The Post | 67m | 27 fl | U/C

[EdinVan]

Positively awful. They obviously paid zero attention to the feedback they received from the public.

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by christmas

Oh god plz no...
Navy blue spandrel + cheap condo deep blue glass + massive structure + prime/conspicuous location = unmitigated disaster = 9.3 M earthquake.
I don't even wanna imagine.

Just imagine... if all of that was this... That's what the model seems to be depicting..
Picture courtesy of Mcminsen

I think the glass in mcminsen's picture would be great.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Jebby

I think the glass in mcminsen's picture would be great.

Agreed. Or better still, super-reflective, nickel-based glass such as on the Bank of Canada building at the foot of Burrard. Or coppery / or bronze glass, maybe, to complement the building.

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Agreed. Or better still, super-reflective, nickel-based glass such as on the Bank of Canada building at the foot of Burrard. Or coppery / or bronze glass, maybe, to complement the building.

The CoV will never allow that.

[csbvan]

On second thought, this project looks terrible.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Agreed. Or better still, super-reflective, nickel-based glass such as on the Bank of Canada building at the foot of Burrard. Or coppery / or bronze glass, maybe, to complement the building.

Originally Posted by Jebby

The CoV will never allow that.

Any particular reason why?

[LeftCoaster]

First off the architect would never recommend nickel reflective glass because it's not 1982 anymore and secondly the city want's to push clear glass for green purposes as well as urban realm purposes.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

First off the architect would never recommend nickel reflective glass because it's not 1982 anymore and secondly the city want's to push clear glass for green purposes as well as urban realm purposes.

Point taken, but is nickel (ultra-reflective white metal) glass), so "80s?" For me it"s rather classic. Oh well, to each his taste, to each his reason, I guess (speaking in general terms)

[Genauso]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

First off the architect would never recommend nickel reflective glass because it's not 1982 anymore and secondly the city want's to push clear glass for green purposes as well as urban realm purposes.

The 'greenest' solution would be a deep hole in the ground, and failing that no windows at all. I know you're reflecting a standard expectation, but I don't think the possibilities are so limited.

There are different coatings for windows that do more than trap infrared wavelengths to be green, like those that minimize water used for washing.

I'm sure there is a way for the choice of glass to minimize annual energy consumption, while aesthetically accentuating the sunlight. There's also the option to reduce heating/cooling costs in other ways.

I don't know what's available at reasonable pricing, but a simple diffraction pattern on the glass would be beautiful and shouldn't be too expensive. I have seen it used at least once (imagine microscopic dots, where the diffraction effect produces the colors seen on a butterfly's wings or a CD)


Which leaves 'urban realm' to be the true sticking point.
Is it ok to have more than one type of glass, say one for the towers and one for the podium? They can keep one standard for all the condo developers they say No to, while illuminating what can be a dull grey street during the winter.

So it can be greener, and improve the urban realm by not using all green glass. If it is actually attractive, and something you would want to frame in a photo with the new Art Gallery or from the foot of the future grand Georgia staircase to False Creek -- that's a bonus, take the money and run.

There's no way to rework this project while retaining the old post office, so just focus on getting the glass right.

[Jebby]

Canada Post building redevelopment in downtown Vancouver passes heritage test
The original structure and artwork will be preserved at 349 West Georgia Street
by Carlito Pablo on February 8th, 2017 at 3:33 PM

The Vancouver Heritage Commission has endorsed the redevelopment of the downtown site of the former central Canada Post building.

Members of the civic advisory body voted unanimously on Monday (February 6) to support the proposal to rezone 349 West Georgia Street for residential, office, and retail uses.

http://www.straight.com/news/866411/...-heritage-test

[Vin]

Tie in very well with the heritage component? Hmmmmmmm....

[ToTheTopNow]

The Post on Georgia Delivers on Heritage Retention

http://vancouver.skyrisecities.com/n...tage-retention

[Feathered Friend]

From the UDP's February 8th Meeting:

