320 Granville St |119M | 32Fl | Proposed [Archive]

jlousa

Jan 30, 2012, 10:12 PM

An offical application has been made, so here are the details.

Rezoning Application - 320 Granville Street
VIA Architecture has applied to the City of Vancouver to rezone 320 Granville Street from DD (Downtown) District to CD-1 (Comprehensive Development) District. The proposal is for a 32-storey office building, with retail and a bike station at grade, and a childcare on the top floor. The development would be comprised of approximately 35 303 m² (380,000 sq. ft.) of floor area, with a floor space ratio (FSR) of 25.5, and a height of 119 m (390 ft.).

I the bolded the very large FSR. Not sure if it's a new Vancouver record or not, but it's certainly up there.

Rendering
http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/planning/rezoning/applications/320granville/documents/rendering.pdf

City Planning Context
http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/planning/rezoning/applications/320granville/documents/rzcontext.pdf

Site Context
http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/planning/rezoning/applications/320granville/documents/siteplan.pdf

Concept Model Views
http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/planning/rezoning/applications/320granville/documents/aerial.pdf

View Impact Analysis
http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/planning/rezoning/applications/320granville/documents/tower.pdf

View Cone Analysis
http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/planning/rezoning/applications/320granville/documents/views.pdf

Shadow Diagrams
http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/planning/rezoning/applications/320granville/documents/shadows.pdf

Project Stats and Context Aerial
http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/planning/rezoning/applications/320granville/documents/projstats.pdf

Parking Plans
http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/planning/rezoning/applications/320granville/documents/parking.pdf

Floor Plans
http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/planning/rezoning/applications/320granville/documents/floorplans.pdf

Building Elevation Drawings
http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/planning/rezoning/applications/320granville/documents/elevs.pdf

Building Section Drawings
http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/planning/rezoning/applications/320granville/documents/sections.pdf

My 2 cents, I'm happy to see this one moving forward. I'm still a touch doubtful as to wether it will make this round of towers but I'm more then willing to be proven wrong. As most of you know I seldom complain about design, this is one building that in it's current state lets me down. I certainly don't expect anything special, but I was hoping for slightly more. Anyways enjoy, discuss, critic.

officedweller

Jan 30, 2012, 10:21 PM

Thanks for posting!

The tower seems pretty plain. The setbacks/reveals may end up looking like those on Bentall V, but across the face of the tower.

The only good thing I see with this tower is that the ground plane is nicely opened up to allow views towards the CP Station.

Check out the view cone analysis, which includes a massing study for the towers north of the CP Station.

I wonder what the glazing will be like?
Grant Thornton Place next door is very "shiny", so I wouldn't want mirrored glass, but it would be nice to have glazing that would allow the limestone RBC tower to stand out against it.

LeftCoaster

Jan 30, 2012, 10:23 PM

Wow and the office buildings just keep on commin'

There's another decent sized one in the works too, should be a few months before it is announced though!

With regards to this one it seems terribly boring, and why in the world is VIA submitting a proposal to the city rendered in what looks like sketch-up. They are much better than that.

Hopefully the UDP gets them to add some more umph to the design because this one is going to be quite visible from the harbour and is a total snooze fest as is.

trofirhen

Jan 30, 2012, 11:09 PM

:previous::previous::previous:
Couldn't agree more. This is potential place for a dramatic "twist" ot "turn" to it (metaphorically speaking) and we're presented with this. The diagonal lines seem like a wimpy attempt to be "daring." The Credit Suisse-funded building seems much more dramatic. As Leftcoaster said, give this one some more "umph" and Fast ! ! It needs an emergency intravenous against blandomyelitis.

Hed Kandi

Jan 30, 2012, 11:16 PM

Canadian Mind

Jan 30, 2012, 11:17 PM

I hope the glass isn't nearly as translucent as it is in that picture.

Also, when was the last time the diagrams were updated?

trofirhen

Jan 30, 2012, 11:33 PM

Thanks Jlo!

The design is shit. Let's hope the UDP takes this one for a beating and hands it off to a firm like SOM to work some magic.

And well because I love you guys, I've added this proposal to the development thread. 1075 W Hastings has also been re-branded 'MNP Tower'.

