[rrskylar]

I don't know why, but this one really made me laugh :haha:

Goes to show money can't buy good taste!

[officedweller]

So we can see INTO this suite from the TD Tower - Hmmmm....

http://images.ctv.ca/gallery/photo/shangrila_20081122/image6.jpg

[Cypherus]

To me, the suite isn't even that nice for the type of premium it demands. Looks like that window above the bathtub will need some blinds unless the person wishes to expose them self to the rest of the city.

[jlousa]

Don't think you'll be able to see anyone, unless it dark outside and the bathroom lights are on, even then you'd be a few hundred ft away and at an angle. So you'd need a pair of binocaulars to see anything. :tup:

The evelators travel at over 700ft/min. So including acceleration and deceleration time you could make it from the penthouse to the lowest parkade level in just over 1 min, assuming you don't stop along the way. ;)

[subdude]

Great shot from last week by juttamk (http://www.flickr.com/photos/alicebear/) on flickr:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3202/3052414280_ce424b96a1_b.jpg

[eduardo88]

holy shit, that suite looks so unbelievably kitsch and tacky....the dogs remind me of joey's dog on friends tho haha

[officedweller]

Looks like the fins atop Shangri-La lost a few panels in the windstorm - a few panels are missing on the Thurlow (east) side. You can see them missing on the CTV video.

[vanlaw]

holy shit, that suite looks so unbelievably kitsch and tacky....the dogs remind me of joey's dog on friends tho haha

Agreed - the finishings on the pics posted thus far look cheap and crappy.

[Yume-sama]

They all do look awful plain, the walls, and everything. I get that maybe they were going for West Coast minimalism... but... come on? Why pay so much money for a blank white wall and a fireplace that doesn't even have any architectural features! The cabinets, marbles, and floors, all look a bit drab. Ritz Carlton and Hotel Georgia definitely take luxury to a whole new level compared to Shangri-La. It really seems all it has going for it is the name, which really only means something to people from China.... not so much to anybody in North America. Of course, we haven't seen the super expensive suites. I'm sure those people will completely gut it and re-do it, anyways.

http://images.ctv.ca/gallery/photo/shangrila_20081122/image5.jpg

And I hope these people didn't hire a designer.

[vanlaw]

And I hope these people didn't hire a designer.

Maybe the fireplace is actually just a high end lcd tv permanently tuned to the fireplace channel - like Colbert's Xmas special last night!

[Dorian G.]

holy shit, that suite looks so unbelievably kitsch and tacky....the dogs remind me of joey's dog on friends tho hahaI guess it could always just be a collection of random imperial kitsch, but that's awfully cynical. I think it's just being postmodern:

the dogs, the two chairs, and the lamp all suggest some kind of solid victorian propriety. The skin rug suggests a violent domination of the natural environment (certainly a feature of Canada, and the west coast especially, but also a feature of other colonies). The orientalised chess board figures the sublimation of a foreign form to a western purpose. All these Western/colonizing elements are ironically juxtaposed to the minimalist elements (that is, their conspicuous lack): the couch (the largest piece of furniture in the room) seems curiously inert, and less minimalist than banal and uninteresting. I say the juxtaposition is ironic because it would be surprising if a building treading opposite to historic anglophone imperialism honestly embraced any of it. That's my read, anyway.

More generally, if these suites are for foreign or worldly buyers, perhaps they are expected to have diverse art objects—not necessarily unified or coherent—to furnish with; in that sense, the starkness of the suite is meant explicitly to be an unmotivated canvas for bricolage.

[Yume-sama]

I bet you $10 they are British. If not Chinese / British. :P

The dogs and lamp make me think British, the all white and furniture style says high-end Chinese.

[phesto]

They all do look awful plain, the walls, and everything. I get that maybe they were going for West Coast minimalism... but... come on? Why pay so much money for a blank white wall and a fireplace that doesn't even have any architectural features! The cabinets, marbles, and floors, all look a bit drab. Ritz Carlton and Hotel Georgia definitely take luxury to a whole new level compared to Shangri-La. It really seems all it has going for it is the name, which really only means something to people from China.... not so much to anybody in North America. Of course, we haven't seen the super expensive suites. I'm sure those people will completely gut it and re-do it, anyways.

http://images.ctv.ca/gallery/photo/shangrila_20081122/image5.jpg

And I hope these people didn't hire a designer.

