The Exchange | 115.7m | 31fl, 13fl | 400,000sqft. | Completed - Page 45

LeftCoaster · #**881** Posted **Oct 27, 2016, 3:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by officedweller

The angled setback is a nice touch.
It makes the heritage structure more prominent.

It really does, good observation.

trofirhen · #**882** Posted **Oct 27, 2016, 4:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jebby

I agree that the design is much better, but it really should have been another 8-10 stories taller.

Thanks once again to the Viewcone People.

mcminsen · #**883** Posted **Nov 1, 2016, 5:30 AM**

Looking west on Pender Street.

Oct.30 '16, my pic

BobLoblawsLawBlog · #**884** Posted **Nov 1, 2016, 6:12 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Thanks once again to the Viewcone People.

It frustrates me how people have no idea what height is in this city. Everyone is like "oh my stars they are putting skyscrapers everywhere" and I'm like, no we aren't, Burnaby and Surrey are.

I always hear from my dad complaining about how developers can just throw buildings anywhere in Vancouver, which isn't true at all. Building in Vancouver is a lengthy process. It took about 5 or so years for the two Amazing Brentwood towers to go up, which will be the second tallest buildings in BC, tied with the new Drumpf Tower, which took slightly less than a DECADE.

Also, these view cones are total bull. How will a few taller towers obstruct the view of the mountains? We aren't building a wall.

And by the way, no one is paying as much to look at Mountains as people are paying to look at the Skyline. You can look at mountains in about everywhere in the BC. You can only see beautiful skylines in Vancouver. You should be thanking developers for adding to the landscape (*coughs* Mount Pleasanters *cough)

Vin · #**885** Posted **Nov 1, 2016, 6:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobLoblawsLawBlog

It frustrates me how people have no idea what height is in this city. Everyone is like "oh my stars they are putting skyscrapers everywhere" and I'm like, no we aren't, Burnaby and Surrey are.

I always hear from my dad complaining about how developers can just throw buildings anywhere in Vancouver, which isn't true at all. Building in Vancouver is a lengthy process. It took about 5 or so years for the two Amazing Brentwood towers to go up, which will be the second tallest buildings in BC, tied with the new Drumpf Tower, which took slightly less than a DECADE.

Also, these view cones are total bull. How will a few taller towers obstruct the view of the mountains? We aren't building a wall.

And by the way, no one is paying as much to look at Mountains as people are paying to look at the Skyline. You can look at mountains in about everywhere in the BC. You can only see beautiful skylines in Vancouver. You should be thanking developers for adding to the landscape (*coughs* Mount Pleasanters *cough)

Sometimes stubborn rustic mentality can't change. Someone needs to shove it in front of their faces, then they can see other possibilities. For instance, I see lots of West Vancouverites enjoying the facilities at the new Park Royal mall now, many of them old folks, but I'm pretty sure a huge percentage of them were against the redevelopment when it was originally mooted, probably citing nonsense like traffic, way of life change, blah blah etc, forever complaining about "over-development".

With that rant, I need to say that The Exchange ought to be a lot higher, at least at a height one can easily spot even from Kitsilano. Sadly, the completed structure would be buried or table-topping with the rest.

trofirhen · #**886** Posted **Nov 1, 2016, 8:20 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vin

Sometimes stubborn rustic mentality can't change. Someone needs to shove it in front of their faces, then they can see other possibilities. ...............
With that rant, I need to say that The Exchange ought to be a lot higher, at least at a height one can easily spot even from Kitsilano. Sadly, the completed structure would be buried or table-topping with the rest.

That rustic, Pleasantville, artsy-fastsy, hippy-dippy mentality that suffuses Vancouver is going to be a toughie to shake.
You'll need to wait at least another generation until The Viewcone Powers That Be retire,or die off.
And it's not as if the exchange WOULD be lost in the tabletop jungle. It Will be lost in the anonymous buildings jungle.
The Viewcone People and their ilk do not travel much, are provincial-minded, and totally un-cosmopolitan ... for starters.

whatnext · #**887** Posted **Nov 1, 2016, 8:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobLoblawsLawBlog

It frustrates me how people have no idea what height is in this city. Everyone is like "oh my stars they are putting skyscrapers everywhere" and I'm like, no we aren't, Burnaby and Surrey are.

I always hear from my dad complaining about how developers can just throw buildings anywhere in Vancouver, which isn't true at all. Building in Vancouver is a lengthy process. It took about 5 or so years for the two Amazing Brentwood towers to go up, which will be the second tallest buildings in BC, tied with the new Drumpf Tower, which took slightly less than a DECADE.

Also, these view cones are total bull. How will a few taller towers obstruct the view of the mountains? We aren't building a wall.

And by the way, no one is paying as much to look at Mountains as people are paying to look at the Skyline. You can look at mountains in about everywhere in the BC. You can only see beautiful skylines in Vancouver. You should be thanking developers for adding to the landscape (*coughs* Mount Pleasanters *cough)

No of course you're not building a wall with one building, or the next. But with the next and the next and the next, then yeah, it becomes a wall. And once you give a couple developers permission, they all want it.

