Three Harbour Green | 116m | 32fl | Completed

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Yes, it would have been nice. Therefore, the height is not fine. It's too short. This building, like almost every other building in Vancouver, has had its development prematurely arrested 5-10 floors short of its most natural height, not by the laws of economics or the laws of physics, but by the coercive interference of paternalistic politicians and city bureaucrats.

Having to choose between an oversized supertall and a building that is 5-10 stories too short is a false dichotomy. The obvious alternative is to add 5-10 stories, creating a building that is neither too tall nor too short, but just right. The proper approach is to stop imposing arbitrary growth-stunting restrictions and simply allow buildings the freedom to achieve their most natural and beautiful architectural expression, both in form and in function.

Right on Prometheus!! The only stumbling block ... try telling the "EXPERTS" at city council that.

[jlousa]

Pretty sure the "Experts" at cityhall know what they are doing a little bit more then a bunch anonymous forumers on a skyscraper board, considering that most of them don't even work in applicable fields. But heck I might be wrong.

Let me know when Dubai/Las Vegas/pick any city with really tall buildings wins most liveable city in the world. Until then I'll take Urbanism everyday.


I know it's not visible given the angles of the recent photos but HG3 is considerable taller then HG2 which is itself taller then HG1. They are meant to step up as they approach Shaw Tower to the east.

[wrenegade]

I think that HG3 is the perfect height. As Jlousa said, the whole Harbour Green development steps up in height towards Shaw Tower. It also sits directly on Harbour Green park. I spent a fair amount of time in the park last summer and it was a nice place to go as it got sun pretty much all day long after 10am. If the buildings right up against the park were any higher much of this sunlight wouldn't reach the park until after 11am and then likely until 1pm if the Carina and Callisto towers were taller than they are.

I'm all for tall buildings, but they can't and shouldn't be everywhere. Coal Harbour is already fairly dark as it is, it is entirely north facing and much of the sunlight is already blocked by the tall buildings in downtown. I'd much rather see select tall towers throughout the downtown as opposed to a wall of huge towers. It almost seems as if some people got their way we would just have a tabletop skyline in Vancouver again, just 200 feet taller.

[dleung]

HG3 is only 7 metres taller than HG2, but 33 metres shorter than Shaw. This tower and its architecture could have easily justified at least 3 more floors... which would also help make it look more slender.

[officedweller]

I would rather have seen Delta Land's projects (Callisto and Carina) continue eastwards (as was once envisaged) - but they lost out on buying the parcels.
Mind you, the towers would have been much more similar in appearance - perhaps with a lack of variety compared to what's there now.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by jlousa

Pretty sure the "Experts" at cityhall know what they are doing a little bit more then a bunch anonymous forumers on a skyscraper board.

You don't get tired of repeating the fallacy of Argument from Authority do you? Your argument has been in effect: "The philosopher kings at City Hall are 'experts' and you are just an 'anonymous forumer,' therefore every building built in Vancouver is the perfect height and your eyes and reason must be deceiving you if you conclude otherwise. Case closed."

Your reasoning is as laughable as it is fallacious.

Besides, the height restrictions concocted by the geniuses at City Hall do not stifle the designs of anonymous forumers (because we do not design buildings), but the designs of professional architects. I suppose you don't think they know what the optimum height of their buildings should be either.

Originally Posted by jlousa

Let me know when Dubai/Las Vegas/pick any city with really tall buildings wins most liveable city in the world. Until then I'll take Urbanism everyday.

If you weren't so knee-jerk in your defence of creativity-stifling, growth-hampering, prohibitive policies, you would have seen that no one was calling for "really tall" buildings, but rather buildings that are built to their natural and proper height, i.e., buildings that are architecturally faithful to the essence of their designs and to their surrounding environments, and not arbitrarily cut-off by a few floors because they happen to conflict with some height restriction imposed by a politician or bureaucrat.

[dubsH]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

i.e., buildings that are architecturally faithful to the essence of their design and to their surrounding environment, and not arbitrarily cut-off by a few floors because they happen to conflict with some viewcone invented by a politician or bureaucrat.

Oh neat, I didn't know that the viewcones forced the reduction of this building by several metres. Did it also affect 2HG and 1HG?

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by dubsH

Oh neat, I didn't know that the viewcones forced the reduction of this building by several metres.

