HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #501  
Old Posted Sep 26, 2016, 4:45 AM
hipster duck's Avatar
hipster duck hipster duck is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Toronto
Posts: 4,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by lio45 View Post
We'll definitely have to agree to disagree (and it's okay, it's just opinions). IMO there's no need to be able to see mountains from the middle of the city. It's certainly useful to have mountains nearby (for hiking, skiing, etc.) but from an urban point of view I'd rather have more density than views, no question.

Now, of course, what's really strange here is that as you point out, Vancouver is an unique case where "more density" doesn't actually always mean more density; it can just mean "more empty condos sold to Chinese money launderers" with no increase in density.

All things considered though, in the real world there probably will always be a link between the number of units and density, if only because new units will help keep the prices in check.
Not to belabour my point, but I don't think that a handful of supertall buildings contributes much to a city's density or urbanity in any meaningful way. I like very tall skyscrapers for the vista they create in the cities where they exist, but the vista created by snow-capped mountains is more impressive than any skyscraper we could ever conjure up. I don't think any expensive city ever solved its affordability problem by allowing 80 storey towers where it had previously only allowed 40 storey towers.

To answer your question about the Empire Landmark: most Vancouverites are unaware the building is being considered for demolition. The building is also very skinny and not that much taller than its surrounding neighbours that it really impacts mountain views.

Of those people that think about the present Empire Landmark, the building is not really considered to be a landmark. I don't know Vancouverites that have strong feelings about the building, either positively or negatively. It's pretty inoffensive as brutalist structures go, but it's also not particularly special. There is a revolving restaurant at the top, but it's mostly a kitschy, overpriced place that is only popular with Chinese foreign exchange students.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #502  
Old Posted Sep 26, 2016, 5:05 AM
Klazu's Avatar
Klazu Klazu is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Above Metro Vancouver clouds
Posts: 10,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by hipster duck View Post
Of those people that think about the present Empire Landmark, the building is not really considered to be a landmark. I don't know Vancouverites that have strong feelings about the building, either positively or negatively. It's pretty inoffensive as brutalist structures go, but it's also not particularly special. There is a revolving restaurant at the top, but it's mostly a kitschy, overpriced place that is only popular with Chinese foreign exchange students.
Not sure if you have read the Vancouver sub-forum but the vast majority of us have been against the demolition.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #503  
Old Posted Sep 26, 2016, 5:24 AM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is offline
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 33,673
Quote:
Originally Posted by hipster duck View Post
I support the view cone in the downtown area, even though I think the city could be a hell of a lot denser than it is now. The mountain views aren't worth sacrificing for density.
I think the views are nice but part of my issue with the view cones is that many of them pretty much just protect the private views of the small number of people who live in some of these spots in Fairview. There's very little public space near the Broadway corridor; it's actually kind of unfortunate, and that combined with Broadway's status as a major arterial road limits how attractive that part of town can be. If there were a major park open to everyone I'd consider the views from it to be much more valuable.

There are also a lot of mountain views to the west and east. And the view of the mountains and downtown from, say, Jericho won't in practice be affected by building heights.

Quote:
Ideally, we should have torn down almost all of the SFH districts south of 16th avenue and replaced them, over time, with something resembling Fairview Slopes in density and design. Contrary to, say, flattening Toronto's now million dollar Bay and Gable neighbourhoods and replacing them with stacked townhomes, Vancouver would not have suffered a loss of architecture or urban vitality. We ended up disposing of those neighbourhoods, anyway, with monster homes.
I agree with this. The debate over 500 vs 800 foot towers on a handful of downtown sites is not going to result in a significant change to the housing supply, but medium-density zoning throughout areas like East Van could.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #504  
Old Posted Sep 26, 2016, 9:18 AM
red-paladin red-paladin is offline
Vancouver Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Burnaby
Posts: 3,626
Quote:
Originally Posted by hipster duck View Post
I support the view cone in the downtown area, even though I think the city could be a hell of a lot denser than it is now.
Isn't the West End the densest neighbourhood in the country?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #505  
Old Posted Sep 26, 2016, 2:18 PM
WhipperSnapper's Avatar
WhipperSnapper WhipperSnapper is offline
I am the law!
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Toronto+
Posts: 21,893
no
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #506  
Old Posted Sep 26, 2016, 2:22 PM
WhipperSnapper's Avatar
WhipperSnapper WhipperSnapper is offline
I am the law!
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Toronto+
Posts: 21,893
Quote:
Originally Posted by hipster duck View Post
Not to belabour my point, but I don't think that a handful of supertall buildings contributes much to a city's density or urbanity in any meaningful way. I like very tall skyscrapers for the vista they create in the cities where they exist, but the vista created by snow-capped mountains is more impressive than any skyscraper we could ever conjure up. I don't think any expensive city ever solved its affordability problem by allowing 80 storey towers where it had previously only allowed 40 storey towers.