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=138119

Love the ethereal (no height, no date given) of 99 West Pender in that thread. Now THAT or something more like it would be worthwhile and difficult to argue down, I think. French immersion pie! :cool:

logan5

Jan 31, 2012, 4:48 AM

(These renderings are always frustrating for me to look at. The rendering is so vague to me that I couldn't possibly interpret what the final product is going to look like. I'm not doubting others, that's just my own experience.(with renderings)

dleung

Jan 31, 2012, 5:17 AM

How can something proposed 13 years after Bentall 5 look this ugly....

trofirhen

Jan 31, 2012, 5:19 AM

How can something proposed 13 years after Bentall 5 look so ugly....
:previous:
This is Vancouver ............. {I hate to use that polemic tone, but this city seemingly just can't break through the design barrier}

officedweller

Jan 31, 2012, 5:45 AM

I don't find it ugly - I just find it plain.

I think it will look a lot like the sides of Bentall V - and blame the view cones for the flat roof.
It's actually a bit more interesting than some office towers like Bay-Adelaide in TO.

Here are the reveals on Bentall V - I think the reveals on 320 will appear the same - hopefully there will be some differentiation in the facade on each side of the reveal:

From the Bentall website:

http://www.bentallcentre.com/assets/images/pods/skyscrapper-large.jpg
http://www.bentallcentre.com/

By Uncle Buddha from Flickr:

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2215/1880494090_95d4efb829.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/uncle_buddha/1880494090/sizes/m/in/photostream/

deasine

Jan 31, 2012, 6:09 AM

Ironically, the second line on the rendering says:

320 Granville Street - The Pivot of Opportunity
(emphasis mine)

Hed Kandi

Jan 31, 2012, 6:53 AM

How can something proposed 13 years after Bentall 5 look this ugly....

:yeahthat

dleung

Jan 31, 2012, 7:05 AM

I was so dismayed I created my own proposal:

Assuming the 12' floor-to-floor heights of the current proposal, mine is 330 feet high and 26 stories. At first I tried a 450 foot version to step "up" from Granville Square, but seeing that the site is A) near the waterfront, and B) surounded by smaller-scale historic buildings, hence C) will not see a lot of height nearby in the forseeable future, I think the tower height should step down instead, preserving vistas from the Harbour Center observation deck. This is not a good spot to stick a "skyline addition".

Floorplates (minus a 1500sf core) average just over 8500sf, for a total of 220,000sf. The main gesture of course is opening up the ground plane for clear sightlines to Waterfront Station, and to Granville Plaza from the adjacent buildings.

http://img862.imageshack.us/img862/5951/plazaview.jpg

http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/1344/granvilleview.jpg

http://img717.imageshack.us/img717/1365/city1lk.jpg

http://img841.imageshack.us/img841/5390/city2t.jpg

http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/5552/skyline1d.jpg

http://img521.imageshack.us/img521/5290/skyline2e.jpg

EdinVan

Jan 31, 2012, 10:48 AM

Anything is better than what's there now.

phesto

Jan 31, 2012, 3:37 PM

I wouldn't get too worked up about the design, as there is a good chance this is just a placeholder until the rezoning is achieved - which would explain the choice of architect and what appears to be minimal cost and effort in the design work so far.

If they get approval for this density, don't be surprised if the site is sold before it hits the DPB/UDP stage which would allow for some refinements and tweaks to the design (but no more height or density).

wrenegade

Jan 31, 2012, 5:08 PM

I agree the height/density is the important thing here, but that design is really uninspired. Not ugly, just blah. I hope to see some change as well.

Anyone else think the rooftop daycare is a bit of a strange use for what would ordinarily be the most prime view office real estate?

s211

Jan 31, 2012, 5:33 PM

Anyone else think the rooftop daycare is a bit of a strange use for what would ordinarily be the most prime view office real estate?

One of the first things that caught my eye. It smacks of triple bottom line run amok.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_bottom_line

officedweller

Jan 31, 2012, 9:37 PM

trofirhen

Jan 31, 2012, 10:45 PM

I think it's about trying to encroach on the view cone with a component that would be politically incorrect for the City to delete.
To be withion the view cone, an entire floor would have to be deleted.
And remember that the City doesn't like daycare outdoor space on podium rooftops because of all the stuff (including dead bodies) that seem to fall on them.

Agreed totally on the "politically correct" armlock attempt. Interesting (and disturbing) the dead bodies: (where do they come from?).

