[jlousa]

Since there is an actual application in at the city, I decided it's time for it's own thread.

Retail/restaurant on the ground floor
Office space floors 2-36 (serviced by 2 low rise elevators/6 high rise elevators plus one freight elevator)
444ft to roof slab
470ft to elevator machine room slab
12.0FSR
4 levels of u/g parking (serviced by 2 elevators)

Lobby will be small with 11 elevators and both staircases.

Knowing how much people like images here are links to a couple of renders. Please note the shape of the building which does not really come out in the renders.

Site Plan
http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/developmentservices/devapps/1075whastings/siteplan.pdf

North and East Renders
http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/developmentservices/devapps/1075whastings/neelevations.pdf

South and West Renders
http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/developmentservices/devapps/1075whastings/swelevations.pdf

Notification Letter
http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/developmentservices/devapps/1075whastings/notiltr.pdf

[touraccuracy]

little bland looking. guess i'll wait for a better render.

[dleung]

I'm not even going to wait for the better render.

Sticking a wall of glass next to the Marine Building might possibly be spun as a low-key "mirror" or something, but I see it as generic and uninventive. A more solid aesthetic with less glazing would have been especially appropriate (call it sustainability, whatever). I get they're trying to preserve views looking out from the 2 towers, but the fact that the floorplate is practically a equilateral hexagon actually voids the little attempt to orient one face parallel with the Marine Building. The floorplate isn't efficient either with how tightly it wraps around the core... why not have a side-loaded core and let it be exposed as a solid vertical element to ground the architecture?

http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/2530/1075cordova.jpg

Something like this building, but with a brown stone/copper cladding would be nice.
http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/4188/hastings.jpg

[wrenegade]

So this will be a hair taller than the Fairmont and a hair shorter than Shaw tower. Lots of grey glass. Yawn. The density is great but I feel this building will be lost from many angles, although perhaps that's not a bad thing. Great to see more office being built but I would rather see the GM Place....err, Rogers Arena tower or Bentall 6 built first.

[Metro-One]

I believe the Fairmont is 140M. Anyways, I would hardly say we are seeing more office getting built, since none of the other proposals lately have made it past the drawing board.

How many proposed office towers is this now?

And how many have broken ground???? Hint, the answer is 0.

It is nice to see these proposals, but I wont be taking this, or any of the other office proposals seriously until a crane is erected. After what has happened with "Vancouver's Turn" excavation is not even enough for me to get excited anymore, hehe.

I take Vancouver office proposals as seriously as 150m + tower proposals in Surrey. In both cases we have seen a lot of talk, but no walk.

[LeftCoaster]

If I were you I would take proposals from certain firms seriously.

Oxford is one of those firms to be taken seriously.

Despite my personal alegiances, there is little doubt they are the premier office developer in the country.

[mrjauk]

If I were you I would take proposals from certain firms seriously.

Oxford is one of those firms to be taken seriously.

Despite my personal alegiances, there is little doubt they are the premier office developer in the country.

Moreover, just as this completes the global economy should be pulling out of its economic doldrums--like 2014, 2015, or so.

[Prometheus]

A 135 metres! Wow! It should be really exciting watching this supertall go up! Can't hardly wait. The era of the flat, monotonous skyline is hereby over.

[TwoFace]

It is nice to see these proposals, but I wont be taking this, or any of the other office proposals seriously until a crane is erected. After what has happened with "Vancouver's Turn" excavation is not even enough for me to get excited anymore, hehe.


Having the site approved is the Big deal from the landowners perspective regardless if the project goes ahead or not.
This establishes market value and precedent for the site with a turnkey option if the situation warrants. Luckily for them they don’t have to pay taxes based on the sites maximum potential.

[Canadian Mind]

Based on the floorplate size, location, developer, and other factors, do you guys think this will be an efficient and effective development? Further, based on the efficientcy of the smaller floorplates, does anyone else feel that this actually would have been one of the better sites downtown for a hotel/residential development vice office?

Don't get me wrong, the more office the better. But I would have hoped for a single 600 foot Amacon tower rather than this slender figure & the stubby Bentall 6.

[phesto]

Thanks for posting jlo.

It is really a shame that MCMP appears to be the only architectural firm entrusted with designing office buildings in this city. They specialize in efficient and cost effective designs and their buildings look okay...Bentall 5, 745 Thurlow are both good looking buildings, but I don't think anyone drooled over them; and definitely not this one.

As far as this proposal becoming a reality; it is all part of the game. There will eventually be one or two existing downtown companies with a large enough requirement to warrant pre-leasing in a new tower. If these large office building owners/managers such as Bentall and Oxford aren't as prepared with a DP in place, then they will be behind their competitors.

dleung- the floorplate doesn't have an exposed core for circulation issues (ie. the floorplates would be cutoff and not as desirable for full floor tenancies) Agreed it isn't very efficient, but with floorplates so small efficiency is kind of thrown out the window.

[PaperTiger]

There is no pleasing some people.

All this forum says is "more office, more office!" We finally get a proposal on an interesting site that I'm sure most of you didn't even consider was development site, and it is all “too short,” “ wrong place,” “wrong glass,” “wrong shape.”

Jeez guys, we are not getting the Bow, we are never getting the Bow. Get over it.

I for one am excited to see this proposal , and I hope it gets built. I think it will create a really interesting block with some good examples of some different eras of architecture offering a nice compare and contrast.

[trofirhen]

A 135 metres! Wow! It should be really exciting watching this supertall go up! Can't hardly wait. The era of the flat, monotonous skyline is hereby over.

:yes: :haha: :tup: ... :shrug: ... or should we say (:yuck:) another "superbland" ....