I'm really not sure what is up with that photo, but I can assure you, having toured some of the units, they are pretty high quality. I'm only talking about the live-work suites, which are the only ones to complete so far - and in my opinion, they are up there with any product in Vancouver, with the possible exception of Aspac's buildings. And yeah, as you mention, you can expect the estate units will be even nicer.

Here are a few more photos that at least do the units some justice as opposed to the crappy screenshots from above.

http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/6910/30548752771a92e7d437btk6.jpg

http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/5875/v74400930119sg9.jpg

http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/7854/v74400940119ah0.jpg

http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/6442/v74400980197lg8.jpg

http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/2343/v74400990195yv2.jpg

[Aylmer]

You know, if ANYONE living in the Shangri-La wants to do a house exchange...

:D

[officedweller]

Is this the plan of the suite in the first pic? If so, the plan doesn't show that column there (that would be a surprise to a purchaser):

http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/4066/11382477pc1.png

Here's the plan of the suite posted by Phesto in the last 4 pics - living room looks small for a 1600 sq ft unit - but I guess that because it is split up with a family room and there's a lot of wasted space in the hallway.

http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/9997/31292946js2.png

[SpongeG]

the hallway is the gallery - where you hang your picassos and warhols

[Yume-sama]

Looks like 12 more units hit the market today. Going from 6 - 18 on MLS.

Yes, buy now... it's a buyers market! $519,000 - $1750000

[excel]

wow that pic is amazing, thanks subdude.

[squeezied]

Is this the plan of the suite in the first pic? If so, the plan doesn't show that column there (that would be a surprise to a purchaser):

http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/4066/11382477pc1.png

wow good eye! could it be that it was a unit in the lower floors? ie below 35. i do recall the northeast unit changing a bit in some ways from different sections of the floors. yet i believe columns are suppose to run up to the very top.

but by the looks of it, some ppl are gonna get gyped

[Cypherus]

wow good eye! could it be that it was a unit in the lower floors? ie below 35. i do recall the northeast unit changing a bit in some ways from different sections of the floors. yet i believe columns are suppose to run up to the very top.

but by the looks of it, some ppl are gonna get gyped

Those people will certainly not be able to put that dining room table and chairs as represented on the floor plan with the column protruding outward.

[Hed Kandi]

The ceiling of the Shangri La is really low. It feels almost claustrophobic. I would prefer if developers stuck to a minimum of a 13ft ceiling.

[jlousa]

Never going to happen, lets see you can sell 61 floors with 10ft ceilings or you could sell 46floors with 13ft ceilings.... I wonder which one I will build. :tup:

[eduardo88]

Never going to happen, lets see you can sell 61 floors with 10ft ceilings or you could sell 46floors with 13ft ceilings.... I wonder which one I will build. :tup:

I hate how north america has such low ceilings, its incredible that people settle for 10ft ceilings...at home in berlin we have 17 foot ceilings, and its not even a penthouse apartment. i know this is a high rise tower, but still for a luxury building ceilings should be 13 feet!

[duener]

^^Couldn't agree more. The ceilings look ridiculously low - just about all the places I've seen in London and New York too seem to have higher ones. Higher ceilings give a space a sense of grandeur.

I suppose all the developers in Vancouver could get away with it because people were lining up around the block to buy pre-sale condos during the boom years. Hopefully after the bust they'll have to compete more with each other and offer better quality product with higher ceilings.

Why aren't there more loft type places like the Spot built?

[wrenegade]

Until both land prices and construction costs TANK you won't see those low ceilings going anywhere. There is no way Shangri-La would be financially feasible at 46 stories. Plus we are used to the 10 foot ceilings here so people don't really seem to demand it (as far as I can tell).

I don't see them to be too much of a problem. Wouldn't deter me from buying a place. The suites look pretty damn good in my opinion, the countertops aren't the greatest colour, but not that big of a deal. The fireplaces look like absolute garbage though. I worked on Aspac's Waterfront Place (Cascina/Denia) a couple years back and thought the ones in there weren't great, but these ones look like holes in the wall.

