1444 Alberni | 138M | 48fl, 43fl | Proposed - Page 7

Vin · #**121** Posted **Apr 2, 2019, 6:38 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

i don't get why people don't like this building. it is finally some different, and it brings in an elegant design seen in some of the most famous, large metropolitan cities. these towers also do it quite well i think; they do look like they would be found in a place like NYC, which seems like the point. "fake" heritage, most things are "fake" heritage. Gothic isn't from the 1800s and neoclassical goes back well over 1,000 years.

i am anti-foreign investment but i hope this building survives!

People? I only see a person.

Like it or not, modern Vancouver is built on foreign investments:
* Coal Harbour
* Yaletown
* Trump Tower
* Vancouver House
* Shangri-la Tower
The list goes on....

fredinno · #**122** Posted **Apr 2, 2019, 7:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpongeG

the top looks like city hall, how can the city say no to that.

We all know the City has an impressive ego.

LeftCoaster · #**123** Posted **Apr 2, 2019, 8:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by dleung

If there is one reason for me to advocate the crackdown on Chinese investment, it would be to deprive this market of the tacky, Hennessy-sipping, Lambo-wrecking, LV bag people that make these designs sellable. Of course, we wouldn't get Bjarke Ingels and Kengo Kuma buildings either...

I'm sure Robert Stern will be devastated to know you don't approve of his design.

rofina · #**124** Posted **Apr 2, 2019, 8:46 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Max.

wow, what a racist comment

Literally no race was brought up in that post.

You might not agree with the post, that doesn't make it racist.

I happen to disagree because I love the buildings and I want to see them built.

officedweller · #**125** Posted **Apr 2, 2019, 10:23 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by fredinno

We all know the City has an impressive ego.

But not quite enough to ban the competition?

Otis_Van · #**126** Posted **Apr 3, 2019, 2:02 AM**

Quote:

literally no race was brought up in that post.

lol wut

Quote:

if there is one reason for me to advocate the crackdown on chinese investment...

rofina · #**127** Posted **Apr 3, 2019, 3:29 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Otis_Van

lol wut

Seriously? Chinese is a race?

I suppose American is a race too then? What about Canadian?

dleung · #**128** Posted **Apr 4, 2019, 12:59 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

I'm sure Robert Stern will be devastated to know you don't approve of his design.

Neither my disapproval or your approval matters to him, or to any architect of the buildings we talk about on here, so what was your point?

trofirhen · #**129** Posted **Apr 4, 2019, 1:45 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by dleung

Neither my disapproval or your approval matters to him, or to any architect of the buildings we talk about on here, so what was your point?

Excuse an interjection please, but I think Leftcoaster was being facetious (maybe even a bit sarcastic, *ahem*)

Otis_Van · #**130** Posted **Apr 4, 2019, 2:45 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by rofina

Seriously? Chinese is a race?

I suppose American is a race too then? What about Canadian?

Ohhhhhh, right, I stand corrected. When someone refers to “Chinese buyers,” they’re including all the white and black Chinese people who come to buy expensive properties in Vancouver, not just the asian ones. Got it.

VancouverOfTheFuture · #**131** Posted **Apr 4, 2019, 3:13 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by dleung

Neither my disapproval or your approval matters to him, or to any architect of the buildings we talk about on here, so what was your point?

wwoooosssshhhhh

Spr0ckets · #**132** Posted **Apr 4, 2019, 3:55 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

i don't get why people don't like this building. it is finally some different, and it brings in an elegant design seen in some of the most famous, large metropolitan cities. these towers also do it quite well i think; they do look like they would be found in a place like NYC, which seems like the point. "fake" heritage, most things are "fake" heritage. Gothic isn't from the 1800s and neoclassical goes back well over 1,000 years.

i am anti-foreign investment but i hope this building survives!

Minor point of note (or correction).

Neoclassicism only goes back a couple of hundreds of years and not,..."well over 1,000 years"
Like literally around 250 years (back to the mid 18th Century) give or take a couple of decades.

It hearkened back to, and drew inspiration from, ACTUAL Classicism (Antiquity) and Classical style from the Classical antiquity era (Ancient Greece, Ancient Roman, Ancient Egyptian,...etc...) - which is what goes back over 1,000 years (up to 4 to 5,000 years ago to just after the dawn of civilization in the middle East and Southern Europe)

That's where the name 'Neo-classicism' comes from :- 'Neo' meaning "New", and 'Classicism' (at the time it was thought to be "New" but in reality wasn't actually referred to as such until about 100 years after the era dawned, in the mid-19th Century when the term "Neo-Classicism" was coined and first used) basically referring to the revival of the classical styles.

It's also worth noting that it actually encompassed a wide variety of styles from that era - and some of which are still seen in designs even today - from Greek and Roman revival, to Gothic revival all the way to Art Deco from the early part of the last century.

Sorry for the nitpicky pedantic history lesson and detour, but Neoclassicism was a major focus of my final studio in undergraduate school in college.

Incidentally, this building while indeed Neoclassical in its design styling and language, it's actually designed in the specific style of (early)'Art Deco' from the 1900's to 1920's early century Industrial era as opposed to Gothic revival or the other Neoclassical subset styles I mentioned.