Anyway, some years earlier, I had seen a Time-Life photgraph of a highrise rooftop preschool in Mexico City, and understood there were others like it.
Tried to research it but must have looked in all the wrong links.
Do they still exist? Is this relevant to Vancouver at all? (not in this case; sorry for the digression)

Pinion

Jan 31, 2012, 11:07 PM

I can't believe it took so long to get a development going. That parking lot is horrendous and right in the middle of tourist ground zero.

I don't care if the building is bland - just do something there.

officedweller

Jan 31, 2012, 11:21 PM

Dead bodies = jumpers.

trofirhen

Jan 31, 2012, 11:44 PM

Dead bodies = jumpers.

That would be found at street level wouldn't it? I'm confused. How did they otherwise fall onto the roof? From nearby taller buildings, I would assume?

jsbertram

Feb 1, 2012, 12:34 AM

That would be found at street level wouldn't it? I'm confused. How did they otherwise fall onto the roof? From nearby taller buildings, I would assume?

Thin towers on top of fat podiums == smack into the top floor (roof) of the podium instead of the street.

trofirhen

Feb 1, 2012, 12:38 AM

Thin towers on top of fat podiums == smack into the top floor (roof) of the podium instead of the street.

oh

dleung

Feb 2, 2012, 3:02 AM

i hate people who say anything is better than what is existing. If you get it wrong, you're looking at a reminder of wasted potential for the next 50+ years.

Jimbo604

Feb 2, 2012, 3:06 AM

Downtown parking lots disappearing fast..

- Georgia (and Richards St, Telus Garden Site)
- 175 Robson (and Cambie St, Hotel/Condo)
- 745 Thurlow (and Alberni, Office)
- this one, 320 Granville
- etc.

jlousa

Feb 2, 2012, 3:24 AM

You could add Richard/Robson to parking lots disappearing, its currently a private lot for Telus but those are still spots that will gone and will need to be relocated.

They have been doing renos on Sinclair centre for along time now, does anyone know if the green metalwork will be removed once it's done.

Prometheus

Feb 2, 2012, 11:07 PM

Is there any chance of that elevated walkway being removed too? It reminds me of a pedestrian version of Toronto's Gardiner Expressway.

Pinion

Feb 2, 2012, 11:15 PM

i hate people who say anything is better than what is existing. If you get it wrong, you're looking at a reminder of wasted potential for the next 50+ years.

I hate you too! :slob: Downtown is almost entirely wasted potential. It's difficult to get upset over one incredibly ugly lot getting a standard office building at this point. Unspectacular design =/= embarrassing.

Hell, it's not a condo. That alone makes it kinda exciting.

officedweller

Feb 2, 2012, 11:40 PM

Is there any chance of that elevated walkway being removed too? It reminds me of a pedestrian version of Toronto's Gardiner Expressway.

Probably not until Granvlle Street is extended - it's the fire truck access to Granville Square.

Prometheus

Feb 2, 2012, 11:47 PM

it's the fire truck access to Granville Square.

Interesting. I did not know that.

officedweller

Feb 3, 2012, 2:06 AM

There's a sign on the overpass that says fire route - as to whether or not they would actually use it would depend on the circumstances I guess.

jlousa

Feb 3, 2012, 2:15 AM

I used to eat my lunch on Granville square and it wasn't unusual to see a firetruck there about once a week.

Metro-One

Feb 3, 2012, 2:24 AM

I don't understand the Hate for the Granville Square and the over pass. I like it quite a bit, for me it almost feels like a gateway in to Gastown.

Also, the views from Granville Square are great, i often use it (and the overpass) to take pictures or just hang out and watch the world go by.

Prometheus

Feb 3, 2012, 2:30 AM

The overpass is an eye sore and is extremely unflattering to stately architecture of the Sinclair building.

trofirhen

Feb 3, 2012, 2:37 AM

The overpass is an eye sore and is extremely unflattering to stately architecture of the Sinclair building.
You got that right! I wonder if all this could be redesigned "post modern" or something to complement the adjacent Sinclair Centre and Waterfront Station. Overpass, new building and all. (probably not; whatever)

osirisboy

Feb 3, 2012, 2:40 AM

I agree for the hate for the overpass, UGLY. get rid of it!!!

Pinion

Feb 3, 2012, 6:58 AM

The overpass itself is not great but it's the weird chainlink "roof" that always looked super ghetto.

