On the other hand, the original design for the BC Place Casino was pretty horrid and it did not receive UDP support, while the revised (approved) version is arguably pretty good; certainly unlike anything we have in the city. Similarly, the original design for the MNP tower was a banal extruded hexagon and it did not receive support of the UDP. The revised version has been broadly hailed as one of the best in the city.
It's worth repeating that the UDP is not some ossified bloc. It's a constantly changing group of architects, landscape architects, engineers, and reps from the Vancouver City Planning Commission, the development community, and arts community. There is undoubtedly some group-think that occurs - this is impossible to avoid - but it's a caricature to paint the UDP as being forever on the wrong side and actively working to water down design. If one attends their meetings, calls for boldness and greater design development are commonplace. What's frequently ignored on this board are the cost implications of bold design and high quality materials.
Ultimately, the architects and engineers are working within a far more constrained budget than most would suspect and their developer employers' proforma drives design. Not surprisingly, the handful of projects that are working with exceptional budgets tend to end up with highly atypical design. For every few dozen Wall Centre Central Park and Intracorp MC2-type projects, we get a jaw-dropper like Vancouver House or West Pender Place. Those are the building equivalents of super cars. Yes, they're demonstrably better than a Civic, but they're also decoupled from reality and can't be a realistic basis for comparison.
__________________
VANCOUVER | Beautiful, Multicultural | Canada's Pacific Metropolis
|