Burrard Place | 168m, 112m, 56m | 54fl, 36fl, 13fl | 938,000 sqft | U/C - Page 8

trofirhen · #**141** Posted **Dec 11, 2010, 1:21 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by dleung

I can't believe we're talking about height, rather than the schizophrenic tackiness of the proposal. One has to like the design first, before wishing it to be taller.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I totally agree. I somehow find the whole thing has a mediocre quality in terms of design. How to redesign it, though? What are we looking for. Hmmmm. Maybe a Burrard Gateway Fantasy Design thread is in order.

officedweller · #**142** Posted **Dec 11, 2010, 2:09 AM**

They're a bit schizophrenic. I don't mind the honeycomb feel of the south facade - just because it's so different than any other residential tower in town. If that expression were used on all 4 sides (even with a glass reveal at opposing corners) - I think you'd have a unique tower.

Quote:

Originally Posted by awvan

More renderings:

South elevation (Drake):

Image credit: Hoodsurf

jlousa · #**143** Posted **Dec 11, 2010, 6:14 AM**

You can have a fantasy discussion all you want, but this is WYSIWYG. There will be slight tweaks of course but unless the UDP absolutely hates it (unlikely) the final product won't be too far of the design shown. The height isn't going to be pushed up for bragging rights either. I'd much rather see time and money spent on improving the streetscape then the skyscrape aspect of the proposal.

officedweller · #**144** Posted **Dec 11, 2010, 9:52 AM**

Couldn't they at least flip the tall tower around so that you don't see the back of it when you drive over the bridge?
Hopefully there's no exposed mehanicals up there (maybe a window washing crane?)

TwoFace · #**145** Posted **Dec 11, 2010, 7:18 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by officedweller

Couldn't they at least flip the tall tower around so that you don't see the back of it when you drive over the bridge?
Hopefully there's no exposed mehanicals up there (maybe a window washing crane?)

The way it is now, maximizes the preferred North/West views for the majority of the units.

Locked In · #**146** Posted **Dec 11, 2010, 9:11 PM**

Why wouldn't the developer consider tacking on another 10 metres in height (which would work out to 3 more stories) or so, given that the city is considering allowing a building of generally 500 feet (152.5 metres) on the site? Is this just a more efficient/economical use of the allowable density?

Prometheus · #**147** Posted **Dec 11, 2010, 9:39 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Locked In

Why wouldn't the developer consider tacking on another 10 metres in height (which would work out to 3 more stories) or so, given that the city is considering allowing a building of generally 500 feet (152.5 metres) on the site? Is this just a more efficient/economical use of the allowable density?

What makes this really confusing is that according to the report on the city's proposed changes to the General Policy on Higher Buildings (which was released yesterday and posted in the "Viewcone Review" thread), the Burrard Gateway application was for 500 feet. And, in fact, according to the same report, the developer has since submitted a supplementary application for 550 feet.

For convenience, here is the report (*see the top of page 13): http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/...heDowntown.pdf

trofirhen · #**148** Posted **Dec 12, 2010, 12:19 AM**

Hey these clauses are in APPENDIX B of the above. Maybe we could git 'em on these.



All Higher Buildings must establish a significant and recognizable new benchmark for

architectural creativity and excellence, while making a significant contribution to the beauty and
visual power of the city’s skyline;



Higher buildings should demonstrate leadership and advances in sustainable design and energy

consumption and as a result must be subjected, not only to current review requirements, but also
to review by a Council appointed panel including respected community leaders, notable local and
international design experts, and leaders in sustainable design;

http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/...heDowntown.pdf

Locked In · #**149** Posted **Dec 12, 2010, 1:13 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prometheus

What makes this really confusing is that according to the report on the city's proposed changes to the General Policy on Higher Buildings (which was released yesterday and posted in the "Viewcone Review" thread), the Burrard Gateway application was for 500 feet. And, in fact, according to the same report, the developer has since submitted a supplementary application for 550 feet.

For convenience, here is the report (*see the top of page 13): http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/...heDowntown.pdf

Thanks for the link - it would be nice to see council trade off a ~170 metre tower on this site for a significant community amenity, staff's recommendations notwithstanding.

