[towerguy3]

I want Vancouver to have a tower that dominates the skyline like this

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/201/500461268_5c3ef08f4c.jpg

[twoNeurons]

ugg-lee

[mr.x]

hideous. That's more than 1,000 feet. I wouldn't want anything more than 750-800 feet for the sake of balance.

[EastVanMark]

Ya,:previous: nice idea but I think we need to build a few more taller towers of about 700-800 ft before anything like that gets built. Still, hats off to you for "thinking big".

[cornholio]

imagine the shadow it would cast...no thanks.
I agree with no higher then 750-800feet, infact I think there should only be a few towers of that hight downtown and nothing higher. If you want a super high tower plump in on Burnaby mountain or on top of metrotown mall...somewhere where it wont over shadow the actualy city and streets.

[djh]

imagine the shadow it would cast...no thanks.
I agree with no higher then 750-800feet, infact I think there should only be a few towers of that hight downtown and nothing higher. If you want a super high tower plump in on Burnaby mountain or on top of metrotown mall...somewhere where it wont over shadow the actualy city and streets.

If you don't want the shadow falling on the city, you would just need to put the tower on the waterfront on the north side of the city. For example, anywhere in Coal Harbour.

[Mininari]

Think of the view cones! Won't somebody please think of the viewcones?!?!?!
(-- Helen Lovejoy)

[Lead]

Something half that size would look amazing.

[mr.x]

Something half that size would look amazing.

which is the Shangri-la currently under construction. ^_^

[towerguy3]

The Shangri-La is directly underneath the red box I drew. It's creeping up in front of the Teresan building. The overhead crane is now visible. They're on floor 26 as of today on their way to 61

[cityguy]

It's too red for my liking.

[MistyMountainHop]

I think 646 feet would be a good height.

[SunCoaster]

Hummmmm nice thought towerguy3 but chances of such a tower ever being constructed are slim and nil and slim is permanently out of town ... the best Vancouver can ever hope for is an 800 footer ... and even that will be a stretch given the view cone nonsense and the twits @ the planning board ...

[Mininari]

Hummmmm nice thought towerguy3 but chances of such a tower ever being constructed are slim and nil and slim is permanently out of town ... the best Vancouver can ever hope for is an 800 footer ... and even that will be a stretch given the view cone nonsense and the twits @ the planning board ...


I'm inclined to agree. I want to see a few "even taller" towers adorn the Vancouver skyline myself. However, if the city ever does allow taller building to intrude into viewcones, the process will be under so much scrutiny, any proposal would probably get chopped down and capped at 750ft. I guess there is that 10% allowance for mechanical and roof cap, so that would give us 825ft.

First we have to get at least two additional towers in the 600' range (4 total)... then it will be easier to justify an 800' tower to top out the 'two-tier table-top appearance.

As for a prediction as to where this monster may go... I could see the office building at Burrard and Georgia being torn down in maybe 20-30 years. Its in decent shape, and is of reasonable size, but the site doesn't have any view cone restrictions.

Getting those other two 600' foot towers will be the challenge... but I'm confident some dealings will be made and a tower or two that includes significant office space will eventually be permitted.

I don't think Vancouver would look right with a supertall... it would not fit in with the surrounding height-capped buildings at all. Perhaps if it were tapered, like a pyramid (Al la the TransAmerica Tower)... but then we'd have another stitch in the 'San Francisco North' designation.

[EastVanMark]

:previous: Agreed. I too agree that Vancouver should not be home to super talls because of the need to protect the view of the beautiful North Shore mountain range that our fair city is known for. But these 350-400ft. height restrictions the city had from the 70's were too low and now the downtown core is paying the price for that narrow minded thinking now. If you had a few 800 footers, you would still be able to see the mountains and add some color/character to a boring skyline.

[towerguy3]

I want Vancouver to have a tower like this:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/205/507042614_21b43e0cde.jpg

[vid]

I think Vancouver would be rather ill-served by a large blurry red rectangle. :)

Burj Dubai, I think, would probably fit in quite nicely, though it's too tall and would take up too much land.

[deasine]

I'll hate Vancouver to have an awkward tower out of no where. I prefer skylines which buildings are around the same size, maybe one or two that stand out, not one with a tall skyscraper right in the middle.

The City of Vancouver would not allow that happen too. The gov't plans certain things accordingly, for instance, the Olympic Village had a height plan creating a 'hill' effect leading up to future Broadway development.

[EastVanMark]

:previous: The current skyline downtown has a real, "snooze" affect, caused by narrow minded, holier than thou, I know whats best for you, city hall.

[crazyjoeda]

lol thats so dumb.

[Coldrsx]

thats ridiculous...

60-70-maybe 80 stories fits vancouver...not 120.