555 W Cordova | 114.7M | 26Fl | Proposed

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by squeezied

The important thing is that the base/pedestrian experience looks great, height is secondary.

I agree totally about the street experience being the first priority, but height, esp in North American cities, does sometimes play a large role too.

[officedweller]

Especially for the tenants, their views and the rent the landlord can charge.
Skyscrapers aren't built for purely aesthetic purposes.

[Metro-One]

What is annoying about this situation is not that the tower is being proposed at its current height (127 meters), but the fact that it was originally going to be proposed at a slightly higher height (13 meters) and the reasoning for reducing the height is quite needless.

For example I am happy with other projects, such as MNP, that are being built at their originally envisioned heights.

[EdinVan]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I think those of us that have been around this forum a while are just tired of every new building thread starting with 4-5 pages of whining about the height, view cones, and so on.

The great thing about the Internet is that we can easily visit other sites that don't bother us so much.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

What is annoying about this situation is not that the tower is being proposed at its current height (127 meters), but the fact that it was originally going to be proposed at a slightly higher height (13 meters) and the reasoning for reducing the height is quite needless.

For example I am happy with other projects, such as MNP, that are being built at their originally envisioned heights.

ain't that the absolute truth!

[Pinion]

What would 13 metres do to the view from Harbour Centre lookout? Obviously a lot of people here don't care but it is a factor.

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by Klazu

All I want to say is that I agree with the people saying that the building would appear more prominent and also look more impressive if it would be some 50 meters taller. However, then it would hide the iconic Harbour Center tower behind it when seen from the Seabus or from North Vancouver shore. So I am a bit torn with this building, but I know I will like it thanks to the great streetscape. I just hope the finishing will be high-end.

The area will get so much better with several more towers coming in the future. I just hope at least one of them will also bring some height to the area.

It's too bad Harbour Center wasn't made taller to begin with. And IIRC the Harbour Center is also the only carrier hotel (where all the international fiber optic lines come together) in BC, so the most practical location to build another in the city would be an immediately neighboring office building.

[red-paladin]

Harbour Centre and 1050 W Pender host The Vancouver Internet Exchange (VANIX).

[NewWester]

Why haven't I been on Skyscraper page for a while? *Sees extended argument about height and viewcones; has trouble finding details actually about building* Riiiiight. That's why.

(Seriously, is it possible to moderate these discussions so that we get less viewcone related discussion in actual building threads? I feel like we all know where every regular poster stands on this policy without constantly re-dredging it.)

[Infrequent Poster]

Originally Posted by NewWester

Why haven't I been on Skyscraper page for a while? *Sees extended argument about height and viewcones; has trouble finding details actually about building* Riiiiight. That's why.

(Seriously, is it possible to moderate these discussions so that we get less viewcone related discussion in actual building threads? I feel like we all know where every regular poster stands on this policy without constantly re-dredging it.)

Well the building was chopped down in height because of a viewcone, so its kind of related to discussion about the building in my opinion. Obviously with the amount of discussion on topics relating to "viewcones" and such, it seems (to me) that it is a topic that people feel strongly about. So I would rather the discussion is not censored.

All the censorship in the canada forum to do with all things oil related left a pretty sour taste in my mouth, and I would rather people were allowed to talk about whatever issues they felt were important as long as they are not being dicks about it.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by NewWester

Why haven't I been on Skyscraper page for a while? *Sees extended argument about height and viewcones; has trouble finding details actually about building* Riiiiight. That's why.

(Seriously, is it possible to moderate these discussions so that we get less viewcone related discussion in actual building threads? I feel like we all know where every regular poster stands on this policy without constantly re-dredging it.)

If this were the MNP thread, or the Bental 6 thread, or any other tower that is being built at their original proposed height (due to viewcones or not) I would agree with you.

But regarding this tower, it is part of the discussion, because this tower was reduced from its original vsion because of viewcones.

[dleung]

A 13 meter reduction doesn't change the character of this building, so why fight it (let alone on SSP), other than to get a few extra meters for the heighters? However that same 13m, viewed from Harbour Centre, could determine whether it will not longer be possible to, say, see across the inlet to Lonsdale from a prime touristy observation point.

This is almost as embarrasing as that long debate on the Trump thread about how many floors left till completion... guess what, most of your guesses will be correct at some point +/- a few weeks

[Caliplanner]

Originally Posted by dleung

A 13 meter reduction doesn't change the character of this building, so why fight it (let alone on SSP), other than to get a few extra meters for the heighters? This is almost as embarrasing as that long debate on the Trump thread about how many floors left till completion... guess what, most of your guesses will be correct at some point +/- a few weeks

Seriously.......I think many folks here in this forum take stuff said here way too seriously. These fora are for enlightened discussions on matters of urban development. As such the skyscraperpage provides a certain degree of "entertainment" via light hearted commentary on said matters. And while I do understand the need for restraint in terms of relevant/respectful exchanges we should be careful not to over moderate in suppression of free speech (speaking as a first amendment loving American of course)!

[red-paladin]

As long as the comments pertain to how viewcones, height restrictions, and issues about the status of building height, and completion, affect the project the thread is about, then it's not a problem. However, when the discussion gets repetitive or angry, then it's a problem. General issues about viewcones and other height restrictions really should be in another thread. I don't view moving discussions to other threads as censorship, but facilitating discussion on a given topic.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by red-paladin

As long as the comments pertain to how viewcones, height restrictions, and issues about the status of building height, and completion, affect the project the thread is about, then it's not a problem. However, when the discussion gets repetitive or angry, then it's a problem. General issues about viewcones and other height restrictions really should be in another thread. I don't view moving discussions to other threads as censorship, but facilitating discussion on a given topic.

Pls excuse a sort of "double post," but I think you should. Too often threads get side-tracked onto this.

[Delirium]

some renderings we haven't seen before in this article;
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/01...n_6458208.html

it also says that the city is accepting comments on this development so go crazy people! now's your chance;
http://former.vancouver.ca/devapps/5...s/notiltr1.pdf
Mandy So
so@vancouver.ca
Project Facilitator

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Delirium

some renderings we haven't seen before in this article;
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/01...n_6458208.html

it also says that the city is accepting comments on this development so go crazy people! now's your chance;
http://former.vancouver.ca/devapps/5...s/notiltr1.pdf
Mandy So
so@vancouver.ca
Project Facilitator

Thank you! I did my part and exercised my right to voice out to the City regarding this building. Hope many others would do the same, especially since we all know there is already many small vocal groups that wouldn't even want this structure to be constructed.

[dleung]

I wrote them too. Told them to reduce it to 16 stories, for the sake of the harbour centre observation deck, and for a more layered look in the skyline.

[Henbo]

Originally Posted by dleung

I wrote them too. Told them to reduce it to 16 stories, for the sake of the harbour centre observation deck, and for a more layered look in the skyline.

Keep in mind too, that with the vision for the waterfront hub having more office towers toward the water, in 10 years you might not even be able to see this tower from the north shore

[officedweller]

Came across this from the 2009 Waterfront Hub poster boards:


http://former.vancouver.ca/commsvcs/...ionboards2.htm

FYI - Waterfront Hub thread here:
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...146079&page=19