As someone who worked on Granville and Pender for a long time I appreciated the overpass... although in the later years I just walked through the Canada line station when the weather was bad (always).

jlousa

Feb 3, 2012, 7:10 AM

I'm hoping the green fencing will come down after the repairs are complete. It was put up to catch anything if it fell of the building, but they've been doing work on it and are almost complete. I'd hope that means no more need for the fencing.

officedweller

Feb 3, 2012, 7:05 PM

I think if you removed the overpass completely (assuming that there is acceptable proximity from an extended Granville Street for fire truck access), you'd have to install an elevator from the sidewalk for handicapped access to the Granville Square office building (but the parking facing the new street would probably be redeveloped into retail, anyways, so it could be worked in)

PaperTiger

Feb 3, 2012, 7:24 PM

Not necessarily, There is ramp access in front of the PWC building that continues to the plaza.

I don’t mind the overpass.

I do hate the green metal posts in the side walk along Cordova though, and it is such a narrow sidewalk through there to begin with.

phesto

Feb 3, 2012, 7:36 PM

Not necessarily, There is ramp access in front of the PWC building that continues to the plaza.

I don't think there are any ramps, just stairs.

I'm hoping the green fencing will come down after the repairs are complete. It was put up to catch anything if it fell of the building, but they've been doing work on it and are almost complete. I'd hope that means no more need for the fencing.

I hope they take it down. The scaffolding over the walkway (east side of Sinclair Centre) has been up for almost 4 years now! I'm guessing this is a make-work project since it is a government building, but enough is enough!

Mininari

Feb 3, 2012, 7:38 PM

jlousa

Feb 3, 2012, 7:52 PM

Was Sinclair centre not offloaded by the Feds to SNC-Lavalin a couple of years ago?

mezzanine

Feb 3, 2012, 8:31 PM

Was Sinclair centre not offloaded by the Feds to SNC-Lavalin a couple of years ago?

IIRC, the sale of sinclair centre was halted due to conflicts with the musqeum. i think any disposal of federal land needed consultation with them and compensation.

IIIRC, this also affects the central post office.

s211

Feb 3, 2012, 8:31 PM

Wow, another 400' office tower. Excellent, another decent-sized project to look forward to. The next five years should be good 'scraper' watching in Vancouver.

I did find something rather amusing in the view cone analysis pdf.
"The tip of the landing post marks the city's leading edge with a daycare - thereby putting children at the leading edge of the city's view into the future."

Is that ridiculously contrived hyperbole or what?

Expect no less from imperious architects and planners, so freaking distanced from reality that they have time to come up with such bullshot. THESE are the freaks entrusted with the future of our city. :rolleyes:

wrenegade

Feb 3, 2012, 9:56 PM

IIRC, the sale of sinclair centre was halted due to conflicts with the musqeum. i think any disposal of federal land needed consultation with them and compensation.

IIIRC, this also affects the central post office.

Yep, this is/was the case.

jlousa

Feb 3, 2012, 10:13 PM

I know SNC-Lavalin is doing the leasing at Sinclair centre, thought the land claims had only stalled the sale of the Post Office but not the others. Beleive Cushman is marketing the P.O. now, it has the potential of housing just under 2M sqft in a mix of com/residential.

Prometheus

Feb 3, 2012, 10:43 PM

[The Post Office] has the potential of housing just under 2M sqft in a mix of com/residential.

The current structure or some future structure? Are they actually considering re-purposing the current building rather than building something new?

phesto

Feb 3, 2012, 10:55 PM

Sinclair Centre was purchased by Larco in 2007 (not SNC/Lavalin - they just do the leasing through a leasing company they acquired last year), IIRC.

jlousa

Feb 3, 2012, 11:54 PM

That's it, the leasing signs screwed with me, it was Larco that bought it plus another half dozen buildings. Whatever happens to the P.O. will be up to the purchaser of course, but I expect not to see it repurposed but maybe a token piece reutilized.
Is 320 Granville owned by the Whitecaps?

Prometheus

Feb 4, 2012, 6:52 AM

Someone suggested that this is not a real proposal but rather a theoretical proposal for the purposes of rezoning, which if successful would likely be sold to another developer.

phesto

Feb 4, 2012, 4:39 PM

Someone suggested that this is not a real proposal but rather a theoretical proposal for the purposes of rezoning, which if successful would likely be sold to another developer.