[AlexYVR]

The fireplaces look like absolute garbage though. I worked on Aspac's Waterfront Place (Cascina/Denia) a couple years back and thought the ones in there weren't great, but these ones look like holes in the wall.

They are. Literally, holes in the wall.

[sacrifice333]

Plus we are used to the 10 foot ceilings here so people don't really seem to demand it (as far as I can tell).

7-8 feet is considered normal in Vancouver.

9-12 feet, 10 being the norm, is over height and seen as a luxury.

14+ is normally referred to as double height and is hard to find.

[Yume-sama]

7-8 feet is considered normal in Vancouver.

9-12 feet, 10 being the norm, is over height and seen as a luxury.

14+ is normally referred to as double height and is hard to find.

Must have gotten lucky with L'Hermitage, then. My ceilings are at least 10' and I'm fully air conditioned :D :banana:

[crazyjoeda]

I'm a fairly tall guy (6'3") so naturally I like high ceilings, but ceilings over 10 feet are just not practical. I don't think it is worth the cost to build or the inefficiency to heat the extra airspace.

[officedweller]

Why aren't there more loft type places like the Spot built?

The City changed the zoning bylaws so that floor to ceiling heights must average 10ft or less in a tower - that's after Space, Van Horne, Carrall Station, Metropolis and The Spot were built with their 16 ft ceiling and had consequential illegal mezzanine renovation issues (loft mezzanines were not included in all units and renovations to add lofts (1) need to be approved through zoning to add additional square footage and (2) need to meet fire and building codes (i.e. be sprinklered and be made of fire-proof materials (steel)).
So those units are now for the most part unique in the city. Some buildings will have two-level units, but the average ceiling heights will have to be maintained.

I think typical ceiling height is 8'6", with some buildings having 9' or 10' ceiling heights.
As YumeSama mentioned L'Hermitage has high ceilings as does The Savoy (at least for either the upper half or lower half of the building). Electra (old BC Hydro) and Cube (Old BC Transmission) and any other office conversion will also have high ceilings.

[officedweller]

Pic taken by me today - note the panels missing at the top - wind storm damage?

http://img179.imageshack.us/img179/3238/pb260917ug9.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img179.imageshack.us/img179/pb260917ug9.jpg/1/w600.png (http://g.imageshack.us/img179/pb260917ug9.jpg/1/)

[excel]

nice shot.

[Yume-sama]

That building is like a death trap in a windstorm :P

Things flying from it all throughout construction and now even though it's done!

[mr.x]

Did windows really break from the last windstorm? Ugh, what crappy work if it can't even handle that.

[officedweller]

Don't know for sure - but there was glass up there the week before.

[LeftCoaster]

Wow, were really jumping to conclusions today. I'm quite sure these paticular glass panels were not fully installed yet so they were taken down as a precaution. All the contstuction projects in the city were given plenty of warning about this upcoming wind storm and were all advised to brace their projects for 100km winds. If two massive panels like that blew off the Shangri-La im sure we would have heard about it by now, even if they just blew back onto the building.

[towrguy3]

Wasn't the Pacific Palisades owned by Shangri-La Hotels and Resorts about 7 years ago?

An old phone book indicates some connection between the two

[officedweller]

Yes, it was (or even earlier than that) - then it was sold to the Kimpton Group I think.

[flight_from_kamakura]

^ an old phone book!

[Canadian Mind]

Great shot from last week by juttamk (http://www.flickr.com/photos/alicebear/) on flickr:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3202/3052414280_ce424b96a1_b.jpg

nice shot. :cool:

[cdnklc]

^ an old phone book!

the real question is whether it is an "old" phone book or an "old phone" book...

[officedweller]

My home phone is a rotary dial...

[jlousa]

Office Dweller, are the windows still missing? ;)

[officedweller]

Can't tell - too cloudy. I'll check later.

[phesto]

27 units on MLS now ranging from $458,000 to $1.8 million.

The good news for the developer is that apparently all of the purchasers have completed, whereas some other projects that pre-sold in 2007/08 might not be so fortunate...

[LeftCoaster]

Office Dweller, are the windows still missing? ;)

I was by the site today, windows were still out as of noon.

