601 W. Hastings | 108.8m | 25Fl | Completed - Page 2

trofirhen · #21 Posted **Jun 7, 2014, 12:17 AM**

Looking again more slowly and more carefully, I have to agree with some posts saying that the building is nice, but not high enough, contributing to the now-infamous "tabletop."
I feel a certain "Toronto" element in this building, and I have to admit liking it. Would anyone agree that, if built 600+ ft tall, on much the same scale, that this would fit somewhere in TO?
(Not meant as negative criticism)

officedweller · #22 Posted **Jun 7, 2014, 5:12 AM**

Yes it does:

http://urbantoronto.ca/database/projects/156-front-west

http://urbantoronto.ca/database/projects/union-centre

trofirhen · #23 Posted **Jun 7, 2014, 10:35 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by officedweller

Yes it does:

http://urbantoronto.ca/database/projects/156-front-west

http://urbantoronto.ca/database/projects/union-centre

Thank you for that, OD.

Hmm. It may be just the thing to mark West Hastings at that critical juncture.
I wonder where it is along the planning stage.

Klazu · #24 Posted **Jun 8, 2014, 2:49 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by trofirhen

I feel a certain "Toronto" element in this building, and I have to admit liking it. Would anyone agree that, if built 600+ ft tall, on much the same scale, that this would fit somewhere in TO?

I was this week in Toronto and it was my first time there since 2009. My, has that city changed in five years! I absolutely love the scale and height they are building in, as do I love the variation in heigth they have. Their towers are not only taller, but so much more massive than ours. They certainly do look impressive both from the street level as well as from the top of the CN Tower (which is always a treat, as was the new aquarium). There is certainly some New York vibe in the Downtown core during the office hours.

But what they have gained in height, they lack badly in architecture. I found almost all the new glass towers hugely boring architecture wise and many looked just downright cheap. Both Aura and L Tower were huge disappointments and are poorly executed. Our Trump Tower looks much better than either of those two (and don't let me get started on their Trump Tower). Actually only Toronto's Shangri-La was really impressive to me and other new towers were only impressive because of their height. Apperance wise I think Vancouver is ahead of Toronto with many nice (and interesting!) projects.

But I do give Toronto accolade for having a massive metropolitan skyline underway and it looks more impressive as a metro area than Chicago, through which I once again connected to my next destination. Chicago is only a superb looking Downtown, whereas Toronto has towers literally everywhere.

I would certainly love to have some "Toronto height" also in few places in Vancouver (for example with this project), but I am much happier with Vancouver's overall implementation of towers. In Vancouver the tower surroundings are always nicely done and very approachable, whereas in Toronto all these massive office and condo towers are really uninviting and have dead zones around them. South Core seemed as dead as five years ago despite having thousands of new condos there. It is the Coal Harbour of Toronto, but with less attractive streetscape.

Sorry for all the Toronto comments, but my trip is still so fresh on my mind.

Laniatus · #25 Posted **Jun 8, 2014, 3:15 AM**

I cant quite tell how tall this will be compared to the Harbour Centre. I wonder if it will block any West views from Lookout/Top of Vancouver.

trofirhen · #26 Posted **Jun 8, 2014, 7:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laniatus

I cant quite tell how tall this will be compared to the Harbour Centre. I wonder if it will block any West views from Lookout/Top of Vancouver.

The revolving part of the Harbour Centre is OK, imo, but I wish they'd build a completely new Harbour Centre. The current version looks like
some Soviet-style monstrosity, complete with dirty concrete, square window panes, in a "vertical prison-style" hideously grim, utilitarian building.
I could imagine, a sleeker, somewhat taller building there, with a revolving top, but just get rid of that PostWar piece of scheiss.
Just a wish, a dream never to happen, I know ......

BodomReaper · #27 Posted **Jun 8, 2014, 11:12 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by trofirhen

The revolving part of the Harbour Centre is OK, imo, but I wish they'd build a completely new Harbour Centre. The current version looks like
some Soviet-style monstrosity, complete with dirty concrete, square window panes, in a "vertical prison-style" hideously grim, utilitarian building.
I could imagine, a sleeker, somewhat taller building there, with a revolving top, but just get rid of that PostWar piece of scheiss.
Just a wish, a dream never to happen, I know ......

Have to agree with you there - though I don't mind the look of the tower itself, the Seymour and Cordova frontages of Harbour Centre are seemingly designed to kill street life with blank concrete walls and claustrophobia-inducingly low concrete overhangs. Even the Hastings frontage is wasted by an empty, pointless atrium.

