Is architecture going downhill in Vancouver?

[dleung]

I think it is. Sure, there's exceptions like the BIG/Ole Scheeren/Kengo Kuma projects, but that's bound to happen with the obscene amount of cash flowing into the city. It's the average projects that seem to be getting very ugly lately. Walls of spandrel that would've never been approved 10 years ago. Lack of leadership? I can just imagine the mindless echo chamber at the UDP repeating "energy performance = this crap, there is NO other way"

The tower-podium model 10 years ago:


Tower-podiums today:

by Byron

Both podiums are 5 stories, same potential density. One recognizes that the first 6 floors of any big building is the most important. The other doesn't.

Seafoam green spandrel from 20 years ago looks beautiful compared to the crap today

[Pinion]

Your "today" photo is not loading, and I would say standards have been low for 60+ years for all housing in this city. Never been to a city with worse architecture, besides the horrible inland strip mall towns like Tri-Cities, Washington.

[Metro-One]

I would say it is just becoming more polarized. The good projects are better than ever, and the lower end projects are generally worse than before.

I have been to cities with far worse average architecture though, essentially every city I have been to in Japan and Korea. Also many North American cities come to mind as well. Many newer Scandinavian towns have some pretty bad architecture too.

I would say Vancouver in general ranks near average in my experiences overall, maybe slightly above.

[red-paladin]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

I would say it is just becoming more polarized. The good projects are better than ever, and the lower end projects are generally worse than before.

I have been to cities with far worse average architecture though, essentially every city I have been to in Japan and Korea. Also many North American cities come to mind as well. Many newer Scandinavian towns have some pretty bad architecture too.

I would say Vancouver in general ranks near average in my experiences overall, maybe slightly above.

I think things are improving, but essentially I agree with Metro-One.
I am not a real world traveller, but we've got better average architecture than just about anywhere I've been to on North America, Asia or Europe.

[Shift]

Originally Posted by red-paladin

I think things are improving, but essentially I agree with Metro-One.
I am not a real world traveller, but we've got better average architecture than just about anywhere I've been to on North America, Asia or Europe.

Agree with this. Quality of the built environment here is very high compared to anywhere else i've been.

[retro_orange]

Yeah Toronto suburbs are exponentially more ugly and depressing. The fake traditional brick houses that you see out there are quite shoddily built.

The vast majority of tract housing built in the Toronto area are built by 2 or 3 developers and they know how to play the game, neglecting repairs until warranties expire etc.

Mattamy and Ballantry homes are 2 big ones.

[red-paladin]

Originally Posted by retro_orange

Yeah Toronto suburbs are exponentially more ugly and depressing. The fake traditional brick houses that you see out there are quite shoddily built.

The vast majority of tract housing built in the Toronto area are built by 2 or 3 developers and they know how to play the game, neglecting repairs until warranties expire etc.

Mattamy and Ballantry homes are 2 big ones.

I always wished that Mike Holmes had a show where for the 1st half hour he fixes the house and for the 2nd half hour he hunts down the builder and goes Duke Nukem on them.


I think this is yet another example of a thread where the 'home town hater' attitude clashes with the 'small town booster' attitude and the truth is somewhere in the middle.

[GeneralLeeTPHLS]

Originally Posted by retro_orange

Yeah Toronto suburbs are exponentially more ugly and depressing. The fake traditional brick houses that you see out there are quite shoddily built.

The vast majority of tract housing built in the Toronto area are built by 2 or 3 developers and they know how to play the game, neglecting repairs until warranties expire etc.

Mattamy and Ballantry homes are 2 big ones.

At first I thought you were talking about actual Toronto SFH...then I realized you meant places like Brampton, Mississauga, Oakville, Pickering and I can agree. The SFH housing in areas like Brampton and Mississauga, Oakville and some other places can be extremely grotesque IMO. (For Mississauga it's only really the new housing that is really shoddy, all in the west and north areas of the city). It has this off-beat brick look, at times being pink or light red....and never really a traditional brick colour. The roadways around there are killer for pedestrians, and the houses are just awkwardly huge.The retail plazas are just as crappy....parking lots and meagre retail options.

NOW, talking of downtowns in the suburbs....it can be grotesque..., for example some Mississauga projects are abysmal.....and others are just built in a crappy context, like this spandrel and mediocre base of four towers, which reminds me of Vantown's more meh projects: https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.58782...2!8i6656?hl=en

[ue]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

I would say it is just becoming more polarized. The good projects are better than ever, and the lower end projects are generally worse than before.

I have been to cities with far worse average architecture though, essentially every city I have been to in Japan and Korea. Also many North American cities come to mind as well. Many newer Scandinavian towns have some pretty bad architecture too.

I would say Vancouver in general ranks near average in my experiences overall, maybe slightly above.

I agree, though I think my biggest problem with Vancouver's contemporary architecture is that it's all similar shades on similarly shaped buildings, with a few exceptions. The Woodwards project from a little while back is one of my favourite newer projects from Vancouver because it stands out in the skyline. It isn't another shade of green or blue. This isn't an issue merely for Vancouver, though, but most Canadian cities. We need to look to Europe, Australia, and China for some more innovative architecture.

[Spork]

I think that the issue is two-fold. First, given how substantially demand outstrips supply in this city, developers have no incentive to build more useful or more attractive buildings. Look at some of the layouts for condos in this city in the past two years as a great example - in what sane mid-sized market such as our own would a windowless bedroom, or 550 square foot one bedroom + den pass as being acceptable. If people are willing to buy it, it is acceptable, and when demand far exceeds supply, people will be willing to buy it.