[squeezied]

another photo of SL can be seen in the hotel's site: http://www.shangri-la.com/en/property/vancouver/shangrila

[officedweller]

Windows were still out today (a week later).

[raggedy13]

The website says that Market (the Jean-Georges Vongerichten restaurant) will have a "musical chair bar". Does anybody know what that means? I've never heard the term before.

another photo of SL can be seen in the hotel's site: http://www.shangri-la.com/en/property/vancouver/shangrila

A pretty nice photo
http://www.shangri-la.com/uploadedImages/property/Vancouver/slv_overview(1).jpg

[officedweller]

??? - maybe if you go to the washroom, your chair will be gone when you get back??

[Phil McAvity]

Those windows have been down so long i'm starting to think that the builder is Microsoft. :D

[phesto]

^:D

Apparently some of the window panes became slightly cracked either during or after installation, so they had to be removed and replaced. The damage was not caused by the wind but something to do with contact with concrete.

[AlexYVR]

The website says that Market (the Jean-Georges Vongerichten restaurant) will have a "musical chair bar". Does anybody know what that means? I've never heard the term before.



A pretty nice photo
http://www.shangri-la.com/uploadedImages/property/Vancouver/slv_overview(1).jpg

That view sure makes One Wall look like a squat little stumpster, doesn't it?

[MapleLeaf]

The building is amazing and very important for Vancouver but these inside shots of the appartments...mmm...I mean...the view through the other skyscrapers might be great but I just don´t like the way they´re structured. I´d wanted to get a bit more style for several $-millions.

[skymaster]

I'm really not sure what is up with that photo, but I can assure you, having toured some of the units, they are pretty high quality. I'm only talking about the live-work suites, which are the only ones to complete so far - and in my opinion, they are up there with any product in Vancouver, with the possible exception of Aspac's buildings. And yeah, as you mention, you can expect the estate units will be even nicer.

Here are a few more photos that at least do the units some justice as opposed to the crappy screenshots from above.

http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/6910/30548752771a92e7d437btk6.jpg

http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/5875/v74400930119sg9.jpg

http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/7854/v74400940119ah0.jpg

http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/6442/v74400980197lg8.jpg

http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/2343/v74400990195yv2.jpg

Hopefully these units have heated flooring because with those many windows surrounding a room heating usually is very low.

[Hong Kongese]

^^ For the price the owners pay for these units, they better be heated floors.

[SpongeG]

The website says that Market (the Jean-Georges Vongerichten restaurant) will have a "musical chair bar". Does anybody know what that means? I've never heard the term before.



A pretty nice photo
http://www.shangri-la.com/uploadedImages/property/Vancouver/slv_overview(1).jpg

i think it means it will be a sit down bar with chairs that has live music

as opposed to a bar without chairs aka a night club bar

[Yume-sama]

So... we shouldn't all head to Shangri-la expecting the fun of a musical chairs game?

[SpongeG]

what do they mean by the floors? that the bottom 5 floors are double height floors?

Location
3rd Floor (2nd Level)
Dress Code
Business casual

Location
5th Floor (3rd Level)
Dress Code
Casual

[jlousa]

Where the restaurant is the first level is the first and second floor, you'd understand if you are there, there is no 4th floor hence the 3 level is called the 5th floor. I discussed this before, no 4th and 13th floors, 4 is bad luck to the Chinese and 13 is bad luck here.

[SpongeG]

so the lobby is what?

[jlousa]

The lobby is 2 floors, you'll understand once it's open and you can see it.
I believe someone posted the floorplan at one stage, I don't have it anymore.

[MistyMountainHop]

So... we shouldn't all head to Shangri-la expecting the fun of a musical chairs game?

Damn, I was hoping for that too.

[deagleman]

I'm really not sure what is up with that photo, but I can assure you, having toured some of the units, they are pretty high quality. I'm only talking about the live-work suites, which are the only ones to complete so far - and in my opinion, they are up there with any product in Vancouver, with the possible exception of Aspac's buildings. And yeah, as you mention, you can expect the estate units will be even nicer.

Here are a few more photos that at least do the units some justice as opposed to the crappy screenshots from above.

http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/6910/30548752771a92e7d437btk6.jpg



How did my image end up on image shack!

