555 W Cordova | 114.7M | 26Fl | Proposed

[csbvan]

Originally Posted by squeezied

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

And if this building is true to the renders it will look spectacular where it meets the street.

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by Delirium

wow so much melodrama in this thread! maybe you guys should start a support group to help you through this?

It's the same people posting the same hypercritical opinions, ad nauseam, in thread after thread.

[Delirium]

Originally Posted by Infrequent Poster

You are saying this on a website devoted to people who are skyline/skyscraper enthusiasts. It doesnt really seem like a relevant comment in that context (no offence meant).

As to your comment about Dubai, in my opinion that is the real melodrama (again no offence meant). It seems like whenever someone suggests that a building (in vancouver) would look better taller. Comment(s) are always made suggesting that the person(s) obviously want a tall piece of shit built just for the sake of being tall.

I have in the past made a comment(s) suggesting how more height would be nice, and even said in my comment that I am in no way suggesting any sort of sacrifice in building quality and or design. The very next comment is "we dont need tall shitty/crappy design buildings here just for the sake of being tall"

Its almost like its just a kneejerk response. I see nobody here suggesting the building is ugly. Nor have I ever seen/heard anyone say they want a bunch of super tall tacky assed buildings built (for the sake of being tall).

This building is short and has been made even shorter, this is undeniable in my opinion. Nice but short. Its even more of a disappointment because it is a very nice looking building in a prominent location.

London's city hall was built in a very prominent location and is nice and short. is it a 'disappointment' because it's not over some dreamlike height limit?


photo http://prideinlondon.org/wp-content/..._britan_02.jpg

how is this any different? furthermore, how do we know what the city would like or how appealing it would be to live in had the view cones not been established? we have no idea. much like montreal's heigh limit to mount royal. has zero bearing on the city. and that's my point.
vancouver will never play with the big boy skylines so why not do what we do best?

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by csbvan

What a tragedy that such an attractive building should be built in our city!

It is a tragedy when a beautiful thing has its wings needlessly clipped.

[Infrequent Poster]

Originally Posted by Delirium

London's city hall was built in a very prominent location and is nice and short. is it a 'disappointment' because it's not over some dreamlike height limit?


photo http://prideinlondon.org/wp-content/..._britan_02.jpg

how is this any different? furthermore, how do we know what the city would like or how appealing it would be to live in had the view cones not been established? we have no idea. much like montreal's heigh limit to mount royal. has zero bearing on the city. and that's my point.
vancouver will never play with the big boy skylines so why not do what we do best?

So first you say "anyone who's travelled the world a bit would quickly realize that a 'skyline' is so completely irrelevant to the overall experience of a city other than a postcard shot."

Then in your next post you say " how do we know what the city would like or how appealing it would be to live in had the view cones not been established?"

I'm not sure I understand these seem to be contradicting statements.

Anyhow we obviously see things from different sides of the table so I'll leave it at that.

[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.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by Delirium

And that's my point. Vancouver will never play with the big boy skylines so why not do what we do best?

You are missing the point.

The issue has nothing to do with trying to compete with someone else. Your choice between copying Dubai or accepting the status quo is a false dichotomy. The issue is whether achieving the best version of Vancouver involves artificially restricting our architectural expression according to a set of inflexible, predetermined limits created in 1989 or permitting ourselves the latitude and discretion to build the most sincere and faithful architecture that we can, always having regard for our unique context.

If the latter, then we need to change course and admit that a number of our modern buildings (including this one) have been denied the vertical dignity that the integrity of their designs, their locations and their city deserve.

One part of being the best city we can be is building the best architecture we can build. And building the best architecture we can build does not mean building tall architecture, but building good architecture. And good architecture is, among other things, faithful architecture; faithful to itself and to its environment. Thus, the right height for each building should be determined only by the most sincere version of its design, having an intelligent regard for the context in which it is to be built. This means that sometimes a good building will be taller and sometimes a good building will be shorter. The proper height for each building will be unique, being driven by loyalty to its particular form, function and context. But the right dimensions of an honest building are never achieved by adhering to a set of intransigent rules that arbitrarily arrest its height without any consideration to its design or purpose.

Thus, if Vancouver is to be the best city it can be, a more thoughtful and wiser approach is required.