I believe Three Harbour Green is first constrained by non-viewcone policy height restrictions before it reaches a viewcone. In Vancouver, builders are up against multiple layers of height prohibitions, not just one.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

You don't get tired of repeating the fallacy of Argument from Authority do you? Your argument has been in effect: "The philosopher kings at City Hall are 'experts' and you are just an 'anonymous forumer,' therefore every building built in Vancouver is the perfect height and your eyes and reason must be deceiving you if you conclude otherwise. Case closed."

Your reasoning is as laughable as it is fallacious.

Besides, the height restrictions concocted by the geniuses at City Hall do not stifle the designs of anonymous forumers (because we do not design buildings), but the designs of professional architects.

If you weren't so knee-jerk in your defence of creativity-stifling, growth-hampering, prohibitive policies, you would have seen that no one was calling for "really tall" buildings, but rather buildings that are built to their natural and proper height, i.e., buildings that are architecturally faithful to the essence of their designs and to their surrounding environments, and not arbitrarily cut-off by a few floors because they happen to conflict with some height restriction imposed by a politician or bureaucrat.

Thanks Prometheus, once again. You have the guts to stand up to certain "authority figures" who feel that their opinion supercedes the validity of anyone else's simply because they are who they are and the position they occupy. Say no more.

[jlousa]

Nobody said that every building is the perfect height, maybe you should reread what was said. What was said is that I trust the "experts" at cityhall over the so-called "experts" here.
Are you more qualified to state that HG1-HG3 are not at their natural and proper height then the people that designed and approved the building?
As has already been mentioned, there is a park directly to the north of the buildings, the shadow analysis modeling that is required would have played a factor. It's was certainly some attributively decided number.
That's not saying the "experts" don't make mistakes, they certainly do. The height of these towers is not one of them though.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by jlousa

Are you more qualified to state that HG1-HG3 are not at their natural and proper height then the people that designed and approved the building?

Any person with a brain, two eyes, and the willingness to think for him or herself is more qualified to judge the aesthetics of a building than a committee of politicians and bureaucrats at City Hall.

Indeed, the height of most downtown skyscrapers is not determined by any aesthetic consideration of the building itself or its relation to its neighbourhood at all, but by whether it blocks a portion of a "protected" view of the mountains from the corner of Cambie and 12th Avenue or some other arbitrary location set by City Council decades ago.

Originally Posted by jlousa

That's not saying the "experts" don't make mistakes, they certainly do. The height of these towers is not one of them though.

But since you concede that the judgment of the "experts" is superior to your own, then on what epistemological grounds are you able to determine when the experts make mistakes and that they haven't made one now?

[phesto]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Any person with a brain, two eyes, and the willingness to think for him or herself is more qualified to judge the aesthetics of a building than the committee of politicians and bureaucrats at City Hall.

Indeed, the height of most downtown skyscrapers is not determined by any aesthetic consideration of the building itself or its relation to its neighbourhood at all, but by whether it blocks a portion of a "protected" view of the mountains from the corner of Cambie and 12th Avenue or some other arbitrary location set by City Council decades ago.



But since you have surrendered your independent judgment to the experts, then on what epistemological grounds are you able to determine when the experts make mistakes and that they haven't made one now?

I presume you can't be bothered to actually look into the specific zoning policy/ background before your resort to the common denominator SSP Vancouver comment to condemn the view cones; but for your reference, the Harbour Green towers were not designed with any consideration for the view corridors....rather, the heights and massing were chosen to minimize shadowing on the park and seawall (as has already been mentioned).

In other words, there weren't really any finite height restrictions imposed, it was more of process. During the mid 90's when the policy was developed (and finalized in 2002), the Planners had a 'blank slate' and decided that taking all urban design/massing factors into consideration, approx. 355 ft was an appropriate height for 3HG, with the towers stepping down in height to the West.

I'm all for taller buildings (as most here are), but I am also fully supportive of the City's policy of conducting shadow analyses to determine impact on adjacent parks. There is an important distinction between the potential impact of shadowing versus something arbitrary like the view cone policy.

In the future, I suggest you do some minor research prior to simply decrying the view cones and lambasting the City every time a building isn't as tall as you'd like it to be...

[flight_from_kamakura]

hah. that said, i suggest the frothy-mouthed forumers turn their ill-informed attention to the virtual absence of commercial space along the seawall, and raise hackles there. seems to me that the thing killing that area the most isn't lack of residential capacity, but rather lack of commercial draw.