If reality matches the renderings, the combination of the existing Grant Thornton Place + 601 W. Hastings will create quite a distinguished streetscape for that block of Seymour. It's a shame that even post-reno Harbour Centre will have the opposite effect.

agoraflaneur · #28 Posted **Jun 13, 2014, 12:45 PM**

Klazu,
I am a Vancouverite who was living in Toronto. I agree with a lot of what you say, but have some comments. In terms of the way towers meet the street in Toronto vs Vancouver, there are both positives and negatives to each approach. I find TO more urban, and the fact that it seems dead has more to do with the people and the climate than the urban planning. On the other hand, Vancouver developments are beautiful, but all have (for me) a kind of resort town, Vegas feel. TO is much more Chicago or NYC. Again, it is more that there isn't enough street life yet in TO - and not enough trees on the downtown streets - not really the architecture per se.

As for Aura, yeah it isn't that nice. VanCity's Trump will trump TO's no doubt (it is pretty disappointing). But you really don't like L-Tower? It isn't even finished yet.

In terms of SouthCore, I don't think you should judge yet. Only 2 office towers and 2 residential towers are finished. The Delta hotel and the office tower next to it will be starting up in the next few months, while the 69 and 59 storey residential towers (ICE - awesome buildings IMHO), will be completing and occupying this year. Add two 72 storey towers and a 30 storey tower (Harbour Place) across the street and another 64 story one across the street from that and you will see South Core finally getting (almost)built out.

jlousa · #29 Posted **Jul 16, 2014, 6:35 PM**

This project will be referred to public hearing next week, should reappear before council probably after the summer break.

http://former.vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/...cuments/p7.pdf

phesto · #30 Posted **Jul 30, 2015, 3:36 PM**

This project just popped up on the City's Development Permit page; just shows the elevations dated a couple of weeks ago. http://former.vancouver.ca/devapps/6...ings/index.htm

I wonder if they are going ahead with this project now?

mcminsen · #31 Posted **Jul 30, 2015, 5:58 PM**

Thanks for the heads up. Here's Google street view for anyone that wants to look around the site:

https://www.google.ca/maps/@49.28469...Em7pKyX1iA!2e0

Prometheus · #32 Posted **Jul 30, 2015, 6:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by phesto

This project just popped up on the City's Development Permit page; just shows the elevations dated a couple of weeks ago. http://former.vancouver.ca/devapps/6...ings/index.htm

I wonder if they are going ahead with this project now?

I do remember someone on the forum saying some time ago (in another thread) that he or she heard some information (or rumour) that the developer was leaning towards proceeding on spec instead of waiting for the next cycle.

LeftCoaster · #33 Posted **Jul 30, 2015, 6:28 PM**

That was probably me, and that is still the rumour.

Prometheus · #34 Posted **Aug 29, 2015, 6:46 AM**

New renderings:

Source: http://www.bharchitects.com/en/projects/426#4

excel · #35 Posted **Aug 29, 2015, 7:41 AM**

Klazu · #36 Posted **Aug 29, 2015, 3:51 PM**

Wow! Sleek and sweet!

officedweller · #37 Posted **Aug 31, 2015, 8:29 PM**

Nice!

Now they just need to tear down the PriceWaterhouse Building
and replace it with another tower with a tall lobby area to create a sightline to the CP Station
(maybe that's the eventual plan?)

s211 · #38 Posted **Aug 31, 2015, 9:11 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by officedweller

Nice!

Now they just need to tear down the PriceWaterhouse Building
and replace it with another tower with a tall lobby area to create a sightline to the CP Station
(maybe that's the eventual plan?)

The proforma for such a scheme would involve assumptions that can only be defined, shall we say, as being in the realm of unicorns.

jsbertram · #39 Posted **Aug 31, 2015, 9:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by officedweller

Nice!

Now they just need to tear down the PriceWaterhouse Building
and replace it with another tower with a tall lobby area to create a sightline to the CP Station
(maybe that's the eventual plan?)

And while we're at it, lets have Harbour Centre trim a wedge from their N.W. corner to reveal even more of the CPR station too.

mcminsen · #40 Posted **Aug 31, 2015, 10:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prometheus

New renderings:

Source: http://www.bharchitects.com/en/projects/426#4

What I notice is the slight cutting off of the corners that coincide exactly with the height of the neighbouring buildings (Princess and PriceWaterhouse). The floorplates of the new tower don't go right out to the corners until they are above the other towers. A nice touch I think, in deference to the neighbours. But if this new tower has been specifically designed to fit in like that then it implies that they expect the PriceWaterhouse building to be there for a long time.