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

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

I disagree I think it looks great

I'm not saying it's out and out ugly. It isn't. Just a bit austere. All the better if it matches up with The Exchange, its "parent" building. Leastways, I prefer it to The Edward Chapman store!
Better still if the interior is a smart downtown business hotel. That will add some life and sparkle to that corner of the CBD 'hood.

[officedweller]

Looks pretty ordinary - not sure why they have the glazed corner facing pender - just make it uniform like the lane elevation.

It's clear it doesn't "match" or blend with either of its neighbours, so why the asymmetry (
which visually pushes it closer to the brick-banded building on the corner with which it does not match)?

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Looks pretty ordinary - not sure why they have the glazed corner facing pender - just make it uniform like the lane elevation.

It's clear it doesn't "match" or blend with either of its neighbours, so why the asymmetry (
which visually pushes it closer to the brick-banded building on the corner with which it does not match)?

Lack of taste; lack of 'savoir-faire.' Excuse the snobby-sounding response, but a lot of these people don't travel and/or do it the cheapest way possible without a thought to the aesthetics.

[dleung]

The stripe of curtain wall on the right is as arbitrary as the copper strips from the old design. Slightly less offensive, but still a brain-dead design.

[LeftCoaster]

Tough to really pass judgement without knowing the material pallet. If it is a marble cladding on the south facade with black framed glass that could prove quite sharp. If it is just painted concrete I feel the effect will be lost.

FeatherFriend any indication on what the materials proposed are?

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Lack of taste; lack of 'savoir-faire.' Excuse the snobby-sounding response, but a lot of these people don't travel and/or do it the cheapest way possible without a thought to the aesthetics.

What in the world are you talking about? Which people? Who doesn't travel enough?

The problem with your responses is not snobbery, its coherence.

[Feathered Friend]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

Tough to really pass judgement without knowing the material pallet. If it is a marble cladding on the south facade with black framed glass that could prove quite sharp. If it is just painted concrete I feel the effect will be lost.

FeatherFriend any indication on what the materials proposed are?

I had hoped that the pictures in the first post about the new design would have turned out slightly better, but it was the best I could grab in the public meeting. For the north and south faces, it's possible to make out that the material will be polished stone. The team might have mentioned a specific stone, but I didn't write that down, nor do I remember it now. The polished concrete seemed to be kept to the east and west sections.

Originally Posted by Feathered Friend

[LeftCoaster]

Thanks.

I think a polished stone with a darker framing pallet on the window wall portion could look quite sharp if executed well.

[retro_orange]

Come on, you are in the industry man...

palate / palette / pallet. Your “palate” is the roof of your mouth, and by extension, your sense of taste. A “palette” is the flat board an artist mixes paint on (or by extension, a range of colors). A “pallet” is either a bed (now rare) or a flat platform onto which goods are loaded.May 30, 2016
palate / palette / pallet | Common Errors in English Usage and More ...

https://brians.wsu.edu/2016/05/30/palate-palette-pallet/

[LeftCoaster]

LOL

Not the architecture industry!

My spelling prowess goes little beyond pro forma and IRR.

I will endeavour to spell it correctly going forward... though I probably wont.

[mcminsen]

Originally Posted by mcminsen

Aug.14 '17, my pic

Five weeks later...


Sept.18 '17, my pic

[mcminsen]

Originally Posted by mcminsen

Aug.14 '17, my pic

Sept.18 '17, my pic

[trofirhen]

Thank you, and Wow! Nice to see you the main building 'bevels' are being completed to street level.
Be nice when the new hotel replaces Chapman. Will contribute to that 'city street wall' effect, imo

[jollyburger]

Not sure if it's been like this recently, but all the lights in the tower were turned on tonight.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Lack of taste; lack of 'savoir-faire.' Excuse the snobby-sounding response, but a lot of these people don't travel and/or do it the cheapest way possible without a thought to the aesthetics.

[QUOTE=LeftCoaster;7921366............
What in the world are you talking about? Which people? Who doesn't travel enough?

The problem with your responses is not snobbery, its coherence.[/QUOTE]

I was inferring that the architects who put together the business hotel concept do not travel enough and study design - be it hotel, office, or otherwise - enough.
IMO they'll just "slap qomething together" that should be cost-concious and practical - which it may be - but does not address the aesthetic aspect enough. Travel & study could help.

[mcminsen]

Oct.24 '17, my pics

[trofirhen]

Thanks again, mcminsen
Wow, they got it right this time! Great combination. The new tower is understatedly sleek and impressive, the old one elegantly refurbished- great signage; all very classy!

[officedweller]

I thought the canopy looks a bit on the high side.

Personally, I would have preferred a more modern swooping awning that played off of art deco lines and the arched windows,
but I guess this one is historically accurate.

Compare to the historical pic:


http://www.theexchangebuilding.ca/gallery/

Originally Posted by mcminsen

Oct.24 '17, my pics

[Vin]

The old exchange building is still a facade of its former glory: a bastardized Frankenstein fusion of modern glass and heritage walls: not the greatest IMO. Call me a purist, but I prefer the Hotel Georgia development much more, with a distinct separation of the modern glass tower and the heritage building.

Here, they should've built the new tower at the Chapman and the two low-rise sites, but leaving the old heritage building intact. Again, as in many other cases in this city: loss opportunity.

[Graham_Yvr]

Originally Posted by Vin

The old exchange building is still a facade of its former glory: a bastardized Frankenstein fusion of modern glass and heritage walls: not the greatest IMO. Call me a purist, but I prefer the Hotel Georgia development much more, with a distinct separation of the modern glass tower and the heritage building.

Here, they should've built the new tower at the Chapman and the two low-rise sites, but leaving the old heritage building intact. Again, as in many other cases in this city: loss opportunity.

Good luck getting that past the Jameson House residents. Look how they forced the redesign of this tower as it is.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Graham_Yvr

Good luck getting that past the Jameson House residents. Look how they forced the redesign of this tower as it is.

Again, this is a Vancouver problem, and it shouldn't have existed in the first place. If you choose to live downtown, be prepared to be "walled in". Otherwise don't buy there. The City is giving too much credence to NIMBY resident voices, and that's abject failure, as it's a stark display of the mentality of those in charge. In this case, we waive the obligation of full heritage protection to give way to the rights of residents having a view.