[Vin]

Lol! London has the history, the fine old architecture that gives the street a lot of texture, and intricate and interesting details, not to mention timeless wrought iron fences, signposts, mail boxes and lamp-posts. Grand historical monuments in London are interesting features that dominate it's skylines. In Vancouver, we got bland storefronts, townhomes, condo/office and lobby entrances, and featureless sidewalks and roads. The north shore mountains are either shrouded in misty fog or rain most times of the year and dull without the snow caps during summer to add any features to the streetscapes. Hence we need tall modern towers and podiums that we can look up to. For a modern city in the New World like Vancouver, it's the collective mass of tall skyscrapers that gives the city it's unique feature, and the taller the buildings, the more impressive the city would look. I can't understand how a person can think that a featureless city with short stubbly towers can be compared to old world cities showcased by much history and monumental old architecture.

[officedweller]

I think that the most significant consequence of the height restriction isn't he absence of a tall tower, but the manipulation of the massing to create a short squat tower that needs to cantilever over all sides of its foundation in order to fit the allowable density onto the site.

While this building does a nice job of finishing at the ground level, the hub plans show that if a taller tower were allowed to the north, the site of this tower would, instead, be available to "enrich" the pedestrian experience with a plaza or open space - in an area (Gastown) that is pretty full of streetwalls and lacking in open space.

It's too late now for this site, but if you were looking for an advocate to relax the height limit on this site (or consolidate with the site to the north) - the Gastown Heritage Planning Committee could have made a good ally.

Originally Posted by Klazu

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.

The same view cone will apply to the transit hub buildings to the north. The only way to get the "illusion" of height is to build some lowrise or midrise buildings and have one or two towers "shoot" up to the view cone limit.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Which means you are missing the point.

The issue has absolutely nothing to do with competing with anyone. The issue is whether the goal of being the best city we can be is advanced by artificially restricting architectural expression according to a set of inflexible, predetermined rules or by permitting ourselves the freedom and discretion to build the most sincere and faithful architecture that we can, having regard to our unique context.

If the latter, then honesty forces us to admit that a number of our modern buildings (including this one) have been denied the vertical integrity and dignity that their designs, their locations and their city deserved.

One part of being the best city we can be is building the best buildings we can build. And building the best buildings we can build does not mean building tall, but building at the right height, as determined by the most sincere version of a building's design and the context in which it is to be built. This means that sometimes the "right" height will be taller and sometimes it will not. But the right height is never found in a set of rigid, predetermined rules that arbitrarily arrest the height of a building without any regard to its design or purpose.

Indeed, very well put.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

It's the same people posting the same hypercritical opinions, ad nauseam, in thread after thread.

And it's the same people posting the same non-topic-related criticisms of others having opinions about buildings, ad nauseam, in thread after thread.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Delirium

i guess the mentality here is more dubai than quality. so be it.

Heh, yep.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Vin

And it's the same people posting the same non-topic-related criticisms of others having opinions about buildings, ad nauseam, in thread after thread.

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.

[Vin]

Just read this on VanCityBuzz......

http://www.vancitybuzz.com/2015/01/w...-west-cordova/


ARCHITECTURALLY UNIQUE 26-STOREY ORIGAMI WATERFRONT STATION OFFICE TOWER DEEMED “TOO TALL”
BY KENNETH CHAN | 3:14 PM PST, MON JANUARY 5, 2015 | SPEAK UP


City of Vancouver planning officials have deemed a proposed 26-storey Waterfront Tower “too tall” for a site next to downtown Vancouver’s Waterfront Station.

The tower at 555 West Cordova Street is a project by Cadillac Fairview, which also owns and manages the historic 1912-built CPR Station, and designed by internationally renowned Chicago-based Adrian Smith + Gordon Gill Architecture with input by local firm B+H Architecture.

Smith is responsible for designing the Dubai’s Burj Khalifa (completed in 2010) and Saudi Arabia’s Kingdom Tower, the world’s new tallest when completed in 2018.

The Waterfront Tower proposal is currently in the pre-application stage and has received general support from the municipal government’s Vancouver Heritage Commission (VHC) and Gastown Historic Area Planning Committee (GHAPC), which spent the past year reviewing the project before it proceeds to the Development Permit Board stage in spring 2015.

The tower will be built at the outdoor Impark parking lot, between the historic 1912-built CPR Station and The Landing building, consists of retail space on the street level and office space above.

Proponents of the project have described the tower’s design as an “origami” at its base where it meets the CPR Station building while the sleek geometric upper elevations can be likened to the original design of the new World Trade Centre in New York.