Built Form · #**150** Posted **Dec 13, 2010, 10:13 AM**

http://www.vancouversun.com/Skyline+...721/story.html

Here's the link to the story in the Sun, mentioning the new application for 550 ft. Hopefull this means an additional 10% increase for mechanical, etc.
The higher the better.

peters · #**151** Posted **Dec 14, 2010, 4:27 AM**

Anti development forces will be out in force on Thursday at 2:00 pm. Vancouver City Hall. Come an tell council what yo think. Or write to them.

SpongeG · #**152** Posted **Dec 14, 2010, 5:12 AM**

I saw them on global news the other day small bunch of people

I don't know what to think of them - can they really see the mountains now? if they are already living downtown

Locked In · #**153** Posted **Dec 14, 2010, 9:49 PM**

A yellow memorandum from a Senior Planner to Council posted on the City's website yesterday clarifies that no supplemental rezoning application has been submitted relating to a height increase to 550 feet. Talks have taken place between the City and the developer about a height increase though.

yogiderek · #**154** Posted **Dec 14, 2010, 9:53 PM**

I would find it interesting to note how many people really go to Queen Elizabeth park. I mean the conservatory almost shut down from lack of interest. I think that the last time I was there, where the big viewing area is. Had to be at least 15 years ago. I live downtown and just seem to have little interest in that park, not really bike friendly . The only people there, are mainly tourists. I can't see how we can sacrifce the growth of this city for such a small minority of people who think they have an entitlement to a view they either rent or have bought.

Metro-One · #**155** Posted **Dec 14, 2010, 10:02 PM**

I went there last year with a bunch of international students.

Here is the ironic thing, the view would be great if a viewing platform were to be built (we know what happened to that proposal) or if the trees were trimmed cant do that in this town!) but as is it is only so so.

Even so, with the view that is there now, myself and all the international students enjoyed the view for looking upon the city!

That is right, they were focussed on the towers, the mountains were a distant second in regards to interest.

officedweller · #**156** Posted **Dec 14, 2010, 10:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Built Form

http://www.vancouversun.com/Skyline+...721/story.html

Here's the link to the story in the Sun, mentioning the new application for 550 ft. Hopefull this means an additional 10% increase for mechanical, etc.
The higher the better.

Like Built Form said - at 500ft + 10% for mechanical, they are in essence allowed 550 ft.

If they are allowed 550 ft + 10% =>> 605ft. That would be pretty high.

Mind you, I don't know if that vbox on the "prow" is mechanical or not.

SpikePhanta · #**157** Posted **Dec 15, 2010, 2:06 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metro-One

I went there last year with a bunch of international students.

Here is the ironic thing, the view would be great if a viewing platform were to be built (we know what happened to that proposal) or if the trees were trimmed cant do that in this town!) but as is it is only so so.

Even so, with the view that is there now, myself and all the international students enjoyed the view for looking upon the city!

That is right, they were focussed on the towers, the mountains were a distant second in regards to interest.

Thats why its wierd, The trees right now block the mountains to the west (i.e Burrard Bridge Area and Granville Bridge.

And also have to agree with Queen Elizabeth park being under used, The only time I go there is when its snowing!
But then again the park can't be anything else, I don't know if you're allowed to build on an extinct volcano or not.

(Hmm, Queen Elizabeth Park to be the safe zone during an Earthquake?

)

entheosfog · #**158** Posted **Dec 15, 2010, 3:47 AM**

This is the view from QE Park in May 2009. Those buildings would have to be pretty darned tall and lots of them to block the mountain views!

SpikePhanta · #**159** Posted **Dec 15, 2010, 5:02 AM**

What views are to be protected anyways?
All the ShangriLa does in this picture is block out the sprawl of houses in West Van... We can still see the lions and the tip of the mountains....

trofirhen · #**160** Posted **Dec 15, 2010, 6:02 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpikePhanta

What views are to be protected anyways?
All the ShangriLa does in this picture is block out the sprawl of houses in West Van... We can still see the lions and the tip of the mountains....