Correct. That's why I suggested that people shouldn't worry too much about the bland design, as it is likely just a placeholder. Chances look good that another architect would get involved after the rezoning.

Jimbo604

Feb 8, 2012, 4:05 AM

http://i1072.photobucket.com/albums/w376/jimbo604/Tue%20Feb%207%202012/IMG_1469.jpg
photo credit: me

The parking lot seems well used.

BodomReaper

Feb 8, 2012, 4:37 AM

This parkade has always frightened me from a structural integrity perspective... those floors just seem too thin and appear to sag! Good riddance :yuck:

whatnext

Feb 8, 2012, 7:08 AM

The parking lot seems well used.

Hmm, yeah. I thought the propaganda was that nobody drives downtown to work anymore? :shrug:

Metro-One

Feb 8, 2012, 7:17 AM

:previous:I know what you mean, been taking many statistical courses currently as part of my GIS certificate, and it is amazing what you can make stats say! Not saying that these stats on this subject are false, but it is always best to research their raw data / numbers, if possible and their method of collection.

But still, will not be sad to see this structure go, just want something more amazing than the filler render right now.

mezzanine

Feb 8, 2012, 8:04 AM

the sale to larco went thru initially, but was stopped by the musqueam.

Is there resolution to this? was larco able to buy sinclair centre?

The Federal Court of Canada has put the brakes on the sale of two downtown buildings by the federal government saying the government failed to properly consult with a local first nation.

The Musqueam Indian Band argued that the Sinclair Centre and 401 Burrard Street, both in downtown Vancouver, were within the band’s traditional territory and the federal government had to consult with the band before agreeing to sell the buildings.

In August, the federal government announced it was selling the buildings, along with seven others cross Canada, to Larco Investments Ltd., for $1.64 billion. The sale involved a controversial lease-back that would see Larco own and maintain the buildings which the government would rent from it.

http://www.canada.com/story_print.html?id=895ea85d-a457-4a44-961b-96544eeab7a1&sponsor=

racc

Feb 8, 2012, 8:59 AM

the sale to larco went thru initially, but was stopped by the musqueam.

Is there resolution to this? was larco able to buy sinclair centre?

http://www.canada.com/story_print.html?id=895ea85d-a457-4a44-961b-96544eeab7a1&sponsor=
Thanks to the Musqueam for saving the government from itself. These sales and leasebacks are just an accounting trick to temporally reduce deficits (or in this case, even worse, fund tax cuts) by selling assets. It typically ends up costing taxpayers more over the long term but the governments that did it will be long gone by then. They don't call them the Cons for nothing.

Pretty much all the Campbell government did was figure out how to dispose government assets and try and move liabilities from debt to operational expenses. They got called on a lot of this.

Maybe governments should be required to highlight their balance sheet including net changes in assets and liabilities. This might encourage them not to play accounting tricks.

In Arizona, they actually sold their capital building a few years back and are now in the process of buying it back. Turns out it wasn't the deal they thought it was.

trofirhen

Feb 8, 2012, 2:34 PM

Correct. That's why I suggested that people shouldn't worry too much about the bland design, as it is likely just a placeholder. Chances look good that another architect would get involved after the rezoning.
:previous:
Good to know!! At any rate, almost anything's better than that cheap ugly parkade.

TwoFace

Feb 8, 2012, 4:00 PM

PaperTiger

Feb 8, 2012, 6:05 PM

Hmm, yeah. I thought the propaganda was that nobody drives downtown to work anymore? :shrug:
:rolleyes: And who said that exactly?

Facts are there are fewer trips downtown by car and parking lot vacancies are up. Thats just the reality of the situation.

PaperTiger

Feb 8, 2012, 6:14 PM

Interesting to see this new boom in commercial office space construction in the last while.
With the current unemployment rate at 7.6% and on the rise, makes you wonder how many of these will come to fruition and more importantly, if they do, will they be competing with each other for "existing" downtown clients or did the forecasters/swamis assume that there is going to be a huge transfer of corporate businesses to downtown Vancouver from other less expensive lease locations on the lower mainland or other parts of Canada?.

