Oakridge Park | 13 Towers | 154m | 52fl | 5M sqft | U/C

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Well Telus Garden has curved glass on that archway so don't lose hope.

... without gutters, and with water pouring off the canopy onto a glass floor that has to be closed off for more than half the year as a slip and fall hazard.

Wait, wasn't that also Henriquez?

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by officedweller

... without gutters, and with water pouring off the canopy onto a glass floor that has to be closed off for more than half the year as a slip and fall hazard.

Wait, wasn't that also Henriquez?

Westbank was involved too! They're like Batman and Robin!

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Westbank was involved too! They're like Batman and Robin!

Slippery glass sidewalk please

I wonder how annoying it is for the offices downstairs when people walk on that glass.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by officedweller

... without gutters, and with water pouring off the canopy onto a glass floor that has to be closed off for more than half the year as a slip and fall hazard.

Wait, wasn't that also Henriquez?

Oh well, on the plus side long after it’s finished we can expect this thread to get a bump as people report what’s gone wrong with it.

[vanman]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

It already looks cheap. I thought these were “luxury” condos.

I was expecting Singapore but instead we're getting Edmonton.

[GenWhy?]

Fak if the ICE District looks nicer than Oakridge I'll eat my hat

[officedweller]

That Epcor tower looks better!

[Repthe250]

Every condo tower in Vancouver looks like shit save for the Turn, Vancouver House and now the Butterfly. Not sure why everyone is so surprised that this is starting to look like shit, too.

Vancouvers urban design is getting uglier every year. At least it’s not as bad as Victoria though.

[csbvan]

Gotta give Westbank credit for charging some of the highest per sqf prices the city has seen just to build a cheap suburban development in a quasi-suburban neighbourhood But this should be expected. I'm in Toronto right now, staying downtown, and do people realize the amount of bad architecture on prominent buildings here?? A lot of new architecture is junk. Vancouver is lucky to have a higher percentage of quality.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Doesn't bode well for Senakw or Commercial-Broadway, though...

[Repthe250]

Originally Posted by csbvan

Gotta give Westbank credit for charging some of the highest per sqf prices the city has seen just to build a cheap suburban development in a quasi-suburban neighbourhood But this should be expected. I'm in Toronto right now, staying downtown, and do people realize the amount of bad architecture on prominent buildings here?? A lot of new architecture is junk. Vancouver is lucky to have a higher percentage of quality.

I dunno, Yaletown, Coal Harbour, False Creek and Olympic Village are all soulless clusterfucks of bad architecture. At least Toronto's office towers have the edge which gives the city a bit of diversity.

[csbvan]

Originally Posted by Repthe250

I dunno, Yaletown, Coal Harbour, False Creek and Olympic Village are all soulless clusterfucks of bad architecture. At least Toronto's office towers have the edge which gives the city a bit of diversity.

From a drone, maybe. At street level, it can be a bit dystopian. I have always really liked a lot of the City, but downtown is a bit clunky.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by Repthe250

Every condo tower in Vancouver looks like shit save for the Turn, Vancouver House and now the Butterfly. Not sure why everyone is so surprised that this is starting to look like shit, too.

Vancouvers urban design is getting uglier every year. At least it’s not as bad as Victoria though.

Ugh, I’m tired of these super hyperbolic trying to be edgy takes on architecture in Vancouver.

Yes, the Yaletown look did become monotonous, especially by the 2000s, but in the last 15 years there have been many towers of varying height, styles and with decent quality to break it up.

Overall Vancouver actually has rather pleasing “base architecture.”

You want to know where really has ugly architecture as their base residential design? Japan, Korea, China, Taiwan, Brazil, Columbia, Mexico, Russia, Ukraine, most American cities, etc…

I always feel people here see the most glamorous towers and districts possible from other cities and then think that is the “norm” outside of Vancouver. Well, it isn’t.

Does Vancouver need a few more standout signature towers, yes, is this project a potential disappointment given the relative price point (important aspect) yes, is Vancouver a beacon of ugly architecture on the world stage, fuck no.

Also you don’t like Victoria? Seriously? It’s like the gold standard in Canada for mid sized cities in contemporary designs.

Also while Toronto has a lot of great towers, Vancouver does a waaaaaay better job on average with the street level interaction.

[giallo]

It all comes down to personal preference, but I think Vancouver is in the midst of building some of its best architecture in ages. The late 90s and Aughts were pretty rough with beige and seafoam green everywhere, but now? I'm impressed by what's going up across the city.

The suburbs are a different matter.

[urbanight93]

As someone who has lived in several cities (MTL, TO, NYC and VAN) and travelled a fair bit, I can attest that for such a young city, Vancouver has very solid base architecture sprinkled with stellar examples.

Places like Montreal and NY have an advantage in terms of history and stock, but the Vancouver planning process has resulted in a successful built form and commendable overall experience for city dwellers and visitors.

