Vancouver House (1400 Howe St) | 151.5m | 52Fl | Completed - Page 2

LeftCoaster · #21 Posted **Feb 10, 2012, 5:37 PM**

Fantastic, came out taller than I expected. I hope this one is allowed to get through UDP and permitting without being significantly altered.

I cannot say enough good things about this development so I wont even bother. I'll just say its damn near perfect.

ozonemania · #22 Posted **Feb 10, 2012, 6:01 PM**

Like everyone else, I am so impressed and excited for this development. The tower is awesome obviously. But the street level plans are what blew me away. The people that put this proposal together think very much in the way I like. It's fresh but also real.

Furthermore, I hope this is a wake-up call for our incestuous local architectural firms, as good as they are, that they need to push their own boundaries. So many fresh ideas from around the world yet they stick to their tried and true palette.

wrenegade · #23 Posted **Feb 10, 2012, 6:09 PM**

Seriously. Fucking. Cool.

As amazing as the tower is, I agree that it is the street level plans that really blew me away. The concepts for how the space can be so usable are unbelievable. Just shows what can be done working around obstacles such as bridges or viaducts (*hint *hint, Viaducts). The creativity is fantastic.

s211 · #24 Posted **Feb 10, 2012, 6:47 PM**

I love it, but that waffle cone exterior's gonna be a bitchkitty to keep clean, and how green can that possibly be?

phesto · #25 Posted **Feb 10, 2012, 6:59 PM**

Wow, didn't realize it would be the 3rd tallest in the city at 493 ft. In some of the context views it doesn't look that tall.

wrenegade · #26 Posted **Feb 10, 2012, 7:02 PM**

Keep in mind Burrard Gateway and Vancouver's turn will both be taller. But 5th tallest isn't too shabby!

cornholio · #27 Posted **Feb 10, 2012, 7:05 PM**

Wow looks awsem. I really think the area under the bridge is going to become a major gathering, focal point of Downtown(mini granville island). It looks very inviting 12 months of the year, unique and in a fantastic location.

I think the best, most unique and successful areas in most cities including Vancouver tend to be built in challenging environments or around challenging obstacles, such as this bridge and viaducts. It allows new, unique and different ideas to emerge and makes the planners actually plan and be creative instead of just working off a "cheat sheet".

Also would be nice if the city tried to do something similar with Cambie bridge by throwing some extra height and density at (Concord I guess) to change their designs and create something more iconic and make sure it better interacts with the bridge. I am assuming that the development that was I think approved flanking the bridge hasnt started selling yet?. Maybe Concord doesnt want show it has the ability to build next to a structure until the city tears the viaducts for the hehe?

duener · #28 Posted **Feb 10, 2012, 7:57 PM**

Wow.. that is a stunning design!

I noticed that 14% of the residential space is rental. Is that something the city is pushing for in projects like this? Or is that because of a change in market conditions?

Just wondering, if the condo market is flat like some say it is, would they still go ahead without enough pre-sales? Or might they turn it all into rental?

Metro-One · #29 Posted **Feb 10, 2012, 8:12 PM**

Surprisingly this proposal has gathered 0 responses on the Canadian threads...

I find that odd given just how amazing this proposal is in its design and use of unique urban space!

I must say, with Hotel Georgia, 1021 West Hastings, Vancouver's Turn (fingers crossed), Burrard Gateway and now this tower, while Toronto may be building countless 200m+ towers, I feel that our taller stock (140 to 190 meters) is of much higher design quality. Just my opinion...

officedweller · #30 Posted **Feb 10, 2012, 9:46 PM**

Thanks JLousa!

Definitely a stunning design.
(although generally I'm not keen on "top-heavy" designs.)

Likes:
The balconies and waffle grid on the sunny exposures (stratas usually don't clean accessible windows - so the windows behind balconies will be the owners' responsibility to clean)
Lots of surface texture.
The white colour (not biege!)
The height.
The realm under the bridge (esp. acquiring both side of Granville under the bridge)

Dislikes:
The flat top (you'd think that the high end buyers would like some terraces up top)
The podium facades (the flat glass facades over the triangular forms don't relate to the floorplate or waffle texture of the tower. The tower has a triangular floorplate too, but doesn't come across as sharp and angular. There's a disconnect.)