Anywho, if you want to see some detailed pics I took of 2 units on the 36 and 40th floor check out my flickr sets.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/32687612@N05/sets/72157609860444495/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/32687612@N05/sets/72157609925756146/

And heres a pic of the Shangy I took this weekend.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3075/3094347193_76508d0327.jpg

[phesto]

^I hosted it on imageshack to share.

Thanks for the pics.

[Metro-One]

Nice Image. I wonder how much longer this thread has to live, Shangri-La days are almost over. Also with Woodwards and even Fairmont nearing completion we need a new tower going up. I can't wait for Hotel Georgia to start going vertical (of course the RC as well, fingers crossed).

[Cypherus]

Thanks for the set deagleman. Anyways, I am not impressed with the quality of the rooms demanding such a high premium price.

For instance:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/32687612@N05/3055710954/in/set-72157609860444495/

The brown tile is dreadful, the light dangling so low to the vanity sinks is dangerous, and the overall color scheme is 70s esque. I've seen better bathroom treatments in middle class homes.

[Metro-One]

I must say i was expecting more from the Shangri-La in interior quality and design. It seems very minimal. Maybe because of the wealth of the buyers they are expecting them to rip apart the interiors and hire their own professional designers?

[deagleman]

Thanks for the set deagleman. Anyways, I am not impressed with the quality of the rooms demanding such a high premium price.

For instance:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/32687612@N05/3055710954/in/set-72157609860444495/

The brown tile is dreadful, the light dangling so low to the vanity sinks is dangerous, and the overall color scheme is 70s esque. I've seen better bathroom treatments in middle class homes.

I agree. I was especially disappointed with the flooring. Its not even real wood. However, the one that irks me the most is that the building is nowhere near polished. Residents and owners are still up in arms trying to get things fixed that should have been done when they received their keys.

Now, I know that you can't get anything in perfect condition, but I still expected that the flooring would at least have been finished and all the building junk would have been removed.

[MapleLeaf]

The interior looks like in some middle class hotels I´ve stayed at. There´s nothing special, nothing pompous I would condos of these prices expect to have. :yuck:

But, the people who can afford such an amount of money might also be able to send in their own designers and staff...still the windows are ugly...

[SpongeG]

The lobby is 2 floors, you'll understand once it's open and you can see it.
I believe someone posted the floorplan at one stage, I don't have it anymore.

i mean its level 1 - floors 1 &2 and level 2 is floor3 etc...

[androo3]

Nice Image. I wonder how much longer this thread has to live, Shangri-La days are almost over. Also with Woodwards and even Fairmont nearing completion we need a new tower going up. I can't wait for Hotel Georgia to start going vertical (of course the RC as well, fingers crossed).

Well I would say that the thread should stay up until that Construction Crane (Window Washer) comes down.

[raggedy13]

^Ya, or until the base is finished/fully occupied. Whichever comes later.

I want to check out that area up the stairway and the VAG component whenever they get finished. And of course we need some people to post pics of those areas in here for those forumers who can't see it in person. :)

[sono65]

So since those squares don't light up, does that mean we will not be seeing any kind of cool lighting feature from this building? My understanding was that they had to take down the "S" logo from the fins at the top which I was assuming would light up. Which I then thought only left the squares which we were hinted at before had some kind of other purpose that was lighting related. Anyways it would be a shame for our tallest building in the city to go up and not have anything in the night sky saying, " I'm here!" Instead it might just end up looking like another bland condo...

[Metro-One]

:previous: I don't need to say anything........

[osirisboy]

what the fuck was the reasoning behind them having to take the "S" down????

[jlousa]

There was never an S to take down.

[osirisboy]

There was never an S to take down.

oh, but in the renderings there was the S at the top. so I assumed they would be putting signage up there

[Metro-One]

What about just a simple lighting effect that runs along the top of the fins? That way it would not be intrusive to the penthouse owner and will display its height at night.