However, the proposal was sent back to the drawing board in November 2014 when a development planner with the City noted that the building’s height exceeded the municipality’s strict view cone policy by a mere 13-metres (42 feet). The error was caused by “miscommunication earlier in the process.”

In consequence, according to GHAPC meeting minutes, the designers are no longer able to “take advantage of the possibility of building a taller, thinner tower to reduce the impediment on the adjacent heritage building as suggested by Committee resolution on December 18, 2013.”

The tower’s design has since been modified with a decreased height and resubmitted to continue the pre-application process. The building area has been reduced from 408,500 square feet to 356,000 square feet.


Given its location, should 555 West Cordova be taller?

The City of Vancouver has maintained that its view cone policy with 27 protected view corridors are designed to insulate views of the North Shore Mountains from the city area.

Proposed development projects are not permitted to reach a height that intrudes into any of the established view cones, which are designated to protect mountain views from highly arbitrary locations.

The view cones restrict development projects from reaching the full economic potential – it hinders the creativity and economic feasibility of designs, especially in the relatively small Central Business District environment where real estate is expensive and the cost of construction is high.

The concept of economies of scale seems to be lost among municipal officials who have entrenched the restrictive view cone policy into city development with few leniencies for even special projects.

With an architecturally unique tower like 555 West Cordova situated in the heart of the Central Business District and immediately adjacent to billions of dollars worth of public transit investments (SeaBus, SkyTrain lines and the West Coast Express), this is a project where height and density should be encouraged – not restrained.

There is an opportunity to build an architecturally unique and tall building at this highly visible location as a means to puncture Vancouver’s drab flat shaped skyline, which has been flooded with unimaginative “cookie cutter” designs.

While the City recently implemented a “General Policy for Higher Buildings,” the exception is only applicable for designs that create a new “architectural benchmark” within a small area of the heavily developed portion of the Central Business District and a handful of sites on the north end of the Burrard and Granville Street Bridges. The area around Waterfront Station is not included in the exception.

The 555 West Cordova site is part of the municipal government’s long-term plan to revitalize and develop the Waterfront Station transit hub complete with new city streets, public spaces, office towers and an expansion of the transit station’s area which includes a new SeaBus terminal.

A number of office towers are also planned within the immediate vicinity, including 601 West Hastings and 320 Granville Street.

[Vancity]

Originally Posted by Vin

Just read this on VanCityBuzz......

http://www.vancitybuzz.com/2015/01/w...-west-cordova/


ARCHITECTURALLY UNIQUE 26-STOREY ORIGAMI WATERFRONT STATION OFFICE TOWER DEEMED “TOO TALL”
BY KENNETH CHAN | 3:14 PM PST, MON JANUARY 5, 2015 | SPEAK UP


City of Vancouver planning officials have deemed a proposed 26-storey Waterfront Tower “too tall” for a site next to downtown Vancouver’s Waterfront Station.

The tower at 555 West Cordova Street is a project by Cadillac Fairview, which also owns and manages the historic 1912-built CPR Station, and designed by internationally renowned Chicago-based Adrian Smith + Gordon Gill Architecture with input by local firm B+H Architecture.

Smith is responsible for designing the Dubai’s Burj Khalifa (completed in 2010) and Saudi Arabia’s Kingdom Tower, the world’s new tallest when completed in 2018.

The Waterfront Tower proposal is currently in the pre-application stage and has received general support from the municipal government’s Vancouver Heritage Commission (VHC) and Gastown Historic Area Planning Committee (GHAPC), which spent the past year reviewing the project before it proceeds to the Development Permit Board stage in spring 2015.

The tower will be built at the outdoor Impark parking lot, between the historic 1912-built CPR Station and The Landing building, consists of retail space on the street level and office space above.

Proponents of the project have described the tower’s design as an “origami” at its base where it meets the CPR Station building while the sleek geometric upper elevations can be likened to the original design of the new World Trade Centre in New York.

However, the proposal was sent back to the drawing board in November 2014 when a development planner with the City noted that the building’s height exceeded the municipality’s strict view cone policy by a mere 13-metres (42 feet). The error was caused by “miscommunication earlier in the process.”

In consequence, according to GHAPC meeting minutes, the designers are no longer able to “take advantage of the possibility of building a taller, thinner tower to reduce the impediment on the adjacent heritage building as suggested by Committee resolution on December 18, 2013.”

The tower’s design has since been modified with a decreased height and resubmitted to continue the pre-application process. The building area has been reduced from 408,500 square feet to 356,000 square feet.