I don't believe all of these will be built this cycle , but the more the merrier IMO. There doesn't need to be a mass influx of businesses, there is natural growth of smaller firms moving up and needing more space as well as companies that may choose to move downtown to attract better workers (like Microsoft) or move into Vancouver form elsewhere (Pixar) You will see a trickle up effect in the leasing market. The A list firms will take the new triple A space. Other firms will move into their space in the slightly older buildings and so on.

I don’t think we are going to see a massive head office relocating to Vancouver and time soon. These relocations are incredible rare. If you want big head offices the most likely way is to grow them from your medium size head offices. Having space open up throughout the office market will allow more of these companies to do that downtown rather than looking to a suburban campus when they need more space.

TwoFace

Feb 8, 2012, 6:29 PM

The A list firms will take the new triple A space. Other firms will move into their space in the slightly older buildings and so on.

I don’t think we are going to see a massive head office relocating to Vancouver and time soon. These relocations are incredible rare. If you want big head offices the most likely way is to grow them from your medium size head offices. Having space open up throughout the office market will allow more of these companies to do that downtown rather than looking to a suburban campus when they need more space.

That's what I'm thinking as well.
Probably a delicate shuffle between existing tenants moving up from C - B - A direction or maybe even downsizing to B - C. Should make for a very competitive leasehold environment.

jlousa

Jul 3, 2012, 6:03 PM

To revive the thread.

OPEN HOUSE SCHEDULED:
Thursday, July 12, 2012
5 - 8 pm
The Landing (Atrium), 375 Water Street

LeftCoaster

Jul 3, 2012, 7:16 PM

Interesting, I'm sure they aren't planning on moving forward with this thing any time soon but I wonder if we will be getting a better idea of the design.

jlousa

Jul 3, 2012, 9:29 PM

I think as others have hinted at that this might just be a rezoning proposal to get the zoning inline in order to be able to proceed quickly at a later date and not a specific proposal that they plan on building. Guess we'll know soon enough.

Built Form

Sep 7, 2012, 8:22 AM

This project is still very active and went to the UDP Aug 29th and was almost unanimously defeated. They originally pitched a unique concept of a organic twisting form then the office 'experts' dumbed it down to better accommodate office requirements. i.e. more corners
There were also objections to the encroachment of the tower to their property line thereby hemming in their neighbours.

Here's the rejected model.

http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f58/hirtus1/DSC_0014.jpg

http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f58/hirtus1/DSC_0059.jpg

http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f58/hirtus1/DSC_0065.jpg

http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f58/hirtus1/DSC_0066.jpg

http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f58/hirtus1/DSC_0062-1.jpg

http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f58/hirtus1/DSC_0010-2.jpg

http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f58/hirtus1/DSC_0051.jpg

http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f58/hirtus1/DSC_0048-1.jpg

http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f58/hirtus1/DSC_0049.jpg

http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f58/hirtus1/DSC_0054.jpg

http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f58/hirtus1/DSC_0052.jpg

http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f58/hirtus1/DSC_0053.jpg

http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f58/hirtus1/DSC_0056-1.jpg
all pix by Built Form

Dylan Leblanc

Sep 7, 2012, 9:30 AM

Thanks BF! :tup:

trofirhen

Sep 7, 2012, 11:30 AM

:previous:
Yikes. If that's the rejected model, then what does the "dumbed-down" version look like? The original model (in the pictures) is already rather undramatic and bland as is. The dumbed-down version must be as bland as they come. I'm almost afraid to see it. It sounds like infill, nothing more.

Pinion

Sep 7, 2012, 2:47 PM

It should be a daring design considering it is right next to the Harbour Centre lookout and right in the middle of tourist ground zero. That model is decent for Vancouver but still too blah.

trofirhen

Sep 7, 2012, 3:49 PM

It should be a daring design considering it is right next to the Harbour Centre lookout and right in the middle of tourist ground zero. That model is decent for Vancouver but still too blah.
:previous:

Try telling that to the UDP and other Presbyterian-minded burghers who run this town.

vansky

Sep 7, 2012, 4:19 PM

u know, business ppl

f%$$ think in squares, or else money.

there was a chance for creativty, and it's done, right there...

red-paladin

Sep 7, 2012, 4:30 PM

Should be retail at the base :( Even tiny retail units.

trofirhen

Sep 7, 2012, 4:34 PM

u know, business ppl

f%$$ think in squares, or else money.

there was a chance for creativty, and it's done, right there...

