Future skyline studies

dleung · #1 Posted **Feb 24, 2012, 2:31 AM**

Vancouver 3d. I added about 1500m worth of fantasy proposals... I focused it all in one area where I think it'll have the best impact on the skyline. When I have time, I plan to model the view cones 3-dimensionally as a translucent layer and do a more serious skyline study.

If anyone wants to play around with the model, here is the link to the sketchup file:
http://www.mediafire.com/?654k8y50dle7p5b

Green: construction
Blue: proposed/approved
Yellow: fantasy

Hed Kandi · #2 Posted **Feb 24, 2012, 3:23 AM**

Once again, terrific work! Much appreciated...

trofirhen · #3 Posted **Feb 24, 2012, 11:36 AM**

I really go for the second one down

wrenegade · #4 Posted **Feb 24, 2012, 7:35 PM**

dleung you rock. this is amazing stuff. thanks so much for making it available.

red-paladin · #5 Posted **Feb 24, 2012, 9:19 PM**

Are the fantasy buildings designed to fit inside the current viewcones and limits?

wrenegade · #6 Posted **Feb 24, 2012, 9:25 PM**

Not that it is a huge deal, but it doesn't appear that all the buildings are accurate. Most of the big ones are (or are very close), but a number of the small ones seem off. Dleung, did you create this map? Or just add the proposed/construction buildings? I am a Sketchup rookie but I would like to correct some of the buildings I've noticed that are incorrect (Bose/Bluesky's STIR project, "The Standard" for one). It is an unbelievable database though, thanks again.

Dylan Leblanc · #7 Posted **Feb 24, 2012, 10:23 PM**

Interesting renderings, but since when is the Ritz U/C?

Prometheus · #8 Posted **Feb 24, 2012, 11:04 PM**

Nice effort.

However, the future peak of Vancouver's skyline should not be Shangri-La. Not only would that be depressing, but it would be inconsistent with the best possible, most balanced skyline, as well as with future development opportunities. The future peak should be at the site of the Burrard Building (on the south-west corner of Burrard and Georgia), where city policy allows a 700+ tower. It is here that the future centerpiece of Vancouver's skyline naturally lies and should be built.

trofirhen · #9 Posted **Feb 24, 2012, 11:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Nice effort.
The future peak should be at the site of the Burrard Building (on the south-east corner of Burrard and Georgia), where city policy allows a 700+ tower. It is here that the future centerpiece of Vancouver's skyline should be built.

Exactly! I was thinking on exactly that the other day. THAT is the centre of downtown.

dleung · #10 Posted **Feb 25, 2012, 12:42 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by red-paladin

Are the fantasy buildings designed to fit inside the current viewcones and limits?

Some do, but generally not. I've always been in favor of abolishing the weakest viewcones and adding many more more effective ones.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dylan Leblanc

Interesting renderings, but since when is the Ritz U/C?

I started the model back when it WAS u/c but never bothered to update it. Supposed to re-start this spring anyway.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wrenegade

Not that it is a huge deal, but it doesn't appear that all the buildings are accurate. Most of the big ones are (or are very close), but a number of the small ones seem off. Dleung, did you create this map? Or just add the proposed/construction buildings? I am a Sketchup rookie but I would like to correct some of the buildings I've noticed that are incorrect (Bose/Bluesky's STIR project, "The Standard" for one). It is an unbelievable database though, thanks again.

I used an existing model, and modeled everything built after 2005.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Nice effort.

However, the future peak of Vancouver's skyline should not be Shangri-La. Not only would that be depressing, but it would be inconsistent with the best possible, most balanced skyline, as well as with future development opportunities. The future peak should be at the site of the Burrard Building (on the south-east corner of Burrard and Georgia), where city policy allows a 700+ tower. It is here that the future centerpiece of Vancouver's skyline naturally lies and should be built.

I was more focused on the immediate need to fill in the height difference between shangri-la and its neighbours, and was thinking in terms of "where would I put towers if I'm limited to 1000m". I'm also adverse to demolishing existing towers, or altering the character of sunny Robson. If the tallest building is where the Burrard Building is, it'll create quite a drop-off since you can't realy build east of it.

I've always imagined the block with the art gallery to be a valley in the future skyline, straddled by the Shangri-la peak and a second, slightly-taller peak between the art gallery and the post office. But that's practically starting from scratch, and requires dozens of towers.

huenthar · #11 Posted **Feb 25, 2012, 1:14 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Nice effort.

However, the future peak of Vancouver's skyline should not be Shangri-La. Not only would that be depressing, but it would be inconsistent with the best possible, most balanced skyline, as well as with future development opportunities. The future peak should be at the site of the Burrard Building (on the south-east corner of Burrard and Georgia), where city policy allows a 700+ tower. It is here that the future centerpiece of Vancouver's skyline naturally lies and should be built.

That would be great... but I assume you mean the south-west corner? Unless you want to raze the Hotel Vancouver

Prometheus · #12 Posted **Feb 25, 2012, 1:47 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by huenthar

That would be great... but I assume you mean the south-west corner? Unless you want to raze the Hotel Vancouver

That's right. Thank you.

trofirhen · #13 Posted **Feb 25, 2012, 11:23 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Nice effort.

However, the future peak of Vancouver's skyline should not be Shangri-La. Not only would that be depressing, but it would be inconsistent with the best possible, most balanced skyline, as well as with future development opportunities. The future peak should be at the site of the Burrard Building (on the south-west corner of Burrard and Georgia), where city policy allows a 700+ tower. It is here that the future centerpiece of Vancouver's skyline naturally lies and should be built.

Again, excuse me, but to elaborate on your point, which is 100% right on to me; regarding the second image down, where there are fantasy towers; whether following that idea or not .......... could not the apex - centrepiece,as you say, Burrard site tower, and perhaps several adjacent tall towers ...... reflect the stately copper and chateau roof design of the Hotel Vancouver, already complemented by Cathedral Place .... perhaps others to come? By doing so, Vancouver would set a "theme" for it's tallest buildings, unique in Canada, anyway; it could be an ensemble of complementarily designed buildings, each individual in its own way, but still paying design respect to the roofs and symmetries of the Hotel and of Cathedral Place. Just an idea, anyway.

And yes, there could be something tall and avant-garde jutting through the sea of condos as well.