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Any person with a brain, two eyes, and the willingness to think for him or herself is more qualified to judge the aesthetics of a building than the committee of politicians and bureaucrats at City Hall.

Indeed, the height of most downtown skyscrapers is not determined by any aesthetic consideration of the building itself or its relation to its neighbourhood at all, but by whether it blocks a portion of a "protected" view of the mountains from the corner of Cambie and 12th Avenue or some other arbitrary location set by City Council decades ago.



But since you have surrendered your independent judgment to the experts, then on what epistemological grounds are you able to determine when the experts make mistakes and that they haven't made one now?

So angry... it's like someone gave Charlie Sheen a thesaurus.

Do you happen to have any opinoins on Chuck Lavine?

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by phesto

I presume you can't be bothered to actually look into the specific zoning policy/ background before your resort to the common denominator SSP Vancouver comment to condemn the view cones; but for your reference, the Harbour Green towers were not designed with any consideration for the view corridors....rather, the heights and massing were chosen to minimize shadowing on the park and seawall (as has already been mentioned).

In the future, I suggest you do some minor research prior to simply decrying the view cones and lambasting the City every time a building isn't as tall as you'd like it to be...

I presume you can't be bothered to actually read four posts back. Allow me to quote myself from Post #208:

Originally Posted by Prometheus

I believe Three Harbour Green is first constrained by non-viewcone policy height restrictions before it reaches a viewcone. In Vancouver, builders are up against multiple layers of height prohibitions, not just one.

In the future, I suggest you do some minor research (i.e., read at least a few posts back) prior to making a knee-jerk reation to anyone who challenges your favoured growth-inhibiting, prohibitive policies.

As I have made clear, I oppose any kind of arbitrary height restrictions or aesthetic values coercively imposed on creators by politicians and bureaucrats. Viewcones are just one example. Your shadow-based height restrictions are another.

All buildings cast shadows. At 116 metres, Three Harbour Green will cast a big shadow. If shadows are so inimical to quality of life, then why does the city not limit the building to 100 metres, or 90 metres, or 80 metres, or 50 metres? Why 116 metres? Why not 118 metres? What is the formula for objectively determining how long of a shadow is too long? And at what time of day? Does this formula apply to the summer or the winter, or both, despite the fact that the sun travels a different path depending on the season?

The answers to these questions are no less arbitrary than the answer to the question of how much of the view of the North Shore Mountains from Cambie and 12th Avenue is it okay to obscure.

[geoff's two cents]

Don't feed the troll, people. Here I am, clicking on the thread title hoping for updates or pictures, and I hit a wave of 3rd-rate philosophical gobbledegook.

[Canadian Mind]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

I presume you can't be bothered to actually read four posts back. Allow me to quote myself from Post #208:



In the future, I suggest you do some minor research (i.e., read at least a few posts back) prior to making a knee-jerk reation to anyone who challenges your favoured growth-inhibiting, prohibitive policies.

As I have made clear, I oppose any kind of arbitrary height restrictions or aesthetic values coercively imposed on creators by politicians and bureaucrats. Viewcones are just one example. Your shadow-based height restrictions are another.

All buildings cast shadows. At 116 metres, Three Harbour Green will cast a big shadow. If shadows are so inimical to quality of life, then why does the city not limit the building to 100 metres, or 90 metres, or 80 metres, or 50 metres? Why 116 metres? Why not 118 metres? What is the formula for objectively determining how long of a shadow is too long? And at what time of day? Does this formula apply to the summer or the winter, or both, despite the fact that the sun travels a different path depending on the season?

The answers to these questions are no less arbitrary than the answer to the question of how much of the view of the North Shore Mountains from Cambie and 12th Avenue is it okay to obscure.

Quite obviously the park, as people have previously stated.

Now, stop being willfully ignorant of city policies, and why the building is at the height it is at.

[wrenegade]

An arbitrary view cone based on a single point on fairview slopes or QE Park is a lot different than a building shadow on an adjacent park. I could care less about shadows on Georgia or Burrard or Pender or some other major downtown street in the CBD, but shadows on parks, especially Waterfront parks are a different kettle of fish.

[officedweller]

Southern exposure versus northern exposure -
That's one of the reasons why at Harbour Green Park it always feels that you're under building shadows - while on the Concord lands, despite there being tall towers just as close, they don't overshadow the parks.

[wrenegade]

Exactly. Which is why the buildings directly on the park are perfectly fine at their height.