Second, I don't think that there is much design sense in Vancouver. Even if demand and supply were more in balance and developers actually had to compete for buyers, I don't think that buildings would be much more attractive or much more innovative in their use of space.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Spork

I think that the issue is two-fold. First, given how substantially demand outstrips supply in this city, developers have no incentive to build more useful or more attractive buildings. Look at some of the layouts for condos in this city in the past two years as a great example - in what sane mid-sized market such as our own would a windowless bedroom, or 550 square foot one bedroom + den pass as being acceptable. If people are willing to buy it, it is acceptable, and when demand far exceeds supply, people will be willing to buy it.

Second, I don't think that there is much design sense in Vancouver. Even if demand and supply were more in balance and developers actually had to compete for buyers, I don't think that buildings would be much more attractive or much more innovative in their use of space.

WRT to demand, since so much of it is going to investors who see it as a place merely to sock away money, design becomes secondary in your average condo building. If its going to appreciate 20% a year thanks to an offshore-fuelled bubble, why spend money on design?

[Migrant_Coconut]

The City could stop using James Cheng as a role model - that might help.

[Marshal]

Here's a problem. Do you all know that the Architect's Act prevents registered architects from criticizing the work of other registered architects? There is no critical structure for our architecture, and without such pressure, progressive architectural excellence and quality is stunted. We have a more vocal voice on urbanism than on architecture.

As for the thread's question, I see a lot of static, which means little improvement or deterioration.

[christmas]

Nah, every city has their share of crap*y buildings as well as some premium ones.
If you take a peek at Urban Toronto or one of the NYC forums, you'll see that 70% of the developments can be considered an eyesore even by Vancouver standards.
We're doing quite well in terms of architecture imo.
Not many cities in the world, the size of Vancouver can produce landmarks such as
Vancouver House, One Burrard, Kengo Kuma, the new library etc.
Even the developments in our suburbs are above average than almost every Asian city (including Japan, South Korea, Singapore etc) as well as most North American ones.

What is more a problem imo is the increasing amount of litter, low quality concrete roads, and the friggen utility poles.

[EdinVan]

Originally Posted by christmas

Vancouver House, One Burrard, Kengo Kuma, the new library etc.

Not sure I'd consider One Burrard a landmark...

Anyway, to answer the main question, yes, architecture in this city is going downhill.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by christmas

Vancouver House, One Burrard, Kengo Kuma, the new library etc.

I'm with Edin, I wouldn't call One Burrard a "landmark."

But yeah, the rest - plus Bing Thom's First Baptist Church Tower and The Arc - certainly contradict the idea of an architectural Dork Age.

Originally Posted by christmas

What is more a problem imo is the increasing amount of litter, low quality concrete roads, and the friggen utility poles.

Sure, but this is an architecture thread. Go ahead and make an Urban Aesthetic thread if you'd like; Morgan Freeman knows we've all got something to say about that...

[christmas]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

I'm with Edin, I wouldn't call One Burrard a "landmark."

But yeah, the rest - plus Bing Thom's First Baptist Church Tower and The Arc - certainly contradict the idea of an architectural Dork Age.



Sure, but this is an architecture thread. Go ahead and make an Urban Aesthetic thread if you'd like; Morgan Freeman knows we've all got something to say about that...

Three things:

1. I hope you understand what "What is more a problem imo" means and I also hope you notice that the sentence is separated from the paragraph - meaning that it's an additional thought that I would like to offer to the main paragraph (of which is about my thoughts about Vancouver's architecture).
1.5. This leads to my other point: The thread is about architecture, but what the thread is getting at is the worsening aesthetics of the city - of which you most willfully pointed out. Therefore my additional opinion about the city's worsening aesthetics shouldn't bother you and is not much of a digression from the discussion to be pointed out as an attack to my stance.
In addition, the very paragraph just 1 line above from that sentence offers my opinion about Vancouver's architectural state. The fact that you made a big deal about the last sentence is just childish and hypocritical because you did not add much to the conversation yourself, (which is about architectural aesthetics btw) other than digressing about some Morgan Freeman thing. Thus, not a very respectable attack.

2. The gist of my previous comment is that the majority of developments that occur in a city such as Vancouver, will not be geared towards garnering aesthetic attention - for financial reasons. I'm terribly sorry that you feel that One Burrard doesn't strike you as a landmark, but your personal opinion of the building is again, not a very effective attack against my comment based on reason. What it does effectively is to make me think that your comment's sole purpose is to attack my comment somehow to show that you disagree: Again, not very constructive, is it?

[phesto]

I don't think architecture has gone downhill but I can see why some might suggest that it has.

I think the real problem lies with the developers. The real estate market here has been so overheated now for close to a decade and there has become an unhealthy relationship between some developers and how they engage with architects and execute their designs for middle and lower-end product. When developers are able to pre-sell 100% of their projects before building exterior finishes have even been finalized it is an opportunity to exploit the design process for value engineering and there is always pressure on profit margins when pre-sales are locked in.

[GMD]

Yeah, I've wondered the same thing. I compare the new office building in Suter Brook to the one built in Newport Village a decade or so ago, and there is a marked decline in the quality of the build.

Of course there is always a range of good and bad being built so you can always point to examples of good new builds and bad old ones, but I do feel that overall the current level of quality is maybe a step down from what we saw a decade ago.

[dleung]

Just to be clear, I don't deny that Vancouver has a well-above-average benchmark for architecture, just that the lead over other cities has arguably declined since the early 2000's. I'm not counting the stuff at the extreme top or bottom of the market.

There used to be a distinctive west-coast look amidst the monotony, but even that is gone, as newer buildings seem to be taking after the scale of Toronto condos, ham-fisted massing and urban realm included.