[DKaz]

Isn't there already a 1075 W. Hastings? The glass building from the 60s?

EDIT: N/m it's 1055, with its sorta twin 1066 across the street, but if the existing building is 1055 and the new building is east of 1055, shouldn't the number be lower?

EDIT 2: Drawings say 1021 W. Hastings.

[Prometheus]

Jeez guys, we are not getting the Bow, we are never getting the Bow.

But why? Why can't we build The Bow and even better? Is there some immutable law of nature specifically precluding Vancouver from building exceptional skyscrapers? Or is our predicament the result of suffocating policies (which limit economic growth and architectural boldness) implemented by paternalistic bureaucrats and politicians?

If the latter, then our predicament is the product of choice (and human foolishness) and is neither inevitable nor permanent. It can be changed. So, contrary to your assertion, we can have The Bow and far superior, if certain people would just stop interfering.

[Hed Kandi]

Atleast this one isn't being handled by James Cheng. I'd love for it to be an iconic tower but that's doubtful considering it's MCM who is designing this.

[EastVanMark]

But why? Why can't we build The Bow and even better? Is there some immutable law of nature specifically precluding Vancouver from building exceptional skyscrapers? Or is our predicament the result of suffocating policies (which limit economic growth and architectural boldness) implemented by paternalistic bureaucrats and politicians?

Such policies are the product of choice (and human foolishness) and are neither inevitable nor permanent. They can be changed. So, contrary to your assertion, we can have The Bow and much, much better, if certain people would just stop interfering.

Very well put.:iagree:

[Hed Kandi]

A 135 metres! Wow! It should be really exciting watching this supertall go up! Can't hardly wait. The era of the flat, monotonous skyline is hereby over.

:haha:

Only in Vancouver can a highrise be deemed with the highly coveted supertall status.

[Coldrsx]

^nope... Edmonton too. Our new 149.3m tower i nearing the Burj heights.

[Porfiry]

But why? Why can't we build The Bow and even better? Is there some immutable law of nature specifically precluding Vancouver from building exceptional skyscrapers? Or is our predicament the result of suffocating policies (which limit economic growth and architectural boldness) implemented by paternalistic bureaucrats and politicians?

Which corporation, flush with cash, would finance Vancouver's "Bow"? Even EnCana (which had the largest profit of any Canadian company in 2009) has been forced to downscale the Bow. Who in this poor city has a few billion to spend?

"Architectural boldness" is nothing but talk unless you can find someone with money to burn.

[officedweller]

Ditto on the "supertall" comment!

Isn't there already a 1075 W. Hastings? The glass building from the 60s?

EDIT: N/m it's 1055, with its sorta twin 1066 across the street, but if the existing building is 1055 and the new building is east of 1055, shouldn't the number be lower?

EDIT 2: Drawings say 1021 W. Hastings.

I was thinking the same thing!

********

I too would have expected a side-core tower, but with the core fronting Hastings Street. I'll bet that the city would reject outright as proposal to place an exposed core behind the Marine Building (and the views from this property are to the north, northwest and to the east.

Not sure if the ability to circumnavigate a floorplate is all that essential to tenants, especially with such a small floorpate - i.e. our office has truncated the corridor on our main floor to make use of the space that would have otherwise been hallway.

EDIT: The floorplate as designed does, however, allow for a reception and/or adjacent boardrooms to take full advantage of the views, which a southside core would not allow. An east side core would allow allow for a reception/boardrooms with views, but would probably be a non-starter with the Marine Building.

[Prometheus]

Which corporation, flush with cash, would finance Vancouver's "Bow"? Even EnCana (which had the largest profit of any Canadian company in 2009) has been forced to downscale the Bow. Who in this poor city has a few billion to spend?

"Architectural boldness" is nothing but talk unless you can find someone with money to burn.

You need to read (and think) more carefully. The kinds of policies to which I referred stifle not only architectural boldness, but "economic growth" as well. The existential condition for true prosperity and economic dynamism is liberty. Thus, by repealing policies which stifle choice and human activity, you unshackle not only the architect, but the businessman too. In conditions of genuine freedom, the latter can therefore finance the former on a scale previously undreamed of.

The causes of our economic poverty and architectural poverty are one and the same.

[officedweller]

BTW - does anyone know how the floorplate size compares with the Bower Building and Bower II on Granville Street?

[PaperTiger]

But why? Why can't we build The Bow and even better? Is there some immutable law of nature specifically precluding Vancouver from building exceptional skyscrapers? Or is our predicament the result of suffocating policies (which limit economic growth and architectural boldness) implemented by paternalistic bureaucrats and politicians?

If the latter, then our predicament is the product of choice (and human foolishness) and is neither inevitable nor permanent. It can be changed. So, contrary to your assertion, we can have The Bow and far superior, if certain people would just stop interfering.

Why can’t we have the bow? Because buildings don’t build themselves corporations build buildings. We have no corporation like EnCana with obscene profits and disparate office holdings that they desperately need to consolidate. We have property companies (Aquilini, Oxford, Bentall) that are taking huge financial risks to build buildings that they hope the market will be able to absorb.

Who is interfering? Do you think that if the city flung open its collective arms and said please come build whatever you want, as tall as you want we would get superior architecture? I would argue that the exact opposite would happen. We would have worse architecture, not better because people would be trying to build as much floor space, for as little cost, as possible.

I'm not saying we can't have great architecture. I'm just saying we can't expect every project to be 600 metres tall and designed by Calatrava, (or Foster, or Ando, or Koolhaas).

[navazan]

A 135 metres! Wow! It should be really exciting watching this supertall go up! Can't hardly wait. The era of the flat, monotonous skyline is hereby over.

