Downtown Vancouver Updates

[Feathered Friend]

Originally Posted by mcminsen

Here are some of the display boards.

A shame we missed each other at this one; I got there at 5:30 ish and stayed 'til the end. Thanks for saving me the trouble of uploading my pictures though, Great job as always.

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Are these both 550 feet tall? (167 meters)

Because their massing looks worryingly short compared to the surrounding towers.

Would be a waste to have 2 towers not built to the max height allowed on one of our few sites downtown that allow higher buildings.

The Nelson Park shadowing is a bit of a joke as well.

Since the old Nelson proposal is dead does that mean any new project will have to be shorter to adhere to this new layer of height limits? Or will it be grandfathered like first-baptist?

A member of the team confirmed the rumors I had been hearing. This project is indeed shorter than the 550ft that is allowed. My experience at the open house was that that the tower had a warm reception. The only concern I heard voiced was about traffic volume.

[Feathered Friend]

Vancouver oak tree replaced atop West End highrise
Initial pin oak tree was installed on roof deck in 1987 but removed after it died
By Chad Pawson, CBC News Posted: Nov 01, 2017 8:36 PM PT Last Updated: Nov 01, 2017 8:36 PM PT

Part of the view in Vancouver's English Bay — missing for months — is now back.

Crews, using a massive crane, lifted a new 10-metre high pin oak tree up 60 metres to the roof of the Eugenia Place condominium building on Beach Avenue Wednesday afternoon.

(Kelly Gavin)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-co...ach-avenue-vancouver-replanted-1.4382702

[Marshal]

Originally Posted by mcminsen

Nov.1 '17, my pics

This is absolutely hilarious!

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by Feathered Friend

A shame we missed each other at this one; I got there at 5:30 ish and stayed 'til the end. Thanks for saving me the trouble of uploading my pictures though, Great job as always.



A member of the team confirmed the rumors I had been hearing. This project is indeed shorter than the 550ft that is allowed. My experience at the open house was that that the tower had a warm reception. The only concern I heard voiced was about traffic volume.

Well that is disappointing.

I am not too much of a “heighter” (there are many shorter projects in Vancouver I love and many taller projects throughout Canada that I really dislike) but it does disappoint me when projects are not built to their maximum allowed heights on the very few parcels of land we have in this city that allow taller buildings.

For goodness sakes to even get on the list of tallest 50 proposals in Canada these days a tower must be over 160 meters or so last time I checked.

Also sad that Edmonton, Quebec City, and Burnaby will soon have taller buildings than Vancouver (joining Toronto, Calgary, and Montreal).

I wish it didn’t bother me, but for some reason it does a little (silly I know, but it is there).

[osirisboy]

Originally Posted by Marshal

This is absolutely hilarious!

Yeah talk about some artsy fartsy architectual bullshit! They have to all be on drugs when they come up with this

[osirisboy]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

I wish it didn’t bother me, but for some reason it does a little (silly I know, but it is there).

It bothers you because you're normal! It's not silly!! Tall buildings are impressive. Simple. Hell, even a shitty building can be more interesting and impressive if it has height. Even people who aren't into this stuff like we are I find still comment and take notice of tall buildings.

I can't stand people who try to invalidate our desire to see tall buildings constructed. Tall buildings are cool!

[Marshal]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

Yeah talk about some artsy fartsy architectual bullshit! They have to all be on drugs when they come up with this

You are giving too much credit. Your average architect hasn't a clue about what design is all about. They get the practical figured out and then "look for inspiration."

For something like this, they have seen (architects are gigantic consumers of imagery) several of the dozens of similar designs around the world and "copy." There is no other way to put it. "Copy in whole," or "copy in part."

The bullshit is to then come up with such a weak rational for the thing.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

It bothers you because you're normal! It's not silly!! Tall buildings are impressive. Simple. Hell, even a shitty building can be more interesting and impressive if it has height. Even people who aren't into this stuff like we are I find still comment and take notice of tall buildings.

I can't stand people who try to invalidate our desire to see tall buildings constructed. Tall buildings are cool!

Haha people who deride having tall buildings constructed are usually those praising them once they are built. It's like rolling a huge rock: the initial push or impulse is the hardest, but once it rolls, the momentum helps keep it going.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

Yeah talk about some artsy fartsy architectual bullshit! They have to all be on drugs when they come up with this

Probably because their audience is composed of other architects.
If it were a panel of the general public, they'd be called on it pretty quick.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by mcminsen

Here are some of the display boards.

