Telus Garden | 135m, 88m | 46fl res, 22fl office | 928,000sqft | Completed - Page 18

raggedy13 · #**341** Posted **Jun 3, 2011, 3:32 AM**

I quite like the residential tower. It is different than any other condo towers in the city and I'm a big fan of variety. I like the wrap around balconies for a change (though wouldn't want to see it take over) - very Toronto in my mind - and I think the "busy" Richards side looks neat and again quite different than anything else in Vancouver. I'm also a fan of the height, though that is one area where I wouldn't mind seeing some improvement.

I have no doubt that we'll one day get a tall, sleek, sexy glass tower downtown that will be loved by all (well... you never know with this group) but while this tower may be far from that description I still consider it a welcome addition that will nicely complement Vancouver's growing, diversifying skyline.

Locked In · #**342** Posted **Jun 3, 2011, 4:19 AM**

Thanks for the model photos and the UDP update - happy to hear the design was supported. I think the res. tower and the balconies looks great - nice to see something quite different being proposed. Excited to see how both the Richards and the Seymour (lane) facade turn out.
As for Casa, I've always liked it, and would love to see a tower like that here.

Built Form · #**343** Posted **Jun 17, 2011, 7:38 PM**

All pix by Built Form

s211 · #**344** Posted **Jun 17, 2011, 8:10 PM**

Over time, isn't that wood going to be a maintenance nightmare? Decks need restaining/resealing every few years. Just askin, is all.

Calgarian · #**345** Posted **Jun 17, 2011, 8:13 PM**

Vhy does every tower in Vancouver use the same colour of green glass? I thought the rule forcing it was repealed.

officedweller · #**346** Posted **Jun 17, 2011, 11:37 PM**

There's no "rule" requiring green glass.
Telus is likely using it because it's one of their marketing colours, it's cheap and it matches the existing 1960s building.

*********

Agreed that the wood will age and fade over time - but that's not the developer's problem, is it?

I don't like the way that the residential tower's retail podium "dives" into the hill on Richards Street
- the ceiling height on the ground level should be higher.

So CRU 3 will be about 13,000 sq ft on the ground floor and and 29,300 sq ft on the second floor plus mezzanine
=> 42,300 sq ft - Is that big enough for a boutique-sized Nordstrom's?
(Edit: Wikipedia says the smallest store is in Salem, Oregon at 72,000 sq ft)

Unless they subdivide the grond floor to provide an access corridor to the second floor + mezzanine, that's a lot of space for one retailer - especially split up on three levels (most big box stores wouldn't want to be split up like that).

Conceivably, it could be a Marshall's - their stores can be about that size and as the owner of Winners & Homesense, they are familiar with the local market and the eastern Robson Strip.

Now, will each "glass #2" tile have an image of Built Form applied to the tower?

Thanks for the pics!

SpongeG · #**347** Posted **Jun 18, 2011, 2:45 AM**

it would be big enough for a simons store - which is looking for a space in vancouver

great info - thanks for the pics

Pinion · #**348** Posted **Jun 18, 2011, 7:20 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Built Form

Now that is a riot-worthy offence. Hideous.

hummingbird · #**349** Posted **Jun 18, 2011, 7:45 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pinion

Now that is a riot-worthy offence. Hideous.

Seriously? they are going to build this ugly container looking building downtown....yucky!!!

Sprawl · #**350** Posted **Jun 18, 2011, 8:16 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by hummingbird

yucky!!!

I'd have to disagree withy your considered analysis on this one. It isn't seafoam green, it doesn't have punched windows set in bare concrete, and it has a unique and individual design. I happen to like it, but even if you don't you have to admit that the contrast is good for the city. Proposals submitted here always seem to be derided as either "too similar" or "too different", but I'd much rather have different over similar.

trofirhen · #**351** Posted **Jun 18, 2011, 10:45 AM**

Excuse me, folks, for being my usual "going against the grain" self, but I have tried, and tried, and tried, and tried ..... yet I just cannot get to like the the boxy, tall condo tower.

Yes, it's original. Yes, it uses different colours. Yes, it has trees on it. But the shape to me is ugly and I cannot get myself to like it. Anyway, this is just one opinion out of a zillion other different ones, so who's counting?

But it sho' is ugly

hummingbird · #**352** Posted **Jun 18, 2011, 5:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Excuse me, folks, for being my usual "going against the grain" self, but I have tried, and tried, and tried, and tried ..... yet I just cannot get to like the the boxy, tall condo tower.

Yes, it's original. Yes, it uses different colours. Yes, it has trees on it. But the shape to me is ugly and I cannot get myself to like it. Anyway, this is just one opinion out of a zillion other different ones, so who's counting?

But it sho' is ugly

Can they have a public forum or is it too late? Maybee they have some other designs they can go with instead?

Hed Kandi · #**353** Posted **Jun 18, 2011, 6:39 PM**

..

quobobo · #**354** Posted **Jun 18, 2011, 7:16 PM**

I think they could certainly choose better colours for the residential tower, but I love the design. Nice to see something a bit different downtown.

deasine · #**355** Posted **Jun 18, 2011, 8:44 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by officedweller

I don't like the way that the residential tower's retail podium "dives" into the hill on Richards Street
- the ceiling height on the ground level should be higher.

I think this is one of my only issues with the design of this tower, but otherwise, I share the same sentiment as som others on the forum: I like the fundamentals of this design and am glad to see something different for Vancouver.

dreambrother808 · #**356** Posted **Jun 18, 2011, 9:51 PM**

Perhaps the perspective of the render makes the residential tower look more awkward and ill-proportioned than it actually is.

trofirhen · #**357** Posted **Jun 18, 2011, 10:49 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

Perhaps the perspective of the render makes the residential tower look more awkward and ill-proportioned than it actually is.

Jiminy Crickets, I hope you're right!

Hot Rod · #**358** Posted **Jun 20, 2011, 9:49 AM**

will this be the new world headquarters?

If so, I wonder if they will still use the Burnaby/Vancouver buildings, maybe as administrative/data?

Jebby · #**359** Posted **Jun 20, 2011, 10:22 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hot Rod

will this be the new world headquarters?

If so, I wonder if they will still use the Burnaby/Vancouver buildings, maybe as administrative/data?

World headquarters? Does Telus even have business outside of Canada?

Hourglass · #**360** Posted **Jun 20, 2011, 11:28 AM**

I think mainly in the area of contact centers and outsourcing