:D lol! i know right?!?! finally vancouver has matured and allowed a massive structure to be built!

[navazan]

oh and we cant have the bow because its in calgary, it'd cost way too much to ship it over here, lawl. then youd have a flock of hippies protesting it, as it would block a mountain view from some yuppy neighborhood. even if vancouver abolished the view cone debacle, itd be at least a couple decades before a massive tower like the bow would be necessary here.

[Prometheus]

Why can’t we have the bow? Because buildings don’t build themselves corporations build buildings. We have no corporation like EnCana with obscene profits and disparate office holdings that they desperately need to consolidate. We have property companies (Aquilini, Oxford, Bentall) that are taking huge financial risks to build buildings that they hope the market will be able to absorb.

A reply to this objection has already been given above.

But to repeat: To answer the question why Vancouver does not have ambitious architecture is essentially to answer the question why Vancouver does not have big corporations. Just as Vancouver is not a place to build seriously, so it is not a place to do serious business. The myriad of suffocating rules, regulations and taxes on the provincial and civic levels discourages both. The causes of (and the cures to) our architectural poverty and economic poverty are identical.

So the big corporations that would build the future Bows of Vancouver are those corporations that would flock (and emerge) here if BC were to become a centre of relative economic freedom.

[trofirhen]

:previous: :previous: :previous:
A tower doesn't have to massive or gargantuan to be striking.
Take the Transamerica Pyramid in SF. I think it's one of the most striking buildings anywhere, but it's tall and elegant, with the "striking" quality imparted by the brilliant use of geometry in the design. (just my personal opinion of course. Others may hate it ...)

[Porfiry]

You need to read (and think) more carefully. The kinds of policies to which I referred stifle not only architectural boldness, but "economic growth" as well. The existential condition for true prosperity and economic dynamism is liberty. By repealing policies which stifle choice and human activity, you unshackle not only the architect, but the businessman too. Thus, in conditions of genuine freedom, the latter is able to finance the former on a scale previously undreamed of.

The causes of our economic poverty and architectural poverty are one and the same.

Excuse me? If you read my comment, that's roughly the same as what I said. Prosperity is a precondition.

Calgary and Toronto are headquarters to most of Canada's largest corporations. Vancouver has a pittance by comparison, so who is going to be building skyscrapers of the same magnitude? I have no faith that tweaking a few policies would change the situation in any way (especially when you fail to even mention what those policies are). You're just waving your hands.

[navazan]

Excuse me? If you read my comment, that's roughly the same as what I said. Prosperity is a precondition.

Calgary and Toronto are headquarters to most of Canada's largest corporations. Vancouver has a pittance by comparison, so who is going to be building skyscrapers of the same magnitude? I have no faith that tweaking a few policies would change that in any way (especially when you fail to even mention what those policies are). You're just waving your hands.

true, there arent massive oil companies based here. what exactly is in BC that requires tall office buildings?? if there were demand for a massive office tower, it'd already be here. or at least proposed. calgary's top 5 buildings are 200+meters, all offices.

[Metro-One]

:previous: Vancouver is a huge hub for mining companies.

[navazan]

well then all the damn mining companies should band together and build a nice tall HQ! maybe they could fund the Turn tower, and set up shop there, instead of having it as yet another residential tower.

[Prometheus]

what exactly is in BC that requires tall office buildings??

Not much. That, however, is precisely my point. Burdensome regulations and taxes have discouraged big business and limited BC's economic potential. In conditions of freedom, by contrast, business activity thrives and great fortunes are created. Thus, by repealing burdensome regulations and taxes, we would attract the very big corporations needed to finance and occupy ambitious projects. When regulation that stifles human freedom and creativity are eliminated, we not only unleash architectural boldness, but the economic means of paying for it.

[whatnext]

A reply to this objection has already been given above.

But to repeat: To answer the question why Vancouver does not have ambitious architecture is essentially to answer the question why Vancouver does not have big corporations. Just as Vancouver is not a place to build seriously, so it is not a place to do serious business. The myriad of suffocating rules, regulations and taxes on the provincial and civic levels discourages both. The causes of (and the cures to) our architectural poverty and economic poverty are identical.

Someone's been reading their Ayn Rand again! :haha:

[officedweller]

Staff report on view cone considerations for the site...

http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20101007/documents/penv1.pdf

Apparently the height will be 460 ft and the City Hall view cone is at 418 ft and another is at 434 ft - but staff are recommending approcal because it lies largely behind existing "view shadows" of 1033 Marinaside Cres (apparently accidently allowed to go higher than the view cone!).

From an urban design perspective, the development
embraces an interesting opportunity to create a contemporary architectural statement
between two existing heritage buildings from different eras, and to create an interesting and
respectful backdrop to the street-end view of the Marine Building from the east down
Hastings Street.

The preamble to the reports states:

In the twenty years following the adoption of the View Protection Guidelines, there are
essentially two types of buildings that have entered into the protected public views:
1) First are those buildings which were intentionally permitted by Council after
considering competing interests. These include the buildings considered through the
General Policy for Higher Buildings (for example, Shangri-la and Hotel Georgia) as well
as those that were specifically considered by Council through area planning and urban
design considerations (for example, Shaw Tower and Fairmont Pacific Rim, as part of
the Council-approved Burrard Landing CD-1 Guidelines).
2) Second are those buildings that were permitted to enter the view corridor due to a
technical implementation error which predated the introduction of more sophisticated
GIS mapping tools (for example, 1033 Marinaside Crescent). Through the advancement
and accessibility of these technological tools, this type of intrusion is less likely to
occur today.
Even with these minor intrusions into the original view corridors, the overall integrity of the
views has been maintained and the view approved corridors continue to retain their
importance to the public.

