1021 W Hastings | 143M | 36Fl | Completed

[officedweller]

Ditto on the "supertall" comment!

Originally Posted by DKaz

Isn't there already a 1075 W. Hastings? The glass building from the 60s?

EDIT: N/m it's 1055, with its sorta twin 1066 across the street, but if the existing building is 1055 and the new building is east of 1055, shouldn't the number be lower?

EDIT 2: Drawings say 1021 W. Hastings.

I was thinking the same thing!

********

I too would have expected a side-core tower, but with the core fronting Hastings Street. I'll bet that the city would reject outright as proposal to place an exposed core behind the Marine Building (and the views from this property are to the north, northwest and to the east.

Not sure if the ability to circumnavigate a floorplate is all that essential to tenants, especially with such a small floorpate - i.e. our office has truncated the corridor on our main floor to make use of the space that would have otherwise been hallway.

EDIT: The floorplate as designed does, however, allow for a reception and/or adjacent boardrooms to take full advantage of the views, which a southside core would not allow. An east side core would allow allow for a reception/boardrooms with views, but would probably be a non-starter with the Marine Building.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by Porfiry

Which corporation, flush with cash, would finance Vancouver's "Bow"? Even EnCana (which had the largest profit of any Canadian company in 2009) has been forced to downscale the Bow. Who in this poor city has a few billion to spend?

"Architectural boldness" is nothing but talk unless you can find someone with money to burn.

You need to read (and think) more carefully. The kinds of policies to which I referred stifle not only architectural boldness, but "economic growth" as well. The existential condition for true prosperity and economic dynamism is liberty. Thus, by repealing policies which stifle choice and human activity, you unshackle not only the architect, but the businessman too. In conditions of genuine freedom, the latter can therefore finance the former on a scale previously undreamed of.

The causes of our economic poverty and architectural poverty are one and the same.

[officedweller]

BTW - does anyone know how the floorplate size compares with the Bower Building and Bower II on Granville Street?

[PaperTiger]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

But why? Why can't we build The Bow and even better? Is there some immutable law of nature specifically precluding Vancouver from building exceptional skyscrapers? Or is our predicament the result of suffocating policies (which limit economic growth and architectural boldness) implemented by paternalistic bureaucrats and politicians?

If the latter, then our predicament is the product of choice (and human foolishness) and is neither inevitable nor permanent. It can be changed. So, contrary to your assertion, we can have The Bow and far superior, if certain people would just stop interfering.

Why can’t we have the bow? Because buildings don’t build themselves corporations build buildings. We have no corporation like EnCana with obscene profits and disparate office holdings that they desperately need to consolidate. We have property companies (Aquilini, Oxford, Bentall) that are taking huge financial risks to build buildings that they hope the market will be able to absorb.

Who is interfering? Do you think that if the city flung open its collective arms and said please come build whatever you want, as tall as you want we would get superior architecture? I would argue that the exact opposite would happen. We would have worse architecture, not better because people would be trying to build as much floor space, for as little cost, as possible.

I'm not saying we can't have great architecture. I'm just saying we can't expect every project to be 600 metres tall and designed by Calatrava, (or Foster, or Ando, or Koolhaas).

[navazan]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

A 135 metres! Wow! It should be really exciting watching this supertall go up! Can't hardly wait. The era of the flat, monotonous skyline is hereby over.

lol! i know right?!?! finally vancouver has matured and allowed a massive structure to be built!

[navazan]

oh and we cant have the bow because its in calgary, it'd cost way too much to ship it over here, lawl. then youd have a flock of hippies protesting it, as it would block a mountain view from some yuppy neighborhood. even if vancouver abolished the view cone debacle, itd be at least a couple decades before a massive tower like the bow would be necessary here.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by PaperTiger

Why can’t we have the bow? Because buildings don’t build themselves corporations build buildings. We have no corporation like EnCana with obscene profits and disparate office holdings that they desperately need to consolidate. We have property companies (Aquilini, Oxford, Bentall) that are taking huge financial risks to build buildings that they hope the market will be able to absorb.

A reply to this objection has already been given above.

But to repeat: To answer the question why Vancouver does not have ambitious architecture is essentially to answer the question why Vancouver does not have big corporations. Just as Vancouver is not a place to build seriously, so it is not a place to do serious business. The myriad of suffocating rules, regulations and taxes on the provincial and civic levels discourages both. The causes of (and the cures to) our architectural poverty and economic poverty are identical.

So the big corporations that would build the future Bows of Vancouver are those corporations that would flock (and emerge) here if BC were to become a centre of relative economic freedom.

[trofirhen]

A tower doesn't have to massive or gargantuan to be striking.
Take the Transamerica Pyramid in SF. I think it's one of the most striking buildings anywhere, but it's tall and elegant, with the "striking" quality imparted by the brilliant use of geometry in the design. (just my personal opinion of course. Others may hate it ...)

[Porfiry]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

You need to read (and think) more carefully. The kinds of policies to which I referred stifle not only architectural boldness, but "economic growth" as well. The existential condition for true prosperity and economic dynamism is liberty. By repealing policies which stifle choice and human activity, you unshackle not only the architect, but the businessman too. Thus, in conditions of genuine freedom, the latter is able to finance the former on a scale previously undreamed of.

