320 Granville St |115m | 32Fl | Completed

[osirisboy]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

Long live the myth of the evil UDP, no matter how many times it's been patiently disproven...

Except when the udp make stupid comments, such as on projects like the arc and about how it's too dark and should be lighter etc

[Vin]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

Long live the myth of the evil UDP, no matter how many times it's been patiently disproven...

Disproven? Hmm, you should check this out....

1500 W. Georgia
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...=217501&page=9

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by Vin

Disproven? Hmm, you should check this out....

1500 W. Georgia
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...=217501&page=9

I see a lot of people not being able to understand the nuances of their comments and overreacting. Let's see what the final product is. Is the UDP infallible? No. Is the UDP the driving force behind bland architecture in Vancouver? Hell no.

[osirisboy]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

I see a lot of people not being able to understand the nuances of their comments and overreacting. Let's see what the final product is. Is the UDP infallible? No. Is the UDP the driving force behind bland architecture in Vancouver? Hell no.

I agree they aren't the driving force, just go to Burnaby and Surrey and Coquitlam etc and you see the same bland spandrel towers with the exact same floor plates. Having said that the udp certainly could do a better job at making recommendations to get away from that blandness that we all know.

[Hourglass]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

I agree they aren't the driving force, just go to Burnaby and Surrey and Coquitlam etc and you see the same bland spandrel towers with the exact same floor plates. Having said that the udp certainly could do a better job at making recommendations to get away from that blandness that we all know.

Depends on the UDP's mandate. And with architects like James Cheng, the master of foam green spandrel, on the panel, can one truly expect a different result?

To me, mechanisms like the UDP are effective at weeding out bad designs. Unfortunately, they arguably also pare away designs that might be bold or unconventional.

Having said that, I'm happy with buildings such as MNP and the Exchange. I like the new design of 320 Granville too. While one might wish for more height, overall, I think these designs show the positive side of having the UDP.

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by Hourglass

Unfortunately, they arguably also pare away designs that might be bold or unconventional.

This is the heart of the myth. Show me where the UDP recommends seafoam spandrels, etc. The critique is really of Vancouver developers and the UDP is a scapegoat.

The most creative designs, heartily approved by the UDP, such as Vancouver House, are the most expensive residences in the city. Is this what should be proposed for every new development? Near universally unaffordable housing? Get a grip.

[csbvan]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

This is the heart of the myth. Show me where the UDP recommends seafoam spandrels, etc. The critique is really of Vancouver developers and the UDP is a scapegoat.

The most creative designs, heartily approved by the UDP, such as Vancouver House, are the most expensive residences in the city. Is this what should be proposed for every new development? Near universally unaffordable housing? Get a grip.

Yes. Vancouver developers charge insane amounts per foot and offer banal if not utterly chintzy architecture in return. This is not the UDP determining it. It's the market. A city that spends inflated prices on junk gets junk ad nauseum.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by csbvan

Yes. Vancouver developers charge insane amounts per foot and offer banal if not utterly chintzy architecture in return. This is not the UDP determining it. It's the market. A city that spends inflated prices on junk gets junk ad nauseum.

Is there a way to "up" the architectural standards in Vancouver, that being the case? I'm not challenging your statement at all; just wondering if there's a way to improve style.

[Pinion]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Is there a way to "up" the architectural standards in Vancouver, that being the case? I'm not challenging your statement at all; just wondering if there's a way to improve style.

If only there was some sort of panel...

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Pinion

If only there was some sort of panel...

Serious or sarcastic? Sarcastic, I guess, as csbvan said the UDP did the best it could, usualy for the better.
But is not the often "chintzy" and "utterly chintzy" architecture mentioned what the UDP is there to try to prevent?
They seem, in that case, to have quite a say over some things, but not over others. The whole thing is too enigmatic for me to figure out.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

I see a lot of people not being able to understand the nuances of their comments and overreacting. Let's see what the final product is. Is the UDP infallible? No. Is the UDP the driving force behind bland architecture in Vancouver? Hell no.

Couple of examples:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle7616538/
http://vancouversun.com/news/staff-b...g-architecture

And those in the industry know what is happening:
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/pro...697/story.html


It's not overreacting. City of Vancouver is really doing a terrible job.

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by Vin

Couple of examples:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle7616538/
http://vancouversun.com/news/staff-b...g-architecture

And those in the industry know what is happening:
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/pro...697/story.html


It's not overreacting. City of Vancouver is really doing a terrible job.

Only one of those articles has to do with boring architecture and it is pure speculation.

In reaching so far your post proves my point.

