WC Central Park | 84m, 85m, 81m, 20m | 29fl, 30fl, 28fl, 6fl | Completed - Page 3

easy as pie · #41 Posted **Jun 8, 2012, 5:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by dleung

This would have been less coma inducing:

agree 100%. also, should have converted that lowrise into some sort of tower or midrise rising progressively for a wave or layer effect with counter-point peak.

invisibleairwaves · #42 Posted **Jun 8, 2012, 9:17 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by dleung

This would have been less coma inducing:

Wall Centre St. James Town?

dleung · #43 Posted **Jun 8, 2012, 9:31 PM**

Obviously my quick photoshop job was about the massing rather than facade articulation. Open your mind. There's world beyond rubberstamped point towers.

vanman · #44 Posted **Jun 8, 2012, 11:14 PM**

^ True enough. But what about airflow and light access?

officedweller · #45 Posted **Jun 8, 2012, 11:32 PM**

That's adding new meaning to "WALL Centre"

dleung · #46 Posted **Jun 9, 2012, 6:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by vanman

^ True enough. But what about airflow and light access?

The fact that the towers have pomo-style punched windows suggests that light isn't the main issue. Plus the only thing that the extra 10 floors are going to add is a higher view, which is overrated. Tall towers next to single family homes look ridiculous.

I prefer this for the suburbs:

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7022/6...652f9858_b.jpg

officedweller · #47 Posted **Jun 11, 2012, 3:17 AM**

He meant light access for the neighbouring houses...i.e. shadow analysis...

LeftCoaster · #48 Posted **Jun 11, 2012, 3:05 PM**

Are you serious? Imagine living in that mess.

No views, no light, it looks like a soviet goulag.

Point towers are popular for a reason...

s211 · #49 Posted **Jun 11, 2012, 4:03 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

Are you serious? Imagine living in that mess.

No views, no light, it looks like a soviet goulag.

Point towers are popular for a reason...

And yet in the Edmonton forum, they've recently defended that very kind of design. They've got no problem with encircled "green" spaces that will get no light and have poorly-designed suites with limited frontage for light penetration...

Spork · #50 Posted **Jun 15, 2012, 4:48 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by dleung

The fact that the towers have pomo-style punched windows suggests that light isn't the main issue. Plus the only thing that the extra 10 floors are going to add is a higher view, which is overrated. Tall towers next to single family homes look ridiculous.

I prefer this for the suburbs:

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7022/6...652f9858_b.jpg

These photos may do it more justice... http://funsterz.com/2012/03/28/amazi...ark-48-photos/

(Apologies for the actual site that it is on- I saw this somewhere else and this was the first link that came up. I honestly don't spend 8 hours a day on this site. At all.)

officedweller · #51 Posted **Jun 15, 2012, 8:19 PM**

Ultimately, that's not much different than Anchor Pointe at Burrard and Pacific.

BodomReaper · #52 Posted **Jul 17, 2012, 6:12 AM**

Site has been cleared with the exception of two houses...

CPE · #53 Posted **Jul 17, 2012, 6:58 AM**

I think the ambulance station is still there.

dleung · #54 Posted **Jul 17, 2012, 7:24 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by officedweller

Ultimately, that's not much different than Anchor Pointe at Burrard and Pacific.

Except Anchor Pointe lacks retail/commercial for the first 1-4 stories, and townhouses on a pedestrian street spiraling up 11 stories in the building - where it belongs, instead of wasting most of the street-frontage on suburban uses.

SpongeG · #55 Posted **Jul 17, 2012, 7:31 AM**

this location doesn't need retail though

easy as pie · #56 Posted **Jul 17, 2012, 8:00 AM**

it definitely needs retail.

Spork · #57 Posted **Jul 31, 2012, 5:44 AM**

Any word on possible developer contributions towards a possible Kings way/boundary skytrain station as per the track geometry nearby?

jlousa · #58 Posted **Jul 31, 2012, 5:58 AM**

No, the station is dead in the water. It's only 800m to Joyce and just over that to Patterson. It would add a minute twice a day to hundreds of thousands of peoples commute for minimum gain. I believe I listed everything the CACs are earmarked for.

SpongeG · #59 Posted **Jul 31, 2012, 7:24 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by easy as pie

it definitely needs retail.

its not a retail street, its lined with condos and kingsway is the main retail street for the area

what would they end up with? 3 nail salons, a money mart, some hairdressers and some sushi places

SFUVancouver · #60 Posted **Jul 31, 2012, 8:25 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpongeG

its not a retail street, its lined with condos and kingsway is the main retail street for the area

what would they end up with? 3 nail salons, a money mart, some hairdressers and some sushi places

Heaven forbid a dozen new businesses open up in the city and employ and perform services for nearby residents.

Is your issue that the businesses might be nail salons, hairdressers, etc.? Would it make a difference if the businesses were artisan bakeries, hipster diners, or book stores?