As you were.

Feathered Friend · #**133** Posted **Apr 4, 2019, 5:38 AM**

This was the last item at tonight's stupidly long UDP meeting. It started at 3pm, but was delayed 40 minutes due to lack of quorum. It took them until 9:35 to hear the 5 items.

Did this one pass? Well, one of the comments was that this building just doesn't belong in Vancouver, and another remark was that it has no context with the city at all. There was also extreme criticism of the limestone that similarly was felt to have no place/precedent in Vancouver.

The final vote was 3-2, and I think there were some abstentions. The motion was... stay tuned

VancouverOfTheFuture · #**134** Posted **Apr 4, 2019, 5:58 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spr0ckets

Minor point of note (or correction).

Neoclassicism only goes back a couple of hundreds of years and not,..."well over 1,000 years"
Like literally around 250 years (back to the mid 18th Century) give or take a couple of decades.

It hearkened back to, and drew inspiration from, ACTUAL Classicism (Antiquity) and Classical style from the Classical antiquity era (Ancient Greece, Ancient Roman, Ancient Egyptian,...etc...) - which is what goes back over 1,000 years (up to 4 to 5,000 years ago to just after the dawn of civilization in the middle East and Southern Europe)

That's where the name 'Neo-classicism' comes from :- 'Neo' meaning "New", and 'Classicism' (at the time it was thought to be "New" but in reality wasn't actually referred to as such until about 100 years after the era dawned, in the mid-19th Century when the term "Neo-Classicism" was coined and first used) basically referring to the revival of the classical styles.

It's also worth noting that it actually encompassed a wide variety of styles from that era - and some of which are still seen in designs even today - from Greek and Roman revival, to Gothic revival all the way to Art Deco from the early part of the last century.

Sorry for the nitpicky pedantic history lesson and detour, but Neoclassicism was a major focus of my final studio in undergraduate school in college.

Incidentally, this building while indeed Neoclassical in its design styling and language, it's actually designed in the specific style of (early)'Art Deco' from the 1900's to 1920's early century Industrial era as opposed to Gothic revival or the other Neoclassical subset styles I mentioned.

As you were.

yes, quite nitpicky as i think most got the idea of what i meant when referring to the neoclassical style going back since it directly draws itself from well over 1,000 years ago. i was trying to be quick and to the point without going into long winded details on an internet forum; my mistake.

and yes, i am aware that this is Art Deco in design; i was referencing other styles in regards to people calling this "fake" heritage and pointing out that most of our "heritage," especially in North America, is fake by their definition.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Feathered Friend

This was the last item at tonight's stupidly long UDP meeting. It started at 3pm, but was delayed 40 minutes due to lack of quorum. It took them until 9:35 to hear the 5 items.

Did this one pass? Well, one of the comments was that this building just doesn't belong in Vancouver, and another remark was that it has no context with the city at all. There was also extreme criticism of the limestone that similarly was felt to have no place/precedent in Vancouver.

The final vote was 3-2, and I think there were some abstentions. The motion was... stay tuned

not surprised they felt this was un-Vancouver like. as that is the god damn point since most of Vancouver style is disgustingly atrocious. why do we have these people again? is it because monotony is a good thing? i would like to think it passed, but if it didn't then these people have outlived their usefulness.

to them, the Vancouver Civic Centre Proposal from 1928 would be very un-Vancouver like as well.

Galaxy · #**135** Posted **Apr 4, 2019, 6:07 AM**

[QUOTE these people have outlived their usefulness.[/QUOTE]

Ah man to that! I agree! What's the point to the UDP if every building is the same. We need more variety that's what I thought the job of UDP was for in the first place. Sooo disappointing...

retro_orange · #**136** Posted **Apr 4, 2019, 6:25 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Ah man to that! I agree!

https://www.reddit.com/r/BoneAppleTea/

Amen. (to the rant about instilling variety in Vancouvers' architecture)

Vin · #**137** Posted **Apr 4, 2019, 6:28 PM**

The Vanvouver City Hall, Hotel Vancouver and the Marine Building are all "Un-Vancouver". What a joke.

I suppose only the Vancouver Specials in East Van are very "Vancouver".

Cypherus · #**138** Posted **Apr 4, 2019, 10:50 PM**

I don't get it. Everyone is tired of the glass city and seafoam colours, but the moment we have a classy New York style art Deco development people say it's un-Vancouver. What's wrong with diversity?

Graham_Yvr · #**139** Posted **Apr 4, 2019, 11:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cypherus

I don't get it. Everyone is tired of the glass city and seafoam colours, but the moment we have a classy New York style art Deco development people say it's un-Vancouver. What's wrong with diversity?

If this were Reddit, I'd give you gold for this comment.

DKaz · #**140** Posted **Apr 4, 2019, 11:53 PM**

Haha, I really don't think you can please them all.

Maybe the latest rendition of Edmonton Ice District Tower B (before they put the tower on hold until better market conditions) can shut up the haters.

https://i.redd.it/5i0ijthfmld21.jpg