320 Granville St |115m | 32Fl | Completed
An offical application has been made, so here are the details.
Quote:
Rendering http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/plannin.../rendering.pdf City Planning Context http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/plannin.../rzcontext.pdf Site Context http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/plannin...s/siteplan.pdf Concept Model Views http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/plannin...nts/aerial.pdf View Impact Analysis http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/plannin...ents/tower.pdf View Cone Analysis http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/plannin...ents/views.pdf Shadow Diagrams http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/plannin...ts/shadows.pdf Project Stats and Context Aerial http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/plannin.../projstats.pdf Parking Plans http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/plannin...ts/parking.pdf Floor Plans http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/plannin...floorplans.pdf Building Elevation Drawings http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/plannin...ents/elevs.pdf Building Section Drawings http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/plannin...s/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. |
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. |
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. |
: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. |
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 |
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? |
Quote:
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: |
(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)
|
How can something proposed 13 years after Bentall 5 look this ugly....
|
Quote:
This is Vancouver ............. {I hate to use that polemic tone, but this city seemingly just can't break through the design barrier} |
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/...pper-large.jpg http://www.bentallcentre.com/ By Uncle Buddha from Flickr: http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2215/1...95d4efb829.jpg http://www.flickr.com/photos/uncle_b...n/photostream/ |
Ironically, the second line on the rendering says:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
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 |
Anything is better than what's there now.
|
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). |
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? |
Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_bottom_line |
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. |
Quote:
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) |
All times are GMT. The time now is 7:44 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.