Toronto where planning laws are more lax (and where the OMB/LPAT has historically been able push through any development) has resulted in some more extreme and bold architecture (on both the good and bad end) but has led to some pretty unfortunate outcomes (soul-sucking street level, wind corridors, very narrow separations, lack of setbacks and minimal public space, out-of-context heights...)

[chrisel]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

... Also while Toronto has a lot of great towers, Vancouver does a waaaaaay better job on average with the street level interaction.

Most of Toronto's recent architecture is hideous. If not poor design, then very poor execution. The past decade's construction boom has been such a missed opportunity.
All it takes is a visit to most threads in the UrbanToronto online forum to find people lamenting the incessant value engineering of a veritable forest of boxy towers.

Even Dundas Square in the heart of the city has crap-tastic walls of ugliness in full view.
It's as if their Design Review Panel doesn't care enough to push hard for a better urban realm.

Don't get me started on the overbearing bunker-like podiums and underwhelming pedestrian experience. Glad I don't live there anymore.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by urbanight93

As someone who has lived in several cities (MTL, TO, NYC and VAN) and travelled a fair bit, I can attest that for such a young city, Vancouver has very solid base architecture sprinkled with stellar examples.

Places like Montreal and NY have an advantage in terms of history and stock, but the Vancouver planning process has resulted in a successful built form and commendable overall experience for city dwellers and visitors.

Toronto where planning laws are more lax (and where the OMB/LPAT has historically been able push through any development) has resulted in some more extreme and bold architecture (on both the good and bad end) but has led to some pretty unfortunate outcomes (soul-sucking street level, wind corridors, very narrow separations, lack of setbacks and minimal public space, out-of-context heights...)

It is just too bad most parts of Vancouver are not built like how you described this City. In fact, only downtown is nice, but many neighbourhoods are on the decline, including previous vibrant thoroughfares like East Hastings and Granville Street. Also please don't forget that the foundation of the city centre was laid out by people from the 1800s, and not necessarily the planners of today. Toronto may seem to develop less cohesively, but the laxer rules can allow it to create better neighbourhoods, vibrant plazas and interesting streets or alleys in the future, all set around bolder architecture. Also what sets Vancouver apart is its intense use of planted landscaping including hedges, shrubs and trees. If Toronto has half of that, many of its streets would improve massively.

[Repthe250]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Ugh, I’m tired of these super hyperbolic trying to be edgy takes on architecture in Vancouver.

Yes, the Yaletown look did become monotonous, especially by the 2000s, but in the last 15 years there have been many towers of varying height, styles and with decent quality to break it up.

Overall Vancouver actually has rather pleasing “base architecture.”

You want to know where really has ugly architecture as their base residential design? Japan, Korea, China, Taiwan, Brazil, Columbia, Mexico, Russia, Ukraine, most American cities, etc…

I always feel people here see the most glamorous towers and districts possible from other cities and then think that is the “norm” outside of Vancouver. Well, it isn’t.

Does Vancouver need a few more standout signature towers, yes, is this project a potential disappointment given the relative price point (important aspect) yes, is Vancouver a beacon of ugly architecture on the world stage, fuck no.

Also you don’t like Victoria? Seriously? It’s like the gold standard in Canada for mid sized cities in contemporary designs.

Also while Toronto has a lot of great towers, Vancouver does a waaaaaay better job on average with the street level interaction.

LOL it doesn’t take a god damn professional to notice the bland, copy and paste architecture developers are feeding us over and over and over again. And I’m not going to apologize for being let down and annoyed every time a developer tries to feed us the same bullshit design over and over again with no creativity. Don’t even get me started on mechanical penthouses that stick out like sore thumbs that don’t fit with the design of the tower itself either.

And yeah I’m not just talking about Vancouver itself, obviously the entire southwest corner of BC including Victoria. For such a beautiful setting mixed with historic architecture, the new stuff is just plain awful and IMHO ruining Victorias skyline.

Maybe using Toronto was a bad example, but as a skyscraper enthusiast, I feel a little bummed about the turnouts of some of our most prominent towers. Anyway, let’s get back on topic.

[Repthe250]

Also, don’t confuse my tone as anti Vancouver. I do love this city deeply. The developers, on the other hand can eat a bag of d***s, respectably

[Repthe250]

Originally Posted by giallo

It all comes down to personal preference, but I think Vancouver is in the midst of building some of its best architecture in ages. The late 90s and Aughts were pretty rough with beige and seafoam green everywhere, but now? I'm impressed by what's going up across the city.

The suburbs are a different matter.

Seafoam green is preferred over exposed concrete and clear, non reflective glass which has been a huge offender lately.

Yes, the suburbs are horrendous. The worst being Coquitlam Centre, Burquitlam, Surrey Central and Brentwood. Cannot stress the ugliness of blank mechanical penthouse boxes enough.