MNP Tower | 143M | 36Fl | Completed
 

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/develop...s/siteplan.pdf

North and East Renders
http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/develop...elevations.pdf

South and West Renders
http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/develop...elevations.pdf

Notification Letter
http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/develop...gs/notiltr.pdf

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

..

Very well put.:iagree:

..

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

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.