Should be retail at the base :( Even tiny retail units.
:previous:
Given the prominent location of the planned building, isn't there some way to bring this to the larger scope of public attention by raising a ruckus over it, disturbing some shit? (there must be some way; this is too good a location to trash on a shoe box) :hell:

s211

Sep 7, 2012, 6:27 PM

u know, business ppl

f%$$ think in squares, or else money.

Um, English please? We're not all ADD here.

vansky

Sep 7, 2012, 6:40 PM

Um, English please? We're not all ADD here.

s211,

anyways, since you've made a point, I should still clarify things.

You cannot expect investors to invest in shits that do not give them some kind of a maximum profit in return, because all they care about is money. Designers always want sth creative, but clients want something cheap. it's a war, and clients win, but people should open themselves up for creativity. they usually do not, we are the guys who are stuck inside our creative drive,since when will this world ever care more about creativity?

itinerant

Sep 7, 2012, 8:18 PM

I think what Built Form may have meant is that the dumbed-down version is what we see in the model. The pivot concept shown in the studies seems to have been filtered almost completely out of existence in the version put to the UDP, and they seem to have responded accordingly.

I tend to agree that the version in this model does block out the adjacent buildings. The proposal could be set back in the tower portion by about 20 feet (6 meters), with added height to compensate for the reduced size of the floorplate.

Gven its proximity to the 1920's buildings around it, I'd think the developers should step up their game and offer a premium product--which on the surface, this is not.

s211

Sep 7, 2012, 8:58 PM

s211,

anyways, since you've made a point, I should still clarify things.

You cannot expect investors to invest in shits that do not give them some kind of a maximum profit in return, because all they care about is money. Designers always want sth creative, but clients want something cheap. it's a war, and clients win, but people should open themselves up for creativity. they usually do not, we are the guys who are stuck inside our creative drive,since when will this world ever care more about creativity?

Thanks for explaining. Sorry if I was catty.

jsbertram

Sep 7, 2012, 10:02 PM

trofirhen

Sep 7, 2012, 10:36 PM

It's better than nothng, if you want a building for the sake of a building. It's just too bad that the, at least in the CBD, design originality / continuity is not a prerequisite of the UDP. Surely there could be stricter esthetics for a small part of Vancouver; the high-profile areas.

This is another example of utilitarian square-headedness calling the shots.

TwoFace

Sep 7, 2012, 11:13 PM

Since it is a prominent location and also the gateway to Gastown (kind-off), personally I would prefer they forgo the glass tower concept altogether and do a mid-rise brick building with heavy retro design ques.

Hed Kandi

Sep 8, 2012, 12:07 AM

trofirhen

Sep 8, 2012, 12:29 AM

How one can relate an organic form to a ubiquitous box is beyond me.

http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/5185/capturekan.jpg

to

http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f58/hirtus1/DSC_0059.jpg

I'm delighted that this design was rejected. The task of architecture can now be handed off to a more competent firm.

:previous::previous::previous:
I agree with you, but will it be handed to a more competent firm, or just tweaked a bit here and there? Such a location calls for something dramatic and compelling, not just another gussied-up box (which Vancouver seems so good at)

vansky

Sep 8, 2012, 12:57 AM

Thanks for explaining. Sorry if I was catty.

it is ok, i had ADD, hahaha

vansky

Sep 8, 2012, 12:58 AM

what is "want sth creative" ?

something = sth

trofirhen

Sep 8, 2012, 2:51 AM

Regarding this building, I wouldn't mind something a bit post-modern, to complement Waterfront Station and the Sinclair Centre.

dleung

Sep 8, 2012, 3:37 AM

What's that unique architectural feature 4-6 floors from the top, in the last model pic?

Could it https://encrypted-tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTnvHzjrqyydGB-WHDlg8guwvGV5UvRZj0K898uzLd3xZxKBoYEbe http://img716.imageshack.us/img716/7969/35319522.pngone https://encrypted-tbn1.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSCXOg4sJZ54sr1Ca7abKb7WjzcmCEPRWzMM_HPBeBDClJn7quszAof http://img809.imageshack.us/img809/8528/66675227.png these? https://encrypted-tbn1.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRDXg4RXdFtKwL3TAb5s2xBld4Lp9IsFgIgF1pa9VnoxUHmUIk4

ckkelley

Sep 8, 2012, 4:07 AM

Yeah...not a fan of that.

jsbertram

Sep 9, 2012, 1:56 AM

something = sth

No need to twitterfy here, since you have more than 140 characters to work in.

