighter fluid on the model! I can't imagine the applicant team having their vision so outright rejected and then having to say "thank you" for it.

About time the UDP did it's job

Hopefully it does the same with those faux-historic piles. C'mon ppl, does every city need to have the same assortment of styles from every other city and era? And we laugh at Chinese cities for copying Vancouver, Austria, etc.

[osirisboy]

Originally Posted by dleung

About time the UDP did it's job

Hopefully it does the same with those faux-historic piles. C'mon ppl, does every city need to have the same assortment of styles from every other city and era? And we laugh at Chinese cities for copying Vancouver, Austria, etc.

What makes it "faux". What would make it non faux? Are you saying it just impossible to build anything good other than modern glass things?

[Vin]

Originally Posted by dleung

About time the UDP did it's job

Hopefully it does the same with those faux-historic piles. C'mon ppl, does every city need to have the same assortment of styles from every other city and era? And we laugh at Chinese cities for copying Vancouver, Austria, etc.

Are you saying the Marine building and Hotel Vancouver are also 'faux' historic piles? Ultimately, if the buildings look good, it's job well done. And who's laughing at Chinese cities? You? The only original buildings here are the wooden Haida houses and their totem poles. Everything else is just styles from every other city and era.

[dleung]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

What makes it "faux". What would make it non faux? Are you saying it just impossible to build anything good other than modern glass things?

Modern doesn't mean glass. It tends that way today, but tomorrow it could be air curtains or organic screens that follow the movement of the sun. Whatever the technology of the time allows for. Art Deco was modern at the time it was first built. So no, the Marine Building, etc are not faux. If done today with today's technology, it's faux.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by dleung

Modern doesn't mean glass. It tends that way today, but tomorrow it could be air curtains or organic screens that follow the movement of the sun. Whatever the technology of the time allows for. Art Deco was modern at the time it was first built. So no, the Marine Building, etc are not faux. If done today with today's technology, it's faux.

So, if you wear a suit and tie today, which hasn't fundamentally changed in form for a hundred years, as opposed to adopting some kind of Star Trek uniform, your clothing is "faux"? Utter nonsense.

Humans from time to time, through a stroke of genius, discover styles and forms (in architecture, music, art, fashion, etc.) which logically endure on the basis their excellence and exceptional beauty. The judicial reuse of these timeless and classical forms is not an act of inauthenticity, but intelligence.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by dleung

Modern doesn't mean glass. It tends that way today, but tomorrow it could be air curtains or organic screens that follow the movement of the sun. Whatever the technology of the time allows for. Art Deco was modern at the time it was first built. So no, the Marine Building, etc are not faux. If done today with today's technology, it's faux.

so i guess Washington DC buildings are faux, Parliament buildings, court houses, Legislatures, etc. since they were all revivals of many years before.

[Marshal]

These two are why PoMo was so liked by the general public, yet so derided by the art's/intellectual/modern/progressive architect's communities.

I am surprised to see this put forward 30+ years after this kind of thing largely died out.