If I'm not mistaken, neither Shangri-La nor Hotel Georgia intrude into view cones.
Shangri-La has the angle cut to avoid the view cone and the only part of Hotel Georgia to intrude was the "finger" in the previous proposal (The Crystal) which is not being built. Seems like staff are re-writing history to allow some slack for this proposal - which is a good thing, even if inaccurate.

[Dylan Leblanc]

Wow, a 36 storey office proposal! I never would have imagined something would get built on this site, let alone something this tall!

This thing would be about the same height as the RBC tower which is great but Vancouver is really getting a table-top skyline with all these towers of the same height.

[Some guy]

Summary: Decent location, good height, could use a better design. :tup:

[jlousa]

Another thread gone to shit, sometime I really don't know why I bother. Would love to see certain people build their own tower to show me how it should be done. :rolleyes:

The building is going for LEED Platinum which is an incredible accomplishment.

Superior green building performance, particularly in terms of energy conservation. The architects have provided information on the building’s anticipated green building performance. The architects have provided a preliminary LEED™ scorecard for the building and estimate that it would score 70 points (including all 10 possible “optimize energy performance points), making it LEED™ Platinum.

[SpikePhanta]

I'm just happy that this tower isn't that bad. ^^ Leed platinum is gonna make the building quite interesting.

[Vancouver_Highrise]

Hey, atleast it's office and not a condo! I think the tower looks great and maybe this could be a catalyst to getting more offices built and approved and who knows... possibly.. wishful thinking.. taller? :tup:

[dleung]

I got really nerdy and tested the tower from several angles (by building a 3d model using the site plan and elevations)

from canada place
http://img251.imageshack.us/img251/6100/oxford2.jpg

from jack poole plaza (fairmont shown under construction)
http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/2623/oxford3q.jpg

waterfront skyline (fairmont shown under construction). The view cones are making everything look ridiculous. The tower will be flanked by fairmont and shaw, all three practically the same height.
http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/3546/oxford4.jpg

http://img832.imageshack.us/img832/4249/oxford5.jpg

looking down hastings street
http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/9437/oxford1.jpg

The height would have been perfect if it was 25 metres taller (170m). With the architecture the way it is though, I rather see nothing built. With such a prominent location in the waterfront skyline, the design needs to speak to the West Coast somehow (shaw does, for example), but this building could be anywhere in the USA.

[giallo]

While I'm a bit bummed about the table-top height, the fact that another 36 floors of office will be added to downtown is awesome. It'll add just that much more human activity to the core. Bring it on!

[hollywoodnorth]

wow thanks for doing that work on the 3D renders!

I'm very excited for this project and at LEED Platinum ... its gonna be great

[mr.x]

A reply to this objection has already been given above.

But to repeat: To answer the question why Vancouver does not have ambitious architecture is essentially to answer the question why Vancouver does not have big corporations. Just as Vancouver is not a place to build seriously, so it is not a place to do serious business. The myriad of suffocating rules, regulations and taxes on the provincial and civic levels discourages both. The causes of (and the cures to) our architectural poverty and economic poverty are identical.

So the big corporations that would build the future Bows of Vancouver are those corporations that would flock (and emerge) here if BC were to become a centre of relative economic freedom.

Very well said. This city could be so much more without its suffocating restrictions and taxes. For starters, view cones need to go - they are absolutely arbitrary. Whenever there are regulations and taxation, it obviously limits what anyone can do whether it be business or architecture. I'm not saying there shouldn't be some sort of regulation, but for Vancouver it has obviously severely limited its potential for economic prosperity (and with that said, it limits the possibilities of architectural design). So, what do we have now? Architects and firms that build only to what is prescribed by the city; they design what they know will get approved to avoid costly red tape - creativity is not an option for them. Businesses and architects have to work within a much more narrower framework, and when that happens there's not only less growth but creativity and innovation also go down.

As for this proposal, at least it's an office tower. But given its prominent location, especially in the CBD, you'd think it would be a bit taller and would be more unique. If there's a rating scale, it barely passes - I'd give it a 51%. And just because it's an office tower.

The same could also be said for the new Fairmont Pacific Rim...far too short, and definitely not something unique for a location so prominent. The area needs something much taller to break the tabletop.

It's sad to see how so many forumers make excuses for everything, shrug it off, and just go along with the mediocrity. Everything just seems to be purely functional in this city, and that's somehow okay.

[EastVanMark]

Very well said. This city could be so much more without its suffocating restrictions and taxes. For starters, view cones need to go - they are absolutely arbitrary.

As for this proposal, at least it's an office tower. But given its prominent location, especially in the CBD, you'd think it would be a bit taller and would be more unique. If there's a rating scale, it barely passes - I'd give it a 51%. And just because it's an office tower.

The same could also be said for the new Fairmont Pacific Rim...far too short, and definitely not something unique for a location so prominent. The area needs something much taller to break the tabletop.

It's sad to see how so many forumers make excuses for everything, shrug it off, and just go along with the mediocrity.

Very well said, X

[red-paladin]

I for one think this is a very cool proposal.
I'll be able to see the construction from my desk at work, which is even better!

I can't believe that everyone is bitching about the height and the shape.

We all wanted to see new office buildings in this city, and now that one of the biggest ones in 20 years is being proposed and Jlousa even tipped us off about the test drilling at the site, it's a disappointment?

I think this will be a great addition and will add more life to the eastern end of Coal Harbour and the Convention Centre area. Also, it's an interesting shape, and the glass will be a reflective curtain wall and that's all some people seem to think about!

P.S. I love how the ground level is integrated with both adjoining buildings.