[AlexYVR]

Light pollution is definitely the way to let the world know we're a super-number-one-top-tier-world-class city. :rolleyes:

[Metro-One]

Light pollution is definitely the way to let the world know we're a super-number-one-top-tier-world-class city. :previous:

ugh............................ Fine then Alex, instead of a simple effect around the top of the fins how about 3 gigantic S's, one for each side of the building? Then how about the squares light up at night to do pattern/designs, then in the middle of the building there are giant billboards that display commercials for nike and Mcdonalds 24/7? If you fine a simple white or other colored light crowning the top of a building offensive then you must just hate Canada Place, the christmas lights on Hotel Vancouver, the two towers with the green rim around the top in Coal Harbor, every beacon light etc... This is the extreme anti-display attitude that kills me inside. I guess the clique attitude of these forums is now going to be "let's bash every idea from Metro-Own because he supports more lighting effects and centralized entertainment facilities in the city core and suburban city cores. I really want to know how a simple lighting effect around the top of the fins on the Shangri-La is a bad idea?

[IdahoMountainBoy]

If something is elegant, then it goes unspoken.

Lighting the top would be speaking of elegance and ostentatiousness. Plus, I think rimming the top would make it look tacky.

No one is attacking you btw, at least not from the thread posts that I read.

[city-dweller]

I have no problem with lighting affect done tastefully. The concern I have is the lighting treatment on the fins at the top may be done by the same designer who chose those lobby chandeliers:haha:

[AlexYVR]

:previous:

ugh............................ Fine then Alex, instead of a simple effect around the top of the fins how about 3 gigantic S's, one for each side of the building? Then how about the squares light up at night to do pattern/designs, then in the middle of the building there are giant billboards that display commercials for nike and Mcdonalds 24/7? If you fine a simple white or other colored light crowning the top of a building offensive then you must just hate Canada Place, the christmas lights on Hotel Vancouver, the two towers with the green rim around the top in Coal Harbor, every beacon light etc... This is the extreme anti-display attitude that kills me inside. I guess the clique attitude of these forums is now going to be "let's bash every idea from Metro-Own because he supports more lighting effects and centralized entertainment facilities in the city core and suburban city cores. I really want to know how a simple lighting effect around the top of the fins on the Shangri-La is a bad idea?


You've got me pegged wrong, buddy. I think you and I stand for exactly the same thing: how awesome of a city Vancouver is. I think our difference comes in execution: eg, you want to shout it out with lights, while I am content to sit quietly and smugly in our superiority. I think I'd rather just have the ecological superiority of being a large, first-tier city that doesn't contribute to light pollution. It's nothing personal, Metro-One. We have the same end goal; I just think we don't really see eye-to-eye on how to get there. Nothing wrong with that. :cheers:

[Metro-One]

well i think a white light around the rim would create a nice crown and not be invasive to the penthouse owner (which i believe was the reason behind the cancelled "S") Because the Shangir-La looks amazing during the day but lacks presence at night. There are several buildings downtown that have such lighting effects downtown and it adds well to the city. Well i agree with you there AlexYVR ;). Even though i am so heavy on lights i am more restraint on heights, looking at the Shangri-La makes one realize vancouver does not need super-talls, but a few more buildings in the 200m to maybe 230m range would be perfect.

[AlexYVR]

well i think a white light around the rim would create a nice crown and not be invasive to the penthouse owner (which i believe was the reason behind the cancelled "S") Because the Shangir-La looks amazing during the day but lacks presence at night. There are several buildings downtown that have such lighting effects downtown and it adds well to the city. Well i agree with you there AlexYVR ;). Even though i am so heavy on lights i am more restraint on heights, looking at the Shangri-La makes one realize vancouver does not need super-talls, but a few more buildings in the 200m to maybe 230m range would be perfect.

I agree with you there, on height restrictions. I guess I come at the lighting from a LEED perspective; uncovered, unfocused light is as big of a no-no as black roofs or english ivy.

[lespoir]

the interior is so disappointing, from the posted photos.

[EdinVan]

so the lobby is what?

Ugly.

[EdinVan]

So since those squares don't light up, does that mean we will not be seeing any kind of cool lighting feature from this building? My understanding was that they had to take down the "S" logo from the fins at the top which I was assuming would light up. Which I then thought only left the squares which we were hinted at before had some kind of other purpose that was lighting related. Anyways it would be a shame for our tallest building in the city to go up and not have anything in the night sky saying, " I'm here!" Instead it might just end up looking like another bland condo...