Panel’s Consensus on Key Aspects Needing Improvement:
 Consider animating the abrupt straight Georgia façade with something other than offices;
 Consider a different form on Georgia above the post office
 Provide more connectivity between Homer Street and Hamilton Street;
 The terraced walls on Hamilton Street are too high;
 Consider how the office entrance takes up street space and how this will affect after-hour use;
 More animation is needed on the Georgia Street side;
 Add more public space to this terrace area rather than private outdoor café space
 Design development to reduce the building mass;
 Design development to better daylight the building spaces;
 Design development to better relate the rhythm of the top additions to the post-office;
 Mitigate after-hour office light pollution in consideration of the building residents;
 Design development to better animate Homer Street;
 Consider Hamilton Street and location of car and loading access in relation to Queen Elizabeth
Plaza.
 Related Commentary: The panel noted that this project has a lot of well-handled complexities,
and that this was a very comprehensive presentation. However, the units are not wide enough to
contain the proposed bedroom layouts. Design development is needed to fix this.
Consider how this building will make a difference in the public realm to create special spaces.
Really think about how the public will be able to use this space rather than just thinking about the
site as an opportunity for luxury retail. Retail is good, but there needs to be less privatized space
and more given over to true use by the public.
Consideration should be given to connecting Homer Street and Hamilton Street somehow to allow
pedestrian traffic flow between them.
Consider bringing retail to the building edge on Homer, rather than a private and enclosed hall
buffer between the retail and the sidewalk.
Attention needs to be paid to improving accessibility throughout the site. Consider after-hours uses
in the building and how the spaces in and around the building will be used during those times.
Something needs to be done to better activate the street all around the block. There needs to be
something which draws people in. More shortcuts are needed throughout the site to provide more
porosity and connection between the blocks. Provide a much more thought-out plan for public art.
Urban Design Panel Minutes Date: February 8, 2017
5
The project is lacking an element of excitement. It is understandable that the upper floors are
subordinate to the lower heritage portion, but they do not need to be monotonous. There is room
for more diversity within the architecture and more relationship to the architectural language of
the post office.
Pay attention to resolving the parking better. Follow the rules, but if the parking can be reduced
then the bulk will be reduced as well. The trend of Vancouver is one of becoming increasingly less
dependent on vehicles. Relaxing the amount of parking required will prevent the building from
being too bulky and allow the building to better express itself through shape.
The panel was split on whether there needs to be more differentiation between the office and
residential components. Some members did not think that differentiation between offices and
residential is needed. Others members thought that differentiation between offices and residential
are not needed aesthetically, but consideration should be given to how these spaces are going to
be used and whether or not different components are needed to encourage these uses.
The proposed changes to the heritage facades are successful. However, this feels like three
buildings stuck on top of a podium and lacks connection to the site typology. One panel member
thought that the podium should not contain any residential components and be converted to 100%
office use instead. Overall the entire structure feels too monolithic, so consider ways to break it
up.
The current sunlight levels on the site are not ideal for a daycare, so consider ways to increase sun
exposure. The garden is currently too shady and will not function as an adequate outdoor amenity
for those who reside in the building. The public space seems to be too nondescript overall and
needs further design development in order to resolve this.
More passive acknowledgment could be given by the facades with regards to orientation.
Something should be done with regards to social sustainability. There needs to be something to
draw young Vancouverites into this building to live as they are the best way to add animation to
the downtown in the long-term. Creation of more affordable suites (with adequate space) for
young people to inhabit would be an ideal way to accomplish this. Market suites towards a younger
demographic in order to ensure continued thriving in the long run.

The vote was 2 - 5 against. It should be noted that the meeting took place on one of the particularly bad snow days, and some of the UDP members were unable to attend.

http://vancouver.ca/files/cov/commit...l-20170208.pdf

[osirisboy]

They want to reduce building mass? Why? What's wrong with large mass?

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

They want to reduce building mass? Why? What's wrong with large mass?

It's "unVancouver"

[Vin]

All the above comments can be resolved if the Viewcones restrictions are removed. A tall tower would essentially eradicate all the issues brought up above. With the Viewcones intact, it's almost like asking for the impossible, especially if the developer wants to attain the specified floor space.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Vin

All the above comments can be resolved if the Viewcones restrictions are removed. A tall tower would essentially eradicate all the issues brought up above. With the Viewcones intact, it's almost like asking for the impossible, especially if the developer wants to attain the specified floor space.

hey yeahh, OK. So remove the viewcones, already.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by Vin

All the above comments can be resolved if the Viewcones restrictions are removed. A tall tower would essentially eradicate all the issues brought up above. With the Viewcones intact, it's almost like asking for the impossible, especially if the developer wants to attain the specified floor space.

Yup - Similar problems to those raised by the view cone restriction over the IcePick site next to the CP Station...

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Yup - Similar problems to those raised by the view cone restriction over the IcePick site next to the CP Station...

a naïve question, I know, but I had to ask it: is there any way that the viecones could be legally callenged? By a developer/ devlmnt groups, etc, or has it /could it happen?

[Metro-One]

Don't mean to pile on but so many of those comments came off as a direct result to the viewcone restrictions. Taller more slender towers would resolve most of those issues