[Metro-One]

:previous: I agree, so my fingers are definitely crossed for this project. I personally feel that anything much taller than this proposal for this plot would become far to over powering, and destroy some of the charm of the Marin Building (by making it look that much smaller)

There are definitely areas i want to see 600 foot + towers in Van, but this specific site is not one, and I think this tower will fit the bill perfectly!

[Canadian Mind]

The renders provided above changed my tune a bit on this proposal. The height and massing suits it's location. While 25 meters higher would have given the skyline a nice step-up as you are going closer to the core, it would have made the building too thin looking. Having it the same height as Shaw and Fairmont will greatly add to the appearent density and overall mass of the area. Only concern is again the table top look; however, there are plenty of smaller buildings to the west of this building that, in 10 or 20 years, could be torn down for larger and grander towers.

[TwoFace]

I don’t want to get "off topic" too much, but when pondering architectural style, one also has to equate cost.
The least expensive thing to build and the most efficient is a Box, once you start deviating from a simple design and adding curves and twists the costs start skyrocketing, if the numbers don’t work it doesn’t get build. It’s that simple.

The days of romantic and futuristic architecture are few and far between, most of the provocative and wild buildings are sitting empty and bankrupt in Dubai due to a global financial crisis.

[navazan]

it'd be nice if oil died out completely and hydrogen became the fuel standard, then dubai would be totally vacant- all the nice skyscrapers would be empty. i propose we pool our resources and buy the burj kalifa and turn it into a massive indoor paintball arena.

[trofirhen]

:previous: I agree, so my fingers are definitely crossed for this project. I personally feel that anything much taller than this proposal for this plot would become far to over powering, and destroy some of the charm of the Marin Building (by making it look that much smaller)

There are definitely areas i want to see 600 foot + towers in Van, but this specific site is not one, and I think this tower will fit the bill perfectly!

Metro, in your opinion, where would be a good part of downtown to have some 650 ft++ towers. I think that Howe St. north of Georgia has that "big city feel" potential. Of course, that's not the only spot. At any rate, I'd love to see a touch of Toronto-style density downtown, or maybe downtown south, near the Wall Centre (love that building!!). Where would you put a couple of 50-story-ish buildings?

[wrenegade]

I know you didn't ask me, but my top 5 sites for 500'+ towers would be:

1. The Turn (1133 West Georgia)
2. Bay Parkade (NE corner Georgia & Seymour)
3. Canada Post building
4. Sears building
5. 1111 West Hastings (NW corner Hastings & Thurlow)

The last one may be the most unrealistic but it is probably my favourite site in the city. I'd love to see a mixed use office/hotel/condo (or two of the three) building go up there. I'm sure there are view cones that bisect the site and Coal Harbour residents would kick and scream about shadows, but I can dream.

[phesto]

^I would place 1133 Melville @ #2 on that list.

The Renaissance (1155 West Hastings) will likely get redeveloped before the 1111 West Hastings office tower does - it is a bigger site without any long term leases in place.

[jlousa]

On topic people.

[navazan]

The renders provided above changed my tune a bit on this proposal. The height and massing suits it's location. While 25 meters higher would have given the skyline a nice step-up as you are going closer to the core, it would have made the building too thin looking. Having it the same height as Shaw and Fairmont will greatly add to the appearent density and overall mass of the area. Only concern is again the table top look; however, there are plenty of smaller buildings to the west of this building that, in 10 or 20 years, could be torn down for larger and grander towers.

i agree, these renders make the tower look a lot better than what my lil mind could imagine. almost looks taller than Shaw... i guess due to the elevation. a fine addition to my favorite part of town.

[navazan]

As for the design of the building- i personally think office towers should look serious/blocky, and residentials should look nice and stylish and curvy... i think thats generally the rule. and regarding the off topic tall tower locations, i dont think anything taller than 200m will be going up in downtown van in the next 15 years. if this current proposed office is only 135m, then chances are nothing is going to be needed much taller than that...unfortunately. unless some magical yet-to-be heard of corporation decides to move to DT van.

[EdinVan]

Reminds me a bit of London's Tower 42.

[officedweller]

I was thinking that too.

[jsbertram]

I'm not disappointed with this building. In fact I'm quite happy with how they are tying this building into Guiness House by extending the Guiness House parking structure up to the Marine building and creating a new exit ramp (on to Cordova) as part of this new construction. The enlarged plaza replacing the current exit ramp is a nice way to open the space between the buildings.

However, if you're not going to keep anything except the facade of the old building, what the point? To me, the interior space is more important to preserve than the outside.

Here's a classic example of preserving the facade while building new:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=vancouver&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=33.489543,56.513672&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Vancouver,+Greater+Vancouver+Regional+District,+British+Columbia,+Canada&ll=49.286962,-123.116505&spn=0.003366,0.010986&z=17&layer=c&cbll=49.286926,-123.11638&panoid=0kfbLiFPqUb9zAfRcgPCGg&cbp=12,161.89,,0,-5.02

Bonus points to anyone who knows why this was preserved & re-attached to the new building.
I have no idea why this was done - which is what people in 50-75 years will be saying too. Why bother keeping the exterior front wall of the University Club (which hasn't even been in there for a quarter of a century) which has no context with the new construction. If the new building was "University Club Tower", I can understand trying to make it part of the new building.

I remember the bickering and fighting that the Terminal City Club went through while deciding to refurbish the old place or knock down & build new. As much as I liked the old place (some people thought its interior was the plushest & stuffiest Gentlemens Club in the city), I think you'll only hear from the 'old guard' that the new Terminal City Club tower isn't as nice as the old building.

If you're not keeping the interior of the old University Club, whats the point of keeping the false-front then?