I agree. Not lighting it up screams "mediocre" --- just like Vancouver itself.

[EdinVan]

What about just a simple lighting effect that runs along the top of the fins? That way it would not be intrusive to the penthouse owner and will display its height at night.

As if the penthouse owner will ever even be home enough to be bothered it.

[EdinVan]

If something is elegant, then it goes unspoken.

Lighting the top would be speaking of elegance and ostentatiousness. Plus, I think rimming the top would make it look tacky.

Yes, better to just let it totally disappear in the dark, like everything else in Vancouver.

[EdinVan]

well i think a white light around the rim would create a nice crown and not be invasive to the penthouse owner (which i believe was the reason behind the cancelled "S") Because the Shangir-La looks amazing during the day but lacks presence at night. There are several buildings downtown that have such lighting effects downtown and it adds well to the city.

Well I for one agree with you and applaud you for going against the grain and being so adamant about your position.
Unfortunately, the city and property owners are moving more towards turning off lights from many major towers downtown. Ostensibly, the reason is to save power; but I think the real motivation is simply herd mentality: if you don't join with everyone else in making the city look dull and boring, then you'll be accused of being ostentatious.

[EdinVan]

I am content to sit quietly and smugly in our superiority. I think I'd rather just have the ecological superiority of being a large, first-tier city that doesn't contribute to light pollution.

1. Superiority, in what?
2. There are worse problems than light pollution. Why don't we spend more time cleaning up our water and air instead of doing silly (ie, cheap, effortless, mindless) things like dimming lights?

[EdinVan]

the interior is so disappointing, from the posted photos.

Yes, especially for a building (at least the hotel part) that some on here have predicted will be the epitome of---what was the phrase again?---oh yes, "classic Asian luxury". I bet those interiors were designed by a bunch of heterosexual men sitting around a boardroom table flipping through 30-year-old editions of Dreadful Homes and Gardens.

[IdahoMountainBoy]

Yes, especially for a building (at least the hotel part) that some on here have predicted will be the epitome of---what was the phrase again?---oh yes, "classic Asian luxury". I bet those interiors were designed by a bunch of heterosexual men sitting around a boardroom table flipping through 30-year-old editions of Dreadful Homes and Gardens.

:previous: :lmao:

Remember though, the lobby interior we first saw is now obscured by covered windows. Although we have an idea of what the chandeliers will be like, the rest could still turn out nicely...

[AlexYVR]

1. Superiority, in what?
2. There are worse problems than light pollution. Why don't we spend more time cleaning up our water and air instead of doing silly (ie, cheap, effortless, mindless) things like dimming lights?

In the city that doesn't have to scream about itself. And yes, there totally are worse things than light pollution - although since it takes no time at all (ie, not 'wasting our time') to NOT install something that is going to sit 60 stories at the top of a building, I don't see how it's silly.

I think something like the lights on Canada Place discussed elsewhere on this thread is great. It's at ground level, it's widely accessible, and it brings joy (if you will) to everyone. Much more bang for the buck.

[flight_from_kamakura]

uh, edinvan, would it be possible that you contain you comments to like one or two posts?

is there something in the water these days?

[sono65]

I think all some people we're saying is that, most every other mixed use, taller (office/condo) tower even in Vancouver, (minimal or not) has some sort of lighting feature going on. I don't think light pollution has to be an issue these days either. Shaw tower has a very minimal light strip running up the side, the Melville has it's sail which is lit up, even L'Hemritage, being quite a bit shorter in comparison to those 2, has a neat LED color strip goin' on. Is that building polluting light? I don't think it's screaming about it's self. Now let's take a look at any other major skyscraper in the world. I think it's safe to say most, if not all have an interesting focal point created by light at night time. Is it too much to ask that our only real "tall" tower have a little something neat for people to look up at and go, "Hey yeah, that's pretty cool!" Nobody said it must scream. We're skyscraper enthusiasts on this board. Who's with me on this one? :cheers:

[MapleLeaf]

:iagree:

Who's with me on this one?:cheers:

[Metro-One]

You know how i feel:)