It never ceases to amaze me how little regard some SSPers have for Vancouver's natural setting. Maybe its because they're new arrivals or they just fetishize tall phallic objects. Regardless, there are plenty of citys in blah settings where builders can erect tall buildings to their heart's content, one can always move there.

LeftCoaster · #**888** Posted **Nov 1, 2016, 8:57 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by trofirhen

The Viewcone People and their ilk do not travel much, are provincial-minded, and totally un-cosmopolitan ... for starters.

Do you even think about some of these things before you type?

Let me get this out of the way before I go on, I do support a rethinking of the viewcones, but the following needs to be said.

I honestly don't understand how someone from Paris can say the things you do. Do you think the residents of the 16th Arrondissement of Paris are totally un-cosmopolitan? Provincial minded?

Do you think the urbane individuals in Kensington are untraveled? Unwise to the ways of the world?

Are the residents of Geneve rustic artsy fartsy hippy dippies?

It is completely baffling the incomprehensible logic you use when the painfully obvious contradictions are literally right where you live.

While I do not support the viewcones in their current form I do not think it remotely intelligent to assume the reason they are supported is based off some infantile dated stereotypes you continue to propagate. The viewcones are based off a different view to city building that you do not agree with. That is all.

trofirhen · #**889** Posted **Nov 1, 2016, 9:24 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

Do you even think about some of these things before you type?

Let me get this out of the way before I go on, I do support a rethinking of the viewcones, but the following needs to be said.

I honestly don't understand how someone from Paris can say the things you do. Do you think the residents of the 16th Arrondissement of Paris are totally un-cosmopolitan? Provincial minded?

Do you think the urbane individuals in Kensington are untraveled? Unwise to the ways of the world?

Are the residents of Geneve rustic artsy fartsy hippy dippies?

It is completely baffling the incomprehensible logic you use when the painfully obvious contradictions are literally right where you live.

While I do not support the viewcones in their current form I do not think it remotely intelligent to assume the reason they are supported is based off some infantile dated stereotypes you continue to propagate. The viewcones are based off a different view to city building that you do not agree with. That is all.

I appreciate your feedback, and will admit that I worded it wrongly.
What I meant to say (and should have used more diplomatic language) is that The Viewcone People seem to have a very insular bent, or turn of mind.
The 16è arrondissement in Paris, and Kensington in London are upmarket, and many of the people there have indeed travelled.
But they don't have building height issues to deal with, either, so that aspect rather neutralizes the building height point.
I simply should have said that if planners in Vancouver had a more "outward" view of things, maybe "viewcones" wouldn't need to exist as strictly as they do.
CONVERSELY ... I recall, ages back, when Seattle had built the Columbia Center and numerous really tall-talls, there was a movement to "cap Seattle" to restrict height.
I guess what I'm saying is that a prevalent mentality in a certain place, wherever it may be tends to stick, for good or bad, and takes time to change, but not to be snooty, as I came across.
In this case, it's "tall buildings (in Vancouver) are bad because they block the view of the mountains!! Oh!! How terrible!! What about the children!! They will never know nature!!"
THAT is what I was criticizing, even if I said it wrongly. Excuse me.

dreambrother808 · #**890** Posted **Nov 1, 2016, 9:44 PM**

There's a thread for regurgitating this relentlessly boring conversation. Take it there.

mcminsen · #**891** Posted **Nov 15, 2016, 11:19 AM**

Nov.14 '16, my pics

Metro-One · #**892** Posted **Nov 15, 2016, 1:52 PM**

Wow, great photo update, thank you! As I have said before, this tower really adds some bulk to what was a relatively vacant area downtown regarding taller towers.

How many more floors to go? (guessing between 4 to 6?)

Vancouver_Highrise · #**893** Posted **Nov 18, 2016, 2:54 AM**

They've installed the end piece of the fins on the southeast corner. Looks very sharp!

BobLoblawsLawBlog · #**894** Posted **Nov 18, 2016, 5:09 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by whatnext

No of course you're not building a wall with one building, or the next. But with the next and the next and the next, then yeah, it becomes a wall. And once you give a couple developers permission, they all want it.

It never ceases to amaze me how little regard some SSPers have for Vancouver's natural setting. Maybe its because they're new arrivals or they just fetishize tall phallic objects. Regardless, there are plenty of citys in blah settings where builders can erect tall buildings to their heart's content, one can always move there.

And what gives if there are tall buildings at 400 metres. The mountains are still visible, and nature isn't vanishing. A wall won't happen, at least not in several decades. Even 5 towers above 300 metres won't ruin anything.

As you can see, the mountains are still there.

Now let's look at your phallic version.

Wow! It looks like there'd need to be a good hundred or so towers well above 300 metres to block those alpine views.
The mountains aren't going anywhere any time soon.

Hot Rod · #**895** Posted **Nov 18, 2016, 5:23 AM**

^^ totally agree with this. A few towers above 200m is not going to ruin views of the mountains. Vancouver is totally missing out on potential economic development office wise.

Nobody is saying go crazy, but the city could use five or so towers around 300m+.