Sorta like the Louvre saying "We're using a Jackson Pollock to fill the space where the Mona Lisa used to be, but we'll put the Pollock in the old frame to remind people what was there"

[touraccuracy]

Reminds me a bit of London's Tower 42.

okay THAT'S where i know it from! thought it looked familiar.

[EdinVan]

okay THAT'S where i know it from! thought it looked familiar.

Maybe a bit of GM's Renaissance Centre in Detroit, too...

[officedweller]

From the UDP website - and it has disappeared form the DPB agenda:

1075 West Hastings Street (High Building Review)
DE: 414163
Use: To construct a new 36-storey mixed-use office/retail on this site.
Zoning: DD
Application Status: Complete
Review: First
Architect: Musson Cattell Mackey Partnership
Owner: Oxford Properties Group
Delegation: Mark Whitehead, Musson Cattell Mackey Partnership
Mark Thompson, Musson Cattell Mackey Partnership
Peter Kreuk, Durante Kreuk Landscape Architects
Mark Cote, Oxford Properties Group

Staff: Grant Miller and Sailen Black

EVALUATION: NON-SUPPORT (1-8)

Minutes to follow.

[jlousa]

Minutes aren't available yet but there is someone here that would've attended and perhaps he could share his take on what took place.

[SFUVancouver]

It seemed like the UDP focused mainly on the ground plane and how it relates to the heritage building, the Guinness Tower, and Cordova Street. There was also discussion about whether the building achieved "architectural excellence", which is a requirement in the City's tall building review process for the UDP and the DPB, and there were differing opinions from the panelists around the table about whether that had been achieved. The environmental performance of the building was well received and the architect said the building is just shy of LEED Platinum.

[officedweller]

Thanks.
Interesting about the architectural excellence, since one of the criteria would probably be to not outshine the Marine Building - so how do you do that and still be "excellent"?

[LeftCoaster]

I'm not surprised that was the issue. The tower, while somewhat bland isnt bad enough to warrant an 8-1 non-support vote, so I figured the issue must be with the treatment of the old club building which is an important heritage building.

[navazan]

christ, even a boring mid rise has trouble being built here. the panel members just feel like they need to exercize their "power" and prevent development, in order to feel as though they are special. bunch of idiots.

[dleung]

Well this is the first meeting. There's always many issues to be addressed and refined over time, before the udp gives its blessing. Personally I think the tower design concept needs a total rethinking, so no amount of tweaking will do it for me. If the ground plane is such an issue, maybe open up the entire space with just the tower core and colummns penetrating the lowest 25 metres of the building elevation. If there's ever a city where a forest of skyscrapers should literally reflect the trees of the forest - canopy, trunk and all - it would be Vancouver.

[Phil McAvity]

Wow, I can't believe how many people in this thread are whining about how this building will only add to Vancouver's boring tabletop skyline. Have you guys really already forgotten about Shangri-La? (and to a lesser extent Wall Centre and the soon-to-be-completed Georgia)

Really? :shrug:

Prometheus, have you read all of Ayn Rand's books or just most of them?

[navazan]

Wow, I can't believe how many people in this thread are whining about how this building will only add to Vancouver's boring tabletop skyline. Have you guys really already forgotten about Shangri-La? (and to a lesser extent Wall Centre and the soon-to-be-completed Georgia)

Really? :shrug:

Prometheus, have you read all of Ayn Rand's books or just most of them?

so u think one tallish building (shangri la) and a couple 150m slightly taller than table top towers are enough to break up the sea of 30 floor nonsense? nope. gotta have a few more than a whopping 3 towers rise above 150m. i think the turn will do good for starters. we need a big corporation to move their hq here... as for this 135m tower i think it looks okay, could be taller but ive learned to just accept anything with this town.

[LeftCoaster]

Big corporations dont just move their headquarters to a city like vancouver...

We need people to get off their ass and build some businesses in Vancouver.

The business community in Vancouver is very small, and it is as much a symptom of the people and local culture as it is taxes and incentives. Vancouver attracts a certain type of person, it just so happens that the type of person it attracts is more interested in spending a thursday evening hiking the mountains rather than working late.

Whether or not that is a bad thing is certainly up for debate, but that is the truth.

[eduardo88]

Prometheus, have you read all of Ayn Rand's books or just most of them?

hey! they're good books!

[AlexYVR]

hey! they're good books!

I realize every day a little more that your 'Rand Paul for senate' isn't a joke ;)

The tower is (from the initial elevations, which are pretty tough to judge by) super bland, but it is up there. Navazan, I saw you complaining about Van in the Calgary forum the other day - the Bow is beautiful, btw - but am sort of wondering what you thought you'd be getting when you moved here? We're a pretty known quantity.

The reason that forumers shouldn't approve of reasonably-tall-but-ugly buildings can be summed up in 3 words: Fairmont Pacific Rim. Luckily 1021 has better massing but I still can't condone getting excited about something ugly because it's tall. I'd rather have 3 Jamesons than 1 FPR. Then again, I'd rather have 3 Wall Centres, period :)

[PaperTiger]

We need people to get off their ass and build some businesses in Vancouver.


Okay... Get to it.

[LeftCoaster]

Without sounding too presumptious, I hope I am well on my way. I'll let you know how things are going in 10 years or so.

If you really truly want something, I suggest you go out and do something about it, rather that just complaining about it on the internet. If you want Vancouver to be more than just a sleepy little west coast town... go out and get a business degree and make something happen. This city isnt going to be anything more than it is if its people dont make it so.

[eduardo88]

I realize every day a little more that your 'Rand Paul for senate' isn't a joke ;)


Nope, not a joke. Although I'm losing my enthusiasm for him...he's just not his father.