The causes of our economic poverty and architectural poverty are one and the same.

Excuse me? If you read my comment, that's roughly the same as what I said. Prosperity is a precondition.

Calgary and Toronto are headquarters to most of Canada's largest corporations. Vancouver has a pittance by comparison, so who is going to be building skyscrapers of the same magnitude? I have no faith that tweaking a few policies would change the situation in any way (especially when you fail to even mention what those policies are). You're just waving your hands.

[navazan]

Originally Posted by Porfiry

Excuse me? If you read my comment, that's roughly the same as what I said. Prosperity is a precondition.

Calgary and Toronto are headquarters to most of Canada's largest corporations. Vancouver has a pittance by comparison, so who is going to be building skyscrapers of the same magnitude? I have no faith that tweaking a few policies would change that in any way (especially when you fail to even mention what those policies are). You're just waving your hands.

true, there arent massive oil companies based here. what exactly is in BC that requires tall office buildings?? if there were demand for a massive office tower, it'd already be here. or at least proposed. calgary's top 5 buildings are 200+meters, all offices.

[Metro-One]

Vancouver is a huge hub for mining companies.

[navazan]

well then all the damn mining companies should band together and build a nice tall HQ! maybe they could fund the Turn tower, and set up shop there, instead of having it as yet another residential tower.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by navazan

what exactly is in BC that requires tall office buildings??

Not much. That, however, is precisely my point. Burdensome regulations and taxes have discouraged big business and limited BC's economic potential. In conditions of freedom, by contrast, business activity thrives and great fortunes are created. Thus, by repealing burdensome regulations and taxes, we would attract the very big corporations needed to finance and occupy ambitious projects. When regulation that stifles human freedom and creativity are eliminated, we not only unleash architectural boldness, but the economic means of paying for it.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

A reply to this objection has already been given above.

But to repeat: To answer the question why Vancouver does not have ambitious architecture is essentially to answer the question why Vancouver does not have big corporations. Just as Vancouver is not a place to build seriously, so it is not a place to do serious business. The myriad of suffocating rules, regulations and taxes on the provincial and civic levels discourages both. The causes of (and the cures to) our architectural poverty and economic poverty are identical.

Someone's been reading their Ayn Rand again!

[officedweller]

Staff report on view cone considerations for the site...

http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/...ents/penv1.pdf

Apparently the height will be 460 ft and the City Hall view cone is at 418 ft and another is at 434 ft - but staff are recommending approcal because it lies largely behind existing "view shadows" of 1033 Marinaside Cres (apparently accidently allowed to go higher than the view cone!).

From an urban design perspective, the development
embraces an interesting opportunity to create a contemporary architectural statement
between two existing heritage buildings from different eras, and to create an interesting and
respectful backdrop to the street-end view of the Marine Building from the east down
Hastings Street.

The preamble to the reports states:

In the twenty years following the adoption of the View Protection Guidelines, there are
essentially two types of buildings that have entered into the protected public views:
1) First are those buildings which were intentionally permitted by Council after
considering competing interests. These include the buildings considered through the
General Policy for Higher Buildings (for example, Shangri-la and Hotel Georgia) as well
as those that were specifically considered by Council through area planning and urban
design considerations (for example, Shaw Tower and Fairmont Pacific Rim, as part of
the Council-approved Burrard Landing CD-1 Guidelines).
2) Second are those buildings that were permitted to enter the view corridor due to a
technical implementation error which predated the introduction of more sophisticated
GIS mapping tools (for example, 1033 Marinaside Crescent). Through the advancement
and accessibility of these technological tools, this type of intrusion is less likely to
occur today.
Even with these minor intrusions into the original view corridors, the overall integrity of the
views has been maintained and the view approved corridors continue to retain their
importance to the public.

If I'm not mistaken, neither Shangri-La nor Hotel Georgia intrude into view cones.
Shangri-La has the angle cut to avoid the view cone and the only part of Hotel Georgia to intrude was the "finger" in the previous proposal (The Crystal) which is not being built. Seems like staff are re-writing history to allow some slack for this proposal - which is a good thing, even if inaccurate.

[Dylan Leblanc]

Wow, a 36 storey office proposal! I never would have imagined something would get built on this site, let alone something this tall!

This thing would be about the same height as the RBC tower which is great but Vancouver is really getting a table-top skyline with all these towers of the same height.

[Some guy]

Summary: Decent location, good height, could use a better design.

[jlousa]

Another thread gone to shit, sometime I really don't know why I bother. Would love to see certain people build their own tower to show me how it should be done.

The building is going for LEED Platinum which is an incredible accomplishment.

Superior green building performance, particularly in terms of energy conservation. The architects have provided information on the building’s anticipated green building performance. The architects have provided a preliminary LEED™ scorecard for the building and estimate that it would score 70 points (including all 10 possible “optimize energy performance points), making it LEED™ Platinum.

[SpikePhanta]

I'm just happy that this tower isn't that bad. ^^ Leed platinum is gonna make the building quite interesting.

[Vancouver_Highrise]

Hey, atleast it's office and not a condo! I think the tower looks great and maybe this could be a catalyst to getting more offices built and approved and who knows... possibly.. wishful thinking.. taller?