[trofirhen]

Perhaps Vancouver's "problem" is that it does not have any older architectural heritage to fall back on. Seattle doesn't have too much more than Vancouver, and while many people love its big tall buildings, the city downtown has a "raw" feeling that's worse than Vancouver
*
In another case in point, if a city is a corporate powerhouse, like Houston, or Dallas, it may well get some dramatic (and expensive) corporate towers. But Vancouver still growing out of our "branch plant town" phase.
*
Toronto is a corporate powerhouse, and has some striking new buildings, but the city overall has a hard, drab, Presbyterian utilitarianist past which suffuses into a rather austere present.
*
Montreal, for Canada, anyway, seems to have the sleekest, smartest, most cohesive cityscape. Is it the period buildings of its older, French colonial past that influence this?
Or is it just that the people there are more sophisticated in their tastes? I don't know: that's a rhetorical question.
*
San Francisco, with its combination of Spanish heritage, Gold Rush opulence, and corporate wealth all seems to come together in a rather dramatic, often dazzling, daring way.
*
I guess I'm saying that, as in Common Law, there is a "precedent" that is set, often on an unconscious level, that determines how a city's architectural geography will turn out.

[Bcasey25raptor]

I preferred the old design tbh

[Feathered Friend]

 Panel’s Consensus on Key Aspects Needing Improvement:
 A better balance is needed between the reflective properties of the glass windows and
sustainability approach to optimized energy performance;
 Design development of the public entry to relate to immediate context and encourage better
access to daylight for the space;
 Pay more attention to solar orientation to promote sustainability and improve passiveness;
 Consideration should be paid to bike circulation and bike amenity provisions;
 A better connection (more porosity) is needed between Cordova Street and Granville Street;
 Consider additional social amenities for the offices including on the roof top;
 Related Commentary: The panel noted that the project has improved a lot from the rezoning
scheme, but that more design development is needed to hide the mechanical parts better.
The podium needs much more attention as there is a lot of mass sitting on a tiny base. Do
something to express the base a bit more to give the building more presence at the ground plane.
If the building is not going to respond to the context of the buildings around it then more needs to
be done to emphasize this aspect. Maintain the purity of the form, but be more sensitive to
orientation. Consideration should be given to the depth of the mullions and to doing something
with the slab edges in order to exaggerate the ripple more.
Additional porosity is needed both visually and to provide a connection to the adjacent transit
station. The transition of the sloping grade to the lobby is not very well resolved. It would be
better if there was a more seamless flow of glass going to the ground.
The building is more self-defined rather than complimentary to the surrounding buildings, which is
ok. However, design development of the pedestrian entry is needed so that it fits in more with the
area. Take the podium to the next level of design by going further with design development. There
are accents of wood around the building, but this could be used further to enhance the building.
More openness is needed with regards to the pedestrian access; both through architecture and by
using lighter materials.
Think about how sustainability and energy performance will work in this building considering all the
glass. More of a narrative is needed with regards to sustainable performance. This building should
be targeting LEED Platinum, but currently does not seem to be doing enough to achieve even LEED
Gold. The materiality is neat, but consider triple-glazing. More attention should also be given to
providing bicycle amenities and to promoting bike use in the building.
There is an FSR exclusion for amenities, so more innovation needs to happen with regards to shared
spaces. There is no excuse to not have more social and open spaces. Take a look at what is
happening in other countries and cities in order to get ideas on how to improve social
sustainability.
 Applicant’s Response: The applicant team thanked the panel and noted that the comments were
very perceptive and instructive. A design will be developed with a bit more amplitude for the
shape of the building, although only so much can be carved out of the mass. More attention will be
paid to the base, and it would be great if the amplitude of undulation could be increased at the
top

The vote was 5 - 2 in support

http://vancouver.ca/files/cov/commit...l-20170222.pdf

[officedweller]

Thanks for posting.

Applicant’s Response: The applicant team thanked the panel and noted that the comments were
very perceptive and instructive. A design will be developed with a bit more amplitude for the
shape of the building, although only so much can be carved out of the mass. More attention will be
paid to the base, and it would be great if the amplitude of undulation could be increased at the
top.

Hmmm....

[Changing City]

We've put a picture of the model that the UDP approved on the Changing City blog. https://changingcitybook.com/2017/03...nville-street/

[officedweller]

Nice pic, thanks.

I don't think the small reveals do much and would barely register with the average passersby and look more like a defect in the construction.

I think they would do better by filling in the concave sections somewhere on the tower (i.e. mid-tower)
so that they can carve out more elsewhere on the tower (at the base or top).

WRT the base, Grant Thornton Place is on stilts along Cordova to open up views of the CP Station.
This building should allow the same head-room along Cordova as well (at least at the Granville corner).
You can see the difference on the model.

[red-paladin]

I like this design better than the angled outtake one.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by red-paladin

I like this design better than the angled outtake one.

Yes! Funny I was just going to post the same thing. This one is sweet relief fom all those awkward anglies.