Given its location, should 555 West Cordova be taller?

The City of Vancouver has maintained that its view cone policy with 27 protected view corridors are designed to insulate views of the North Shore Mountains from the city area.

Proposed development projects are not permitted to reach a height that intrudes into any of the established view cones, which are designated to protect mountain views from highly arbitrary locations.

The view cones restrict development projects from reaching the full economic potential – it hinders the creativity and economic feasibility of designs, especially in the relatively small Central Business District environment where real estate is expensive and the cost of construction is high.

The concept of economies of scale seems to be lost among municipal officials who have entrenched the restrictive view cone policy into city development with few leniencies for even special projects.

With an architecturally unique tower like 555 West Cordova situated in the heart of the Central Business District and immediately adjacent to billions of dollars worth of public transit investments (SeaBus, SkyTrain lines and the West Coast Express), this is a project where height and density should be encouraged – not restrained.

There is an opportunity to build an architecturally unique and tall building at this highly visible location as a means to puncture Vancouver’s drab flat shaped skyline, which has been flooded with unimaginative “cookie cutter” designs.

While the City recently implemented a “General Policy for Higher Buildings,” the exception is only applicable for designs that create a new “architectural benchmark” within a small area of the heavily developed portion of the Central Business District and a handful of sites on the north end of the Burrard and Granville Street Bridges. The area around Waterfront Station is not included in the exception.

The 555 West Cordova site is part of the municipal government’s long-term plan to revitalize and develop the Waterfront Station transit hub complete with new city streets, public spaces, office towers and an expansion of the transit station’s area which includes a new SeaBus terminal.

A number of office towers are also planned within the immediate vicinity, including 601 West Hastings and 320 Granville Street.

we will forever be a city that loves short, stubby, uncreative and unimaginative towers. this city would like to believe that it is a world class city. i love van, but man, sometimes hearing things like this drives me nuts. i love the mountains and all, but c'mon now...omg.

we need to review those view cones. they're achaic. and yes, i agree that they do prevent the city from really building buildings with spectacular views, and designs. we must be the only "major" north american city that deals with this

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by Vin

Just read this on VanCityBuzz......

http://www.vancitybuzz.com/2015/01/w...-west-cordova/


ARCHITECTURALLY UNIQUE 26-STOREY ORIGAMI WATERFRONT STATION OFFICE TOWER DEEMED “TOO TALL”
BY KENNETH CHAN | 3:14 PM PST, MON JANUARY 5, 2015 | SPEAK UP
....

The article is wrong.

No decision on the height - as submitted @ 127.1m - has been made by the Development Permit Board.

What happened was that the architects misinterpreted the view cone limits and proceeded partially through discussions with the City with a "too tall" project.

Once that was pointed out to them, the error was corrected.

[dreambrother808]

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.

He's not capable of understanding, obviously. Just another sad individual with too much negative energy to expend.

[Delirium]

give it a couple more pages. the tissue is still being passed around.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by officedweller

The article is wrong.

No decision on the height - as submitted @ 127.1m - has been made by the Development Permit Board.

What happened was that the architects misinterpreted the view cone limits and proceeded partially through discussions with the City with a "too tall" project.

Once that was pointed out to them, the error was corrected.

The article never mentioned that the DPB made a decision on the height. It pointed out someone from the City noticed the error, and so the plan had to be resubmitted. How could the article be wrong then? I think the article is merely suggesting that the City shouldn't have been such a nit picker and insisted a redesign of the building. 13m taller would have given the building a better presence and not hurt anyone.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by Vin

The article never mentioned that the DPB made a decision on the height.

Okay, then, the title of the article is wrong.

EDIT: The article is wrong (or highly misleading?):

ARCHITECTURALLY UNIQUE 26-STOREY ORIGAMI WATERFRONT STATION OFFICE TOWER DEEMED “TOO TALL”
BY KENNETH CHAN | 3:14 PM PST, MON JANUARY 5, 2015 | SPEAK UP

City of Vancouver planning officials have deemed a proposed 26-storey Waterfront Tower “too tall” for a site next to downtown Vancouver’s Waterfront Station.
...

The words "have deemed" implies that City officials made a decision... which they did not.

Compare with a purely factual statement that does not imply action on the part of City officials - such as:
"A proposed 26-storey Waterfront Tower is “too tall” under zoning bylaws that apply to a site next to downtown Vancouver’s Waterfront Station."

Also - the 26 storey proposal - as submitted - is not the one that is overheight.