Telus Garden | 135m, 88m | 46fl res, 22fl office | 928,000sqft | Completed

[SFUVancouver]

Originally Posted by Marshal

I'm new here ( a bit late to the party), and I don't want to start on a negative, but this one bugs me . . .

This project is beyond all control. As big as it is, it cannot carry the 200+ separate ideas that have been crammed into it. Indeed any architectural strategy is strongly frustrated by the inability to edit these ideas into some kind of cohesion or even a complex of cohesions and contrasts. I know of no other project that has tried so hard to do it all, and all at the same time. This thing makes the Nordstrom redo seem downright minimalistic. I can only guess what kind of process went on within the Henriquez office. Its as if the kids were let loose and all parental control was abbrogated. (Please note, this is a real issue in large practices which rely on relatively young design talent.)

But there is a positive to this. Has everyone noticed that buildings that were upsetting during their design presentation, construction, and a certain period of newness almost always fade from our relative experience of the city. Maybe after a few years you find yourself on a bench facing one of these structures and you receive a little shock: wow, I forgot about this one. Is it ever ugly. But mostly they become part of the larger fabric and exist in a realm in which design is a highly reduced aspect. Most buildings become background, and so they should. Significant architecture then stands out against their context. The difference in architectural scope, quality and urban contribution varies across a spectrum. It is this that allows us to experience the city in a meaningful manner. Vancouver has a pretty solid background, and its urban quality will benifet from the addition of quite a number of architecturally significant projects in the future. It's getting there.

Now, Telus: the scale of this thing, along with its location, means that it was an opportunity to be a major architectural contribution. It fails for the reasons cited above. Regardless, it will contribute significantly at the level of a few obvious smaller scale aspects . . . things that photograph well and attract the public eye. But it will also succeed (as will the Nordstom cacophony) because it offers our experience a relatively rich "at hand" public interface. The crazy lack of restraint will fade into our collective backgrounds, and we will forget it. To me, this means the wound will heal. And we will be left with a relatively rich block which will serve the city well.

Do I like it? No. It could have contributed in a much larger and more meaningful way. It is a mess. But, I accept that cities are full of messes. Our inventory has just risen.

Thanks for your thoughtful contribution and welcome to the forum!

[Vin]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Isn't there a City bylaw that prevents the full enclosure of outdoor restaurant patios?

Somehow they focus too much on the nonsensical (eg viewcones) but close one eye on certain eyesores and infractions. There should be more priorities on general building aesthetics. Tarps just don't go well with modern buildings.

[mcminsen]

Originally Posted by mcminsen

The condo tower as seen today in the late afternoon light from Howe Street.



Nov.17 '15, my pic

And about four weeks later. The glass appears to be installed all the way to the top now (except the curved parts).



As seen from Granville Street, Dec.16 '15, my pics

[squeezied]

^ Not the most flattering angle I'd say.

[Vin]

Thanks to the viewcone. I think the developer should have completed the curve to the north side and made this facade look symmetrical. Sure, they lose some prime penthouse space but overall the tower would look much more attractive.

[officedweller]

I don't mind the setback, though it would have looked better as a squared off corner set back within the envelope.

A half circle up top may have been too disjointed.

[mcminsen]

The glazing (at least for the windows) is almost complete now on the Richards Street side of the condo tower.



Dec.18 '15, my pics

[officedweller]

Pics by me today -

Spot the cell phone transmitters/antennas:

[officedweller]

By Yellow Fever Dec 17th:

Originally Posted by Yellow Fever

updates..

20151213_105200 by Yellow Fever @ SkyscraperCity, on Flickr

20151213_105334 by Yellow Fever @ SkyscraperCity, on Flickr

[Klazu]

Slightly surprising that the top floor is not over height. One would think they would make penthouses with very high and open ceilings.

[officedweller]

I think that within the 2 storey penthouses, the upper storey is for bedrooms.

[tgowner]

So we just got another amendment to the disclosure statement today -- it appears they pushed the completion date range back to "March 1, 2016 - May 31, 2016", but asked for our notary/lawyer info by Feb. 1

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by tgowner

So we just got another amendment to the disclosure statement today -- it appears they pushed the completion date range back to "March 1, 2016 - May 31, 2016", but asked for our notary/lawyer info by Feb. 1

Is this the first time it has been pushed back? What was the original date?

[mcminsen]

As seen today from Canada Place (first two pics).

Third pic has a reflection of the full moon. Also, the ledges near the top are reflecting some red light from below somewhere.



Dec.25 '15, my pics

[rofina]

The radiator grill front is still a great effect, particularly if the original colour palette had been kept.

The other sides, and especially the backside with round top is horrible.

I assume the architects involved are equally unhappy - I imagine this was a case of " get this thing past permitting and started!"

Hard not to call it a disappointment, particularly given the hype.

Though, I am sure some of the units will have awesome views - this is purely a criticism of exterior architecture.

[tgowner]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Is this the first time it has been pushed back? What was the original date?

Original completion date (early 2012): 06/15/2015

July 2013: Changed to 11/15/2015

Dec 2014: Changed to a range, 12/31/2015 to 03/30/2016

Dec 2015: Changed to 03/01/2016 to 05/31/2016

Well, technically, the start of the range is *before* the end of the last range, but I think we can all agree that this is a delay.

[WarrenC12]

Thanks for the detail... that's quite the delay. Seems like the Office tower really started to take priority.

[mcminsen]

http://www.crowbarbenson.com/comic/the-zamboni/



Jan.6 '16, my pics

[Klazu]

Make 'em shine!

[officedweller]

Get out the skates ?!?!