Downtown Vancouver Updates

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

I have gone back and forth on the viewcones for as long as I've known about them, but I actually always have liked tabletop-y skylines more, in many cities. It makes them look fuller to me - a jagged skyline (Montreal always comes to mind) can look sparse because the shorter buildings between taller ones look like gaps.

I'd argue that Dallas is a better example of a bad jagged skyline: gaudy, loosely scattered, incompatible with itself. As per Texas individualism, all the separate towers were built to be tall and attention-grabbing, with little to no consideration of the city as a whole... at least Vancouverism created a downtown that's compact and aesthetically cohesive, if lacking a strong visual anchor.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Whatever they do with it doesn't sound cheap. The application says "Existing Building and Programs Renovating or converting the existing north side of the site is not considered viable because of the building configuration, failing mechanical systems, and seismic upgrade requirements. The new building will replace and enhance all of the existing programs."

Yeah, I assumed tearing it down or selling the land. Maybe combine it with the parkade on the corner.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

I'd argue that Dallas is a better example of a bad jagged skyline: gaudy, loosely scattered, incompatible with itself. As per Texas individualism, all the separate towers were built to be tall and attention-grabbing, with little to no consideration of the city as a whole... at least Vancouverism created a downtown that's compact and aesthetically cohesive, if lacking a strong visual anchor.

Dallas has amazing towers next to surface parking or even abandoned lots. It's crazy.

[cairnstone]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Yeah, I assumed tearing it down or selling the land. Maybe combine it with the parkade on the corner.

Did they not build a new building a few years ago on Hastings or was that there rival Union Gospel. And they are all competitors for funding its big business the DTES

[Vin]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

To both of your points: nobody cares. We'll never be NYC, and it's proven that height doesn't equal density/urbanism/class. Just go to Europe for examples.

Why are you answering the question for Red-Paladin?

Obviously you cared so much you had to answer a question meant for SOMEONE ELSE.

FYI, we'll never be Europe.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

I'd argue that Dallas is a better example of a bad jagged skyline: gaudy, loosely scattered, incompatible with itself. As per Texas individualism, all the separate towers were built to be tall and attention-grabbing, with little to no consideration of the city as a whole... at least Vancouverism created a downtown that's compact and aesthetically cohesive, if lacking a strong visual anchor.

Why pick an extreme example? Can't we compare with a better place such as Melbourne?

(WarrenC12: don't answer this question)

[bc2mb]

Looks like a slight redesign for Amacon's conversion of the Catholic Charities building to hotel and a new residential tower...

New design much more boxy... not sure I like it.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Vin

FYI, we'll never be Europe...

... Why pick an extreme example? Can't we compare with a better place such as Melbourne?

(WarrenC12: don't answer this question)

Not with that attitude we won't. We're seeing it right now - North America's turning into Europe, Europe's turning into Asia, Asia's turning into a madhouse.

Hardly extreme. We're discussing the drawbacks of jagged skylines, and Dallas is one of them.
Melbourne is much the same, even if the architecture is more congruent. Too many tall buildings, too many gaps - looks like Mordor from certain angles.

This is a public forum. Everybody's welcome to reply to everybody; you've repeatedly shown no hesitation in jumping into others' conversations, and nobody's batted an eyelash.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Vin

(WarrenC12: don't answer this question)

Malls!

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by bc2mb

Looks like a slight redesign for Amacon's conversion of the Catholic Charities building to hotel and a new residential tower...

New design much more boxy... not sure I like it.

Whoa - major step backwards on the hotel design.
That corner needs a landmark design.

I never did like the condo design, but hard to tell what this will look like.
Looks plain and value engineered (maybe in response to the housing market drop).

OLD design below:


https://www.vancouvermarket.ca/2017/04/06/rezoning-plans-unveiled-for-catholic-charities-site/#

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Not with that attitude we won't. We're seeing it right now - North America's turning into Europe, Europe's turning into Asia, Asia's turning into a madhouse.

Hardly extreme. We're discussing the drawbacks of jagged skylines, and Dallas is one of them.
Melbourne is much the same, even if the architecture is more congruent. Too many tall buildings, too many gaps - looks like Mordor from certain angles.

This is a public forum. Everybody's welcome to reply to everybody; you've repeatedly shown no hesitation in jumping into others' conversations, and nobody's batted an eyelash.

It's not a matter of answering my question meant for someone else, but rather the fact that the person who answers it says no one cares about the question, but yet it bothers him enough to butt in.

If you don't like Melbourne's CBD built-form, I don't know what else can please you.

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Malls!

