Fifteen Fifteen (1500 W Georgia) | 134m | 43fl | U/C

[officedweller]

Looks like they rotated the protruding box at the base to face Georgia St instead and retained the geometry of the original fountain.

Original rendering:

Originally Posted by Klazu

Brand new proposal for West End by Ole Scheeren's office. They call this "Vertical Living".



Source: http://www.wallpaper.com and http://www.designboom.com

New renderings from VancouverMarket.ca:

They've retained the geometry of the original fountain.


http://www.vancouvermarket.ca/2016/0...-west-georgia/

Note the aquatic trees...


http://www.vancouvermarket.ca/2016/0...-west-georgia/


http://www.vancouvermarket.ca/2016/0...-west-georgia/


http://www.vancouvermarket.ca/2016/0...-west-georgia/

[retro_orange]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Looks like they rotated the protruding box at the base to face Georgia St instead and retained the geometry of the original fountain.

Original rendering:

New renderings from VancouverMarket.ca:

Note the aquatic trees...


http://www.vancouvermarket.ca/2016/0...-west-georgia/

Willow trees? Mangrove trees maybe? I dunno how they will pull that off, what other tree can grow in water and survive in our climate?

[trofirhen]

Really dramatic and groundbreaking design ..... now if it can get past the UDP without being dumbed down .....

[Klazu]

How can they claim that the looks of the tower have not changed when the reduced floor count has clearly changed the overal appearance and dimensions on the tower? The new tower must be some 30 meters shorter than the original one? It barely exceeds the red tower next door!

[Infrequent Poster]

this is just bullshit.

[IMG][/IMG]

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Klazu

How can they claim that the looks of the tower have not changed when the reduced floor count has clearly changed the overal appearance and dimensions on the tower? The new tower must be some 30 meters shorter than the original one? It barely exceeds the red tower next door!

Welcome to Vancouver.

[dleung]

Keeping the original fountain geometry is much better. Wish it was 5 stories taller than the shortened version though.

[Klazu]

I really liked the original tall and sleek look, but now the tower looks stubby, which is very unfortunate. So the reason for shorter design is some viewcone that they had misunderstood?

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by Klazu

I really liked the original tall and sleek look, but now the tower looks stubby, which is very unfortunate. So the reason for shorter design is some viewcone that they had misunderstood?

Yeah, probably another foreign architect not understanding the layering of the bylaws and policies and how the view cones trump all.
(Same thing happened with the ice pick next to the CP Station)

******

Personally, I would have preferred to see a variation on a triangular floorplate to mirror 1500 West Georgia.
(ie. triangular floorplate with protrusions from the diagonal façade)

[Marshal]

Originally Posted by retro_orange

Willow trees? Mangrove trees maybe? I dunno how they will pull that off, what other tree can grow in water and survive in our climate?

I was just at a project in Vienna that had 'aquatic' trees. It was very interesting: they had a paved public space which gradually sloped down into a rectilinear pond/lake. A grove of these trees grew over the area, on the dry ground and into the lake at various depths. These trees were of a similar scale to those in these renderings. The effect was very interesting and they were all very healthy after 5 years. Vienna's climate is not too different from Vancouver's. I know we took some pictures of this, as it is context for our project . . . I will try to dig it up to share.

[Metro-One]

it is not the end of the world but the height reduction has taken away from the overall impact of the design.

I still don't see how this tower being 20 meters shorter was a necessary thing for the city to go out of its way to do.

I do wish some of these more interesting designs could be proposed for Metrotown instead, where they will not be neutered.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Klazu

I really liked the original tall and sleek look, but now the tower looks stubby, which is very unfortunate. So the reason for shorter design is some viewcone that they had misunderstood?

The concept blocked the mountain view of someone in Mt.Pleasant, and they are now in Post-traumatic therapy.

[s211]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

The concept blocked the mountain view from city hall, and they are now in Post-traumatic therapy.

Fixed that for you.

[Smooth]

The ironic thing to me is that this building would probably only obstruct the view of the mansions that have climbed up the hillside in West Vancouver, not pristine forests or mountains.

[LandLubber]

Greetings all! First post but not really a newbie as I've been a long time lurker on this site for years. Presently living on the Sunshine Coast and loving it here so as a "country bumpkin" I have to ask a question about view cones if I may. Whose views are they protecting? Vancouver is a moderately big city. Big cities consist of tall buildings. Most usually people don't move to a city so they can view mountains, they live in rural areas or go on vacation to do that. Navigating Vancouver streets, you shouldn't be checking out the mountains, you should be watching where you are going! The city core really hasn't got a lot of room to expand so it would only make sense to go higher. Stanley Park and the waterfront has wonderful views of the mountains so a stroll along these areas on a beautiful day should satisfy anybody. I know many cities have height restrictions to accommodate fly zones or prevent over density in residential neighborhoods etc. but so people can look at the mountains? Okay, rant over ... I'll go back into hiding

[excel]

Welcome to the forum! The view cones are meant to preserve views of the mountains from various vantage points in Vancouver on the south side of downtown. They are not meant to be for people driving. As much as a I don't agree with there being view cones, Vancouver actually does attract many of its residents due to its beautiful scenery so it does contribute to the reason that people move here. Further information and discussion can be found here:

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=167028

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by excel

Welcome to the forum! The view cones are meant to preserve views of the mountains from various vantage points in Vancouver on the south side of downtown. They are not meant to be for people driving. As much as a I don't agree with there being view cones, Vancouver actually does attract many of its residents due to its beautiful scenery so it does contribute to the reason that people move here. Further information and discussion can be found here:

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=167028

I should add that nobody wants the view cones gone - simply relaxed, or narrowed, or whatever it takes for two thirds of downtown to NOT look like somebody used a hedgetrimmer on it.

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Have these trees been pruned or is the view still like that?

[LeftCoaster]

The trees were recently pruned.

That said the distance between QE park and the towers location is such that a 20 metre difference in tower height would make a barely visible difference.

The Waterfront Tower protrusion Officedweller was alluding to before was so small and from such distance the city agreed it would be imperceptible to the human eye but it could still not penetrate the viewcone because it would set a precedent.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Klazu

I really liked the original tall and sleek look, but now the tower looks stubby, which is very unfortunate. So the reason for shorter design is some viewcone that they had misunderstood?

It always goes back to that....the illogical/nonsensical viewcones.