You can also relax & use 'preview post' to formulate your thoughts before committing them to electrons and phosphors.

trofirhen

Sep 9, 2012, 3:04 AM

Yeah...not a fan of that.
:previous:
Me neither. Looks as if the buildings have a tumour or something.

These examples from Las Vegas, Montreal, Seattle, San Francisco and Chicago, although bigger in size than 320 Granville, give me a lot more inspiration than the design propsals for the site so far.

They may not be "politically corrrect" for Vancouver, but they sure beat a blah, insipid shoebox in what should be a prime location.

http://www.wayfaring.info/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/vdara-hotel2.jpg
http://www.wayfaring.info/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/vdara-hotel2.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6f/1250Ren%C3%A9L%C3%A9vesque.jpg/450px-1250Ren%C3%A9L%C3%A9vesque.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6f/1250Ren%C3%A9L%C3%A9vesque.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/de/Montreal_KPMG_Tower.jpg/450px-Montreal_KPMG_Tower.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/de/Montreal_KPMG_Tower.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/95/Two_Union_Square_2.jpg/450px-Two_Union_Square_2.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/95/Two_Union_Square_2.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/59/Embarcadero_4.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/59/Embarcadero_4.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/93/Citadel_Center%2C_Chicago.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/93/Citadel_Center%2C_Chicago.jpg

easy as pie

Sep 9, 2012, 6:16 AM

trofirhen

Sep 9, 2012, 3:44 PM

^ uh, you've pin-pointed the most hated buildings in both mtl and sf.

obviously, one hopes that vancouver planning forces a re-design on this site, considering its importance as a 'gateway' building for so many folks. but it's not nearly as bad as the embarcadero complex or actually anything along dorchester and vancouver isn't such a design city that this banality would surprise anyone.
:previous::previous::previous:
oops, awfully sorry, awfully sorry.:( Maybe not good examples (depending upon individual tastes), but the point was that these weren't just insipid shoe boxes, even if they are "hated," as you say they are. It was hard to find examples. These were just random picks, anyway.

queetz@home

Sep 9, 2012, 10:58 PM

I don't even know why this project's design is being debated. Will this office tower even happen? Given the impending NDP win, and the competition from existing office projects already going up but still not fully leased, I doubt anything will get off the ground for the next six years... :rolleyes:

Hourglass

Sep 9, 2012, 11:01 PM

It's just too bad that the, at least in the CBD, design originality / continuity is not a prerequisite of the UDP. Surely there could be stricter esthetics for a small part of Vancouver; the high-profile areas.

This is another example of utilitarian square-headedness calling the shots.

Sorry, did I miss something? Didn't the UDP just reject this design?

Your comment at the beginning of the previous page was that "anything is better than that cheap ugly parkade".

So one can only conclude that what you're actually saying is that the UDP is being square-headed for rejecting a mediocre design that is still better than the cheap ugly parkade that is there?

I'm not quite following the logic.

trofirhen

Sep 10, 2012, 10:00 AM

Sorry, did I miss something? Didn't the UDP just reject this design?

Your comment at the beginning of the previous page was that "anything is better than that cheap ugly parkade".

So one can only conclude that what you're actually saying is that the UDP is being square-headed for rejecting a mediocre design that is still better than the cheap ugly parkade that is there?

I'm not quite following the logic.
:previous::previous::previous:

Excuse me. My first remark, ways back, about "anything being better than a cheap ugly parkade," was really hyperbole.

My understanding was that the design that the UDP rejected was the one in the renders: the "dumbed-down" design. Did I get that wrong? Sorry if I did, but I remember another person being confused about that, too.

My examples of buildings with more "design" in them, whether one likes 'em or hates 'em, was just a way of saying that more design and interest CAN be put into a building if the willingness is there (although, yes, this is normally compromised by $$$ factors)

The statement I was trying to make was, why can't they put something in that place that is interestingly designed. As another poster pointed out this is "ground zero" of the tourist area of Vancouver.

The examples I used disgusted many posters, including "Easy as Pie" from SF. Maybe he's right. But all I was really trying to say was: if they're going to build something in such a high-profile location, why can't it be snazzy and interesting, and not just infill. Excuse the obfuscation.