In a city of often very poor architecture, this building is just phenomenal.
May I second that?! It's so cool, so good, that I sometimes wonder how it made it past the UDP, which so often seems to like things dumbed down.
This one's a real centrepiece, for sure.
I'd put it in the top 4 buildings in the city.
What the other 3 are is open for debate.
May I second that?! It's so cool, so good, that I sometimes wonder how it made it past the UDP, which so often seems to like things dumbed down.
This one's a real centrepiece, for sure.
I'd put it in the top 4 buildings in the city.
What the other 3 are is open for debate.
While the UDP rightfully catches a lot of flack, in this case, they actually rejected a couple of very boring cylindrical designs.
While the UDP rightfully catches a lot of flack, in this case, they actually rejected a couple of very boring cylindrical designs.
If I'm not mistaken, the original building to go in the place of the MNP was a gruesome hexagonal thing. I think the UDP sometimes gets it right, other times, ...no.
Well sure it was not excellent but they thought the cylinder was iconic.
Quote:
Panel’s Consensus on Key Aspects Needing Improvement:
Enhance the architectural integrity, presence and autonomy of the building with consideration to expressing aspects of current architectural innovation.
Design refinement to the lower floor elevation with particular attention to the Cordova Street façade and to the relationship with the University Club building.
Design development to the top of the building with particular attention the visibility of the elevator tower.
Design development to increase the vitality of the public realm ground plane including allowing indoor/outdoor permeability particularly with respect to the restaurant.
Design development to the east façade with particular attention to the exterior treatment of the service core.
Related Commentary: The Panel did not support the proposal and agreed that the proposed design had not achieved the desired architectural excellence as envisioned in the Higher Building Policy.
The Panel thought the proposal had a simple, clean expression and responded well to the city grid. They felt it was a good urban fit and liked the through connection from West Hastings Street to Cordova Street. However they thought the designed seemed to be stripped down and was lacking in character and that there wasn’t enough delight as a 2010 designed building with one Panel member noting that it showed it’s history but didn’t show the future. One Panel member thought the materiality was mute and timid and that the reveal between the two facades was an opportunity to express some creativity with the use of texture or colored glass or other materials. However, the Panel thought it was sensitively inserted between the Marine Building and the Guinness Tower. They thought the massing, height and character achieved an appropriate relationship to the heritage of the Marine Building and the Guinness Tower. One Panel member noted that where the design was most successful was the middle part where it meets all the constraints but falls short at the public realm level and at the top of the tower. It was noted that it was important to have vibrant and active work places in the downtown core rather than adding another residential building.
Most of the Panel agreed that the building had potential to be a great building because of its iconic shape and encouraged the applicant to think about expressing more sustainable features in the facade. They found that the façade treatment didn’t have the kind of integrity it needed in order to stand shoulder to shoulder with the surrounding buildings. However, the Panel thought the new construction of the tower was appropriately integrated with the retained heritage of the University Club façade.
They thought the canopy was a little weak in its design and that there are some façade treatments that didn’t work at the base. One Panel member noted that the relationship to the Guinness Tower could be improved by lifting the base up higher to make it stronger and to create some space. Another Panel member noted that façade didn’t turn the corner very well and the rear elevation adjacent to Cordova Street didn’t have a relationship to any of the surrounding buildings. Also most of the Panel thought the top of the building could be higher around elevator core to reduce it being visible from West Hastings Street. It was noted that the service core will telegraph through the building with one Panel member wondering why the core wasn’t closer to the Guinness building as it would strengthen the design. Another Panel member noted that the elevator location needs to be rethought for the parking garage.
A couple of Panel members thought the landscape plans were confusing and wondered why it needed to be broken up as it didn’t seem to reinforce the architecture. There was some concern regarding shadowing of the plaza during the noon hour with several Panel members suggesting the proposed restaurant on the ground floor should be allowed to expand out into the plaza as it would animate the street more. Another Panel member noted that having a ground floor restaurant was integral to the downtown core.
Regarding sustainability, most of the Panel thought the skin supported the sustainable premise although one Panel member thought it could be expressed more powerfully.
If, by posting the render, then the photo, you are stating that Vancouver was gypped, please note that the photo is taken somewhat further east on Hastings than in the render.
Anyway, it's a great tower, provides a perfect contrast to the iconic Marine Building, is on a street corner with a number of other spiffy buildings, and I love it. Voilà.
If, by posting the render, then the photo, you are stating that Vancouver was gypped, please note that the photo is taken somewhat further east on Hastings than in the render.
Anyway, it's a great tower, provides a perfect contrast to the iconic Marine Building, is on a street corner with a number of other spiffy buildings, and I love it. Voilà.
And Google Streetview distorts everything in the photo which makes the comparison even more ridiculous.
If, by posting the render, then the photo, you are stating that Vancouver was gypped, please note that the photo is taken somewhat further east on Hastings than in the render.
Anyway, it's a great tower, provides a perfect contrast to the iconic Marine Building, is on a street corner with a number of other spiffy buildings, and I love it. Voilà.
I think that he is making the opposite point. The article discusses how the building was executed with precision, eschewing the value engineering that often cheapens buildings in between the rendering and construction stages (I would actually argue that the building turned out better than the renders with darker and sleeker glass).
If, by posting the render, then the photo, you are stating that Vancouver was gypped, please note that the photo is taken somewhat further east on Hastings than in the render.
Anyway, it's a great tower, provides a perfect contrast to the iconic Marine Building, is on a street corner with a number of other spiffy buildings, and I love it. Voilà.
Maybe you should have read the article before commenting...
Quote:
The finished building executed the vision with precision, flouting the value engineering that often cheapens the quality of the cladding or structural composition of many developments across Canada.
Prev
It's so cool, so good, that I sometimes wonder how it made it past the UDP, which so often seems to like things dumbed down. 
OMG.
Linear Mode