I wonder if buyers will realize that the deep balconies will limit their views when sitting inside?
It's a bit like the old MacBlo building at 1075 West Georgia.

hollywoodnorth · #31 Posted **Feb 10, 2012, 10:45 PM**

really love this puppy! thanks for the post!

Architype · #32 Posted **Feb 10, 2012, 10:49 PM**

It's hard not to like this, a great looking innovative design with some serious structural engineering going on, impressive in spite of it's precariousness.

Chadillaccc · #33 Posted **Feb 10, 2012, 10:52 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Surprisingly this proposal has gathered 0 responses on the Canadian threads...

I find that odd given just how amazing this proposal is in its design and use of unique urban space!

I must say, with Hotel Georgia, 1021 West Hastings, Vancouver's Turn (fingers crossed), Burrard Gateway and now this tower, while Toronto may be building countless 200m+ towers, I feel that our taller stock (140 to 190 meters) is of much higher design quality. Just my opinion...

Totally agreed dude. If we have this and the Turn UC by next year with 1021 already well under construction, that will be three buildings more unique and iconic than any highrise ever built in Toronto UC in Vancouver at the same time

djh · #34 Posted **Feb 10, 2012, 11:19 PM**

Fantastic tower, great under-the-bridge ideas (why have these not been done under Burrard and Cambie already, btw?) and yes, it took some new outside blood to help the best Vancouver developers reach their peak.

I feel sorry for the other tower planned for the other side of the bridge. It'll look very plain and boxy and boring compared to this. That contrast will accentuate the great design here...but my, you wouldn't want to own a place in the other building and try to resell it...

Prometheus · #35 Posted **Feb 10, 2012, 11:30 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by officedweller

Definitely a stunning design (although generally I'm not keen on "top-heavy" designs).

I respect this building's boldness and originality (at least for Vancouver) and I hope it gets built (rather than another dull mediocrity). But I won't pretend the tower is beautiful. It is top-heavy and unbalanced.

That said, it will be a healthy break in the monotony.

officedweller · #36 Posted **Feb 10, 2012, 11:37 PM**

Cambie has a building under the south end and a park under the north end. Concord had floated a market under the ramp area of the north end, but that seems to have died.

Burrard will come when the south side native lands are developed and the north end is pretty much built up next to it (but facing teh water and turning its back to the bridge). The Aquatic Ctre constrains commercial development on the west side.

WRT the other tower - this could spur a great design for that one too - who owns the site (unless its the City for social housing)?

But then again, I might rather live in the other tower and stare at this one in my view rather than the other way around...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prometheus

I respect this building's boldness and originality (at least for Vancouver) and I hope it gets built (rather than another dull mediocrity). But I won't pretend the tower is beautiful. It is top-heavy and unbalanced.

It will still be good for Vancouver.

I think some tapering of the top would alleviate the top heavy look.
But the assymmetry could prevent that - at least from all angles.
It strikes me as a tower that isn't meant to be the tallest of a cluster (but will be) - because its interest is at the base.

I wonder how the structure will perform since the prevailing winds come from the west?
i.e. directly in line with (perpendicular to) the angled carve-out and compounding the effect of gravity?

squeezied · #37 Posted **Feb 11, 2012, 2:15 AM**

You can do yourselves and the city a favour by submitting favourable feedback here: http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/plannin...howe/index.htm

dreambrother808 · #38 Posted **Feb 11, 2012, 3:31 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prometheus

I respect this building's boldness and originality (at least for Vancouver) and I hope it gets built (rather than another dull mediocrity). But I won't pretend the tower is beautiful. It is top-heavy and unbalanced.

That said, it will be a healthy break in the monotony.

Agreed.

The Turn, while not quite as daring, has a grace that I find lacking here.

osirisboy · #39 Posted **Feb 11, 2012, 3:39 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by squeezied

You can do yourselves and the city a favour by submitting favourable feedback here: http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/plannin...howe/index.htm

Agreed, lets flood it with our support.

logan5 · #40 Posted **Feb 11, 2012, 3:56 AM**

Should I take the ground level plans at all seriously, or are they just conceptual ideas to pump everybody up about the tower itself?