Built for your convenience and pleasure. Hey you beat me to the Amazing Brentwood mall which I haven't even gone yet. What can I say.

[misher]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Whoa - major step backwards on the hotel design.
That corner needs a landmark design.

I never did like the condo design, but hard to tell what this will look like.
Looks plain and value engineered (maybe in response to the housing market drop).

OLD design below:


https://www.vancouvermarket.ca/2017/04/06/rezoning-plans-unveiled-for-catholic-charities-site/#

Luckily they didn't want a cross shaped building beside a church. Though it would be damn good advertising.

[officedweller]

A geodesic soccer ball would be cool next to BC Place

[bc2mb]

I'd say the residential tower design is slightly improved, although it's giving me River District vibes (looks like concrete panels?)

Agree the design of the hotel is a major step backwards. Wonder who the operator will be? Likely Loden as it's Amacon, but who knows...

Originally Posted by officedweller

Whoa - major step backwards on the hotel design.
That corner needs a landmark design.

I never did like the condo design, but hard to tell what this will look like.
Looks plain and value engineered (maybe in response to the housing market drop).

[Klazu]

Not sure the old design was that exciting either but the new one looks like few towers that have recently gone up in Surrey Central.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Vin

It's not a matter of answering my question meant for someone else, but rather the fact that the person who answers it says no one cares about the question, but yet it bothers him enough to butt in.

If you don't like Melbourne's CBD built-form, I don't know what else can please you.

Consider than others may have a more nuanced opinion than "tall = good," or that Melbourne isn't universally considered the ideal skyline. There's plenty of skylines around the world that're compact, mutually complementary or at least eye-catching on a postcard; that one is just Vancouver, but loosely, randomly scattered over a bigger area.

Shooing a fly or a spambot doesn't mean you "care" about it.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by officedweller

A geodesic soccer ball would be cool next to BC Place

Pedantically, it's more of a golf ball.

Originally Posted by misher

Luckily they didn't want a cross shaped building beside a church. Though it would be damn good advertising.

Now I'm curious as to how the hell they'd engineer that one.

[officedweller]

Might work with the right panels:


https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=i...wkIN_vqUyQGls4CtI4k&ust=1574482626443073


https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=i...uV8Q5RkjjfqA-Upoeyn&ust=1574482719520770


https://www.google.ca/url?sa=i&source=im...T6r92Xfxk0c2EhKQnQv&ust=1574482883141588

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Consider than others may have a more nuanced opinion than "tall = good," or that Melbourne isn't universally considered the ideal skyline. There's plenty of skylines around the world that're compact, mutually complementary or at least eye-catching on a postcard; that one is just Vancouver, but loosely, randomly scattered over a bigger area.

Shooing a fly or a spambot doesn't mean you "care" about it.

So which city is "universally considered the ideal skyline"?

Care to elaborate how my question was a "spambot"?
To refresh your frail memory, here's my question to red-paladin:

Imagine all the buildings in Metrotown capped at 20 storeys. Would you prefer that versus the skyline now?

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Vin

So which city is "universally considered the ideal skyline"?

Care to elaborate how my question was a "spambot"?
To refresh your frail memory, here's my question to red-paladin:

There isn’t one. Different people have different opinions of what a good skyline is, and none of them are wrong – that’s how art works. I personally like a monolith with visual “tentpoles” to accentuate it such as Sydney or Singapore.
Oakland and Bellevue are pleasant to look at too. One has never gone above 30 floors (and never above 22 since 2000); the other averages 20-30, with a total of four 40s. Both are objectively much richer in money and life than Metrotown, so indeed, Burnaby could cap their town centre at 20 and it'd be much the same.

---

Well, you could stop giving the same replies to every single comment, every single time.

“This building should be higher!”
“If it weren’t for the viewcones, we’d be amazing!”
“Why can’t we aspire to do better?”
“Burnaby/Surrey/etc is so good at densifying, unlike Vancouver!”

Then somebody will reply that Europe does density just fine with viewcones and without height. Then you’ll say something about how we’re not Europe and we can’t get those kinds of lowrise apartments built. Then we’ll point out that the CoV IS getting them built and that we’re vastly outgrowing and outdensifying the suburbs. You’ll say that it should be faster, we’ll say that such an expectation is completely unrealistic for any city, and then you’ll go away and repeat the cycle a week or two later - possibly with a passing remark on a completely different thread about how nothing ever gets done with “NIMBY sympathizers.” You’re like the zweisystem of towers.

[misher]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Might work with the right panels:


https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=i...wkIN_vqUyQGls4CtI4k&ust=1574482626443073

How I imagine it would look.