[navazan]

I realize every day a little more that your 'Rand Paul for senate' isn't a joke ;)

The tower is (from the initial elevations, which are pretty tough to judge by) super bland, but it is up there. Navazan, I saw you complaining about Van in the Calgary forum the other day - the Bow is beautiful, btw - but am sort of wondering what you thought you'd be getting when you moved here? We're a pretty known quantity.

The reason that forumers shouldn't approve of reasonably-tall-but-ugly buildings can be summed up in 3 words: Fairmont Pacific Rim. Luckily 1021 has better massing but I still can't condone getting excited about something ugly because it's tall. I'd rather have 3 Jamesons than 1 FPR. Then again, I'd rather have 3 Wall Centres, period :)

i was expecting a city that likes the idea of progress and development. its great here overall, and dense, but id love to see more office towers. thats why i was hoping this one would be approved right off the bat (hard to ask for, i know), because while it looks bland, its better than what itll probably become- a downsized generic 100m rectangle. if anything. i like its current design, office towers should look serious in my opinion. save the fancy styling for residential towers.

[LotusLand]

:previous: :previous: :previous:
A tower doesn't have to massive or gargantuan to be striking.
Take the Transamerica Pyramid in SF. I think it's one of the most striking buildings anywhere, but it's tall and elegant, with the "striking" quality imparted by the brilliant use of geometry in the design. (just my personal opinion of course. Others may hate it ...)

Agree completely!

[LeftCoaster]

i was expecting a city that likes the idea of progress and development. its great here overall, and dense, but id love to see more office towers. thats why i was hoping this one would be approved right off the bat (hard to ask for, i know), because while it looks bland, its better than what itll probably become- a downsized generic 100m rectangle. if anything. i like its current design, office towers should look serious in my opinion. save the fancy styling for residential towers.

You realise this tower has not been denied approval right? It just did not recieve the support of the UDP... this is a very standard scenario and will likely not have much of an impact on this tower and we will likely end up with a better end product.

This tower will be built when the market dictates, and that will likely be unaffected by a few small hitches in the approval process.

[flight_from_kamakura]

^ though the transamerica is the tallest building in sf...

[Spork]

I think what everybody is hoping for is smooth sailing through the approval process so that the developer moves quickly (too quickly?) and the tower actually gets built. This won't happen, as when you are investing a couple of hundred million dollars, you do your due diligence, and so do your investors/financiers.

[Phil McAvity]

^ though the transamerica is the tallest building in sf...

Actually TransAmerica is second tallest after Bank of America.

[LeftCoaster]

?? No its the tallest.

Its no slouch though, it would be the third tallest building in Canada today. Not exactly a poster child of good looking short buildings...

[officedweller]

You realise this tower has not been denied approval right? It just did not recieve the support of the UDP... this is a very standard scenario and will likely not have much of an impact on this tower and we will likely end up with a better end product.


The question is whether there will be a wholesale redesign or minor tweaks.

Both The Melville and the Ritz Carlton were completely redesigned after initial UDP non-support.

The Melville was originally a classical traditionally styled building -> the sail design.

The Ritz Carlton was a "vase" design with a standard oversized grid at the base and glass "vase" at the top -> Erickson brought in for twisty design

[Phil McAvity]

?? No its the tallest.


You're right. What the hell was I thinking?!?!?! :duh

[Some guy]

Any news on this one?

[jlousa]

Oxford is reworking it, and still plans on proceeding forward with the application. They want to have it ready to go and will then proceed with construction if they deem the demand is there.

[Some guy]

Oxford is reworking it, and still plans on proceeding forward with the application. They want to have it ready to go and will then proceed with construction if they deem the demand is there.

Reworking. . . as in the building design? How long would that take?

I wanna see this one take off. . . as soon as they are done "reworking". :tup:

[Hed Kandi]

Reworking. . . as in the building design? How long would that take?

I wanna see this one take off. . . as soon as they are done "reworking". :tup:


My guess is that we won't see this one resurface for 6 months to a year.

[Some guy]

Does the recent view cone review/approval accelerate this project or its chances?

[wrenegade]

This site isn't affected by the downtown opportunities for higher buildings review......so no, I doubt it.

[jlousa]

Exactly, besides the small floorplate eliminates the possibility of going any higher anyways.

[jlousa]

An update, the design has been adjusted to reflect the critique from the udp and it's heading back there next week, Feb 9th. It already has a date scheduled for the development permit board as well on April 18th.

1075 West Hastings Street DE414163 Musson Cattell Mackey Partnership

Proposed 36 storey office tower to be constructed on the existing University Club site at 1021 West Hastings. University Club facade to be retained with retail and restaurant spaces constructed on the ground floor. New construction to integrate parking and services with the existing Guinness parking structure below grade.

April 18, 2011

I still can't make any sense of the address 1075 which would place it over Portside park, as Guinness Tower is 1055 W. Hastings and it would seem unusal to change it's address to accommodate this.

[SFUVancouver]

I'm in the audience at the UDP and this project has returned. It is a wholesale redesign. A back to the drawing board effort that massively improves on the first design. The proposed design has a much more organic form and there doesn't appear to be a straight line on it. A very high-end triple glazed curtain wall system will be used and it has offset two storey shallow vertical fins and there is opaque fritted glass on the slab edges that fades to clear vision glass for the floors above and below. The floorplate has changes from a symmetrical six-sided hexagon to an asymmetric triangle that curves on all sides and energetically rounds the corners and billows out somewhat to the north in a top to bottom convex curve and pulls in to the east to create a concave curve with an elegant cantilever near the top facing the Marine Bldg. The roof appears enclosed in glazing like the new 8th Avenue Place bldg in Calgary but it is a smooth curve that slopes in three dimensions up from the north and then tips over to the south with a five storey range in height. The building's signature "folding peak" (my words) faces east to the Marine Bldg and twists away to one side so that the view axis along Hastings to the Marine Bldg will not have the spire of that building clash with the major curving feature of the proposed office bldg. The height is just shy of 475' and it would look absolutely spectacular in the range of the new proposed max height in the CBD of around 700'. I enthusiastically declare this the best new office building proposal in the city.