Nov.1 '17, my pics
[

The boxes are also better defined / resolved (due to the concrete edging) than on the GBL-designed Catholic Charities redevelopment:


http://urbanyvr.com/hotel-and-condo-catholic-charities-yaletown

[rofina]

This Barclay proposal is super sweet.

Love it.

[Marshal]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Probably because their audience is composed of other architects.
If it were a panel of the general public, they'd be called on it pretty quick.

No, its more like this:
They learn it in architectural school where they are forced to justify and defend their designs (done in design studio courses) in front of classmates, guest critics and professors. After school most stop that nonsense.

In a case like this, they are not talking to other architects, or the public (per se), but to design panels, municipal authorities and councils. This audience demands justifications and defenses similar to what the architects faced back in school. They revert to the nonsense they used back then to placate people who, likewise, understand little about design processes and theory. Hence: bullshit is thrown at bullshit lovers, and used in an irrational aspect of the process. It would be a huge step forward, and the city's architectural quality would benefit greatly, if this nonsense could be removed. Cities do not have the understanding to judge, and design panels do not improve that enough to make a difference. So: cities should get out of the business of regulating design.

A poor outcome that results from this is that, due to their inability to actually judge design, cities and their design panels gravitate towards "safety" in their decisions. That is why so many of you on the forum watch design after design get normalized through the process . . . always becoming lesser than they could have been.

[jollyburger]

They were sticking up scaffolding up around the Oxford building near Homer/Dunsmuir. I guess this is unrelated to the new tower next door?

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by Marshal

Hence: bullshit is thrown at bullshit lovers....

Yup - that's what I meant.

[s211]

Originally Posted by Marshal

Hence: bullshit is thrown at bullshit lovers, and used in an irrational aspect of the process.

My favourite BS phrase back in the early 90s was "creating a spirit of place"; I kid you not.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by mcminsen

Here are some of the display boards.

To me, I don't see this as BS. It clearly shows how you can achieve much more in high population density development if you stack what's currently at the West End up this way, on a tiny footprint. This is also to show people who like to argue that one can achieve the same density by having a short building wrong.

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by Feathered Friend

A member of the team confirmed the rumors I had been hearing. This project is indeed shorter than the 550ft that is allowed. My experience at the open house was that that the tower had a warm reception. The only concern I heard voiced was about traffic volume.

Yes I spoke to a rep from Bosa and he confirmed it was due to the shadowing on Robson St.

I highlighted several times in my comment card that this is a rather silly reason to limit the height of these buildings, especially given that the shadowing appeared to be to the curb and not the shadow imposed by the buildings already there!

If you think this tower should go taller you should probably send in a comment, as planning staff actually has discretion over whether a building can go taller due to shadowing, unlike view cones which are bylaw.

[Feathered Friend]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

Yes I spoke to a rep from Bosa and he confirmed it was due to the shadowing on Robson St.

I highlighted several times in my comment card that this is a rather silly reason to limit the height of these buildings, especially given that the shadowing appeared to be to the curb and not the shadow imposed by the buildings already there!

If you think this tower should go taller you should probably send in a comment, as planning staff actually has discretion over whether a building can go taller due to shadowing, unlike view cones which are bylaw.

In case anyone takes that good advice and wants to write in, here's the layout of the comment form from the event, complete with typo. (I really do take photos of everything )

[GenWhy?]

Open House this Tuesday at the Woodwards Atrium for Henriquez's building on Cordova backing onto Blood Alley. Includes the demo of two Canadian Heritage Registry buildings and the reincarnation of their facades from Cordova, but not onto the alley.

http://development.vancouver.ca/33wcordova/index.htm

[LeftCoaster]

My pics from the event:









All in all I like the design, but of the latest round of 'starchitect' proposals it is probably my least favourite.

As i eluded to before I am very disappointed by the height, especially the reason behind the cut. Shadowing a playground on a school or something like that is one thing but a shadow on a downtown shopping district that is only there for a few weeks of the year is just nuts IMO.

Also I asked the Bosa rep about the Nelson on the Park proposal and as far as he knew that design was still alive and is why they used it. Who knows what will come with that property though.

Didn't see anyone in a bird costume though!