601 Beach Crescent | 166m | 56 Fl | Proposed

[Prometheus]

The new renderings from the rezoning documents linked to earlier:











https://rezoning.vancouver.ca/applic...Renderings.pdf

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

It's actually grown, from 163m to 171.6m.

Most importantly the facade has been further refined, with a new scaled approach. you can sort of see it in the renders but if you look at the elevations it is quite clear parts of the curtain wall will scale from the floor below. Great improvement over the envelope shown previously.

A pleasant surprise. The greater variation in height between this tower and Vancouver House will better compliment both towers.

A similar height would have only worked if this tower was a mirror image of Vancouver House (a twin tower)

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

A pleasant surprise. The greater variation in height between this tower and Vancouver House will better compliment both towers.

A similar height would have only worked if this tower was a mirror image of Vancouver House (a twin tower)

Unfortunately, the new setback will somewhat mitigate the benefits of height variation between the two towers, as viewed from the south.

[Klazu]

Looks better and ewill happily take the extra height. Is it still the same number of floors? I would really love to have this with blue glazing. It would look beautiful vs. the usual drab color schemes.

[officedweller]

I find the swoops on the podium a bit gimicky - as they are swoops applied to flat facades.
They should just clad it in the blue cladding with the fins, which then rises up the tower in waves.
The swoops on the tower look more elegant though and the swoops interplay with the curves of the tower.

[dleung]

Still gimmicky, like the shit they would build in Chengdu or (insert city from an emerging economy) Why is the UDP even relevant anymore?

[trofirhen]

FWIW, IMO this building may have height, curvy lines, and an impressive, seemingly groundbreaking design, and yet .... it just doesn't do it for me. Something's wrong, lacking.
I can't put my finger on it, maybe it's the way the corners are designed rounded in an art deco echo, but something's just not there. I wonder if anyone else reacts similarly.

[scryer]

I actually think that this building will turn out much better than its renderings.... assuming that they stick to the structure in the renderings.

[city guy]

its tacky and the swooping forms are a desperate and unsophisticated move to 'do something' with the facades...it parodies Vancouver House and 1550 Alberni

in those cases the curves are integral to carving out the mass, whereas here they are relegated to purely a graphic appliqué

a tall slender tower that is elegant and not competing with Van House would have been a more appropriate direction

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by city guy

its tacky and the swooping forms are a desperate and unsophisticated move to 'do something' with the facades...it parodies Vancouver House and 1550 Alberni

in those cases the curves are integral to carving out the mass, whereas here they are relegated to purely a graphic appliqué

a tall slender tower that is elegant and not competing with Van House would have been a more appropriate direction

Thank you for this. I posted earlier that somehow, this tower just didn't do it for me, and your observations here pinpointed them for me. It is rather tacky and overdone, yes.

[Feathered Friend]

At the last city council meeting, Councilors Hardwick and De Genova were the lone votes to support a motion to refer 601 Beach back to staff (Councillors Dominato and Kirby-Yung abstained).

In the end, the project's referral to a public hearing won the support of all but Councilors Hardwick, and De Genova (who abstained). I assume that means we'll see it scheduled for a September public hearing.

[Vin]

Good news, and thank you!

[svlt]

Thanks for the positive update. I like the building (or maybe just the idea of a building in that location) in principle, and here is one of those few times I think the scaled down reality would look better than the architectural vision.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by svlt

Thanks for the positive update. I like the building (or maybe just the idea of a building in that location) in principle, and here is one of those few times I think the scaled down reality would look better than the architectural vision.

Totally disagree on that. Architecturally speaking, we need stronger presence to be felt by having larger buildings downtown.

At the moment, other than the Trump Tower and Vancouver House, many of the significantly more interesting architecture occurs on short stubby buildings, such as Jimmy Patterson`s new office building on Burrard & Drake, or the Deloitte Summit on W. Georgia. This project offers a rare opportunity for something curvy and different to be taller, allowing the future skyline on the peninsula to break away from the current seafoam cubic look.

However for this project, the developer needs to build a true to colour scheme and detail model to let people scrutinize the final outcome better. At the moment, other than the first two that afford more details, the other renderings still feel rather schematic.

I don`t mind the wave-look on the glass claddings on the tower, but the podium needs to have a more consistent look: I would suggest the fins to continue throughout the podium structure. That would definitely make it appear less tacky. Also tinted glass should be used: no more seafoam.

[scryer]

Originally Posted by Vin

Totally disagree on that. Architecturally speaking, we need stronger presence to be felt by having larger buildings downtown.

At the moment, other than the Trump Tower and Vancouver House, many of the significantly more interesting architecture occurs on short stubby buildings, such as Jimmy Patterson`s new office building on Burrard & Drake, or the Deloitte Summit on W. Georgia. This project offers a rare opportunity for something curvy and different to be taller, allowing the future skyline on the peninsula to break away from the current seafoam cubic look.

However for this project, the developer needs to build a true to colour scheme and detail model to let people scrutinize the final outcome better. At the moment, other than the first two that afford more details, the other renderings still feel rather schematic.

I don`t mind the wave-look on the glass claddings on the tower, but the podium needs to have a more consistent look: I would suggest the fins to continue throughout the podium structure. That would definitely make it appear less tacky. Also tinted glass should be used: no more seafoam.

I absolutely agree.

However I think that the podium is actually fine.

[officedweller]

I think the thought about applying the fish scale cladding to the podium is that it may end up looking too busy on the smaller buildings, which I think it already does on the Beach Ave. side.

[city guy]

I think this project is an absolute mess...a pale charicature of the wave on Vancouver House applied as a facade graphic

transitions between the cladding and the balconies are terrible...why not have them fall inside the logic of the main facade rhythm

the podium looks goofy with all the patterning

I will be at the open house with a series of complaints

[scryer]

-Delete-

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by city guy

...
a pale charicature of the wave on Vancouver House applied as a facade graphic
...
the podium looks goofy with all the patterning

The wave on the podium reminds me of the colour blocking on the Rio hotel in Las Vegas.

[Jimbo604]

"At the July 24, 2020 Council Meeting, Council referred this application to Public Hearing"

Source: Rezoning Application - 601 Beach Crescent

And this hearing date is not yet scheduled as of now (if I am reading the schedule correctly):
COV Upcoming Meeting Schedule