Hed Kandi may actually approve of this one since it would be entirely at home in New York or the La Defense district of Paris. In fact this one reminds me a lot of one of the recent towers that went up in Paris in recent years.

The panel voted enthusiastically to support it and were nearly unanimous that it should be tall enough to stand above the Shaw Tower and Fairmont Pacific Rim.

It passed.

[phesto]

I'm in the audience at the UDP and this project has returned. It is a wholesale redesign. A back to the drawing board effort that massively improves on the first design. The proposed design has a much more organic form and there doesn't appear to be a straight line on it. A very high-end triple glazed curtain wall system with offset two storey shallow veritcal fins and there is opaque fritted glass on the slab edges that fades to clear vision glass for the floors above and below. The floorplate has changes from a symetrical six-sided hexagon to an aysemetric triangle that curves on all sides and energetically rounds the corners and billows out somewhat to the north in a top to bottom convex curve and pulls in to the east to create a concave curve with an elegent cantilever near the top facing the Marine Bldg. The roof appears enclosed in glazing like the new 8th Avenue Place bldg in Calgary but it is a smooth curve that slopes in three dimensions up from the north and then tips over to the south with a five storey range in height. The building's signature "folding peak" (my words) faces east to the Marine Bldg and twists away to one side so that the view axis along Hastings to the Marine Bldg will not have the spire of that building clash with the major curving feature of the proposed office bldg. The height is just shy of 475' and it would look absolutely spectaular in the range of the new proposed max height in the CBD of around 700'. I enthusiastically declare this the best new office building proposal in the city.

Hed Kandi may actually approve of this one since it would be entirely at home in New York or the La Defense district of Paris. In fact this one reminds me a lot of one of the recent towers that went up in Paris in recent years.

The panel voted enthusiastically to support it and were nearly unanimous that it should be tall enough to stand above the Shaw Tower and Fairmont Pacific Rim.

It passed.

Great news, and great description! However, this is when a cameraphone comes in handy! :P :D

[wrenegade]

Fuck. Yeah.

Can't wait to see renders. This sounds awesome.

[Metro-One]

I'm in the audience at the UDP and this project has returned. It is a wholesale redesign. A back to the drawing board effort that massively improves on the first design. The proposed design has a much more organic form and there doesn't appear to be a straight line on it. A very high-end triple glazed curtain wall system with offset two storey shallow veritcal fins and there is opaque fritted glass on the slab edges that fades to clear vision glass for the floors above and below. The floorplate has changes from a symetrical six-sided hexagon to an aysemetric triangle that curves on all sides and energetically rounds the corners and billows out somewhat to the north in a top to bottom convex curve and pulls in to the east to create a concave curve with an elegent cantilever near the top facing the Marine Bldg. The roof appears enclosed in glazing like the new 8th Avenue Place bldg in Calgary but it is a smooth curve that slopes in three dimensions up from the north and then tips over to the south with a five storey range in height. The building's signature "folding peak" (my words) faces east to the Marine Bldg and twists away to one side so that the view axis along Hastings to the Marine Bldg will not have the spire of that building clash with the major curving feature of the proposed office bldg. The height is just shy of 475' and it would look absolutely spectaular in the range of the new proposed max height in the CBD of around 700'. I enthusiastically declare this the best new office building proposal in the city.

Hed Kandi may actually approve of this one since it would be entirely at home in New York or the La Defense district of Paris. In fact this one reminds me a lot of one of the recent towers that went up in Paris in recent years.

The panel voted enthusiastically to support it and were nearly unanimous that it should be tall enough to stand above the Shaw Tower and Fairmont Pacific Rim.

It passed.

You got me excited!!! I cant wait to see it, and at 144 meters that is decently tall (although I would love to see a 170m + revision) But one step at a time, if this design is as good as you are describing it, then I will be plenty happy with it being 144 meters.

[Prometheus]

The panel voted enthusiastically to support it and were nearly unanimous that it should be tall enough to stand above the Shaw Tower and Fairmont Pacific Rim.

But the Shaw Tower stands at 149 metres. I realize that the proposed site is on slightly higher ground, but I don't see how at 144 metres it will meaningfully "stand above the Shaw Tower and Fairmont Pacific Rim."

[SFUVancouver]

...this is when a cameraphone comes in handy! :P :D

Indeed. The quality on my Blackberry is awful but this should suffice for the time being.

http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/507/office1e.jpg
http://creativecommons.org/images/public/somerights20.png (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/ca/) Taken by SFUVancouver, February 9th, 2011.

http://img607.imageshack.us/img607/4604/office2.jpg
http://creativecommons.org/images/public/somerights20.png (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/ca/) Taken by SFUVancouver, February 9th, 2011.

http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/9576/office3.jpg
http://creativecommons.org/images/public/somerights20.png (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/ca/) Taken by SFUVancouver, February 9th, 2011.

[dleung]

There are too many curves and they're all too subtle. And if there's a fading fritted glass transition between floors like you say, the vertical fins will most certainly work against it. In fact the fins work against everything in the design... most likely one of those tacked on sustainability features...

It reminds me of the erickson buildings at the Olympic village... ie: the massive expense that went into the ever-so-subtle twisting form, yet looks indistinguishable and formless from a distance.