To answer your question about the Empire Landmark: most Vancouverites are unaware the building is being considered for demolition. The building is also very skinny and not that much taller than its surrounding neighbours that it really impacts mountain views.

Of those people that think about the present Empire Landmark, the building is not really considered to be a landmark. I don't know Vancouverites that have strong feelings about the building, either positively or negatively. It's pretty inoffensive as brutalist structures go, but it's also not particularly special. There is a revolving restaurant at the top, but it's mostly a kitschy, overpriced place that is only popular with Chinese foreign exchange students.
yep. view corridors and/or shadowing policies define a city more than some really tall anonymous towers.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #507  
Old Posted Sep 26, 2016, 4:55 PM
lio45 lio45 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Quebec
Posts: 41,956
Quote:
Originally Posted by hipster duck View Post
Not to belabour my point, but I don't think that a handful of supertall buildings contributes much to a city's density or urbanity in any meaningful way. I like very tall skyscrapers for the vista they create in the cities where they exist, but the vista created by snow-capped mountains is more impressive than any skyscraper we could ever conjure up.
To me, it seems normal that if you're in the heart of a city that has several million residents, you'll be in a manmade canyon and won't see much but your immediate surroundings.

The Empire State Building is great, but Manhattan would suck if there were sacrosanct view cones of it from street level all over the island. Want to see it, go near it.

And for the record, I disapprove of the demolition of that 1973 hotel, but for both that and the viewcones-from-street-level business, I have zero say in it, Vancouver can do what it wants. I've learned long ago not to worry too much about things that are outside my power to influence.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #508  
Old Posted Sep 26, 2016, 5:17 PM
WhipperSnapper's Avatar
WhipperSnapper WhipperSnapper is offline
I am the law!
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Toronto+
Posts: 21,893
Funny you bring up Manhatttan. Despite what many think, their planning polices are a bigger impediment to intensification that Vancouver with its height limits and view cones.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #509  
Old Posted Sep 26, 2016, 5:26 PM
hipster duck's Avatar
hipster duck hipster duck is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Toronto
Posts: 4,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by Klazu View Post
Not sure if you have read the Vancouver sub-forum but the vast majority of us have been against the demolition.
No, I don't really follow the Vancouver subforum that closely. I'm originally a Torontonian and, kind of like rooting for sports teams, you basically follow urban developments in your hometown more than your adopted city. I actually joined SSP because I prefer to talk about things like Canadian society and politics more than condo projects these days.

Anyway, I can see why Vancouver forumers would be against tearing down the Empire Landmark. Architecture aside, it seems wasteful to tear down a tall building to replace it with something shorter. Will the new building have more sellable/leasable FSR, though? It's hard to do anything with an old hotel with small floorplates and short floors. This demolition kind of reminds me of how they tore down the Singer Building for the barely taller 1 Liberty Plaza in the 60s. Of course, the Singer Building was an architectural gem, and the Empire Landmark is not.

The redeeming feature of the Empire Landmark is its revolving restaurant. I guess that's the only thing I lament about its destruction. Revolving restaurants and the UFO pods that house them are kind of a cool throwback to another era. We will probably never build another one again.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #510  
Old Posted Sep 26, 2016, 6:03 PM
LeftCoaster's Avatar
LeftCoaster LeftCoaster is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Toroncouver
Posts: 12,624
Quote:
Originally Posted by hipster duck View Post
Architecture aside, it seems wasteful to tear down a tall building to replace it with something shorter. Will the new building have more sellable/leasable FSR, though? It's hard to do anything with an old hotel with small floorplates and short floors.
It will almost assuredly be a densification. Though the buildings proposed to replace the tower are shorter, they are only a bit shorter and there are two of them.

1 42 storey building would need to have quite large floorplates to be larger than a 30 and a 28 storey building, which we know the Empire does not.

As for what to do with it, I have to imagine given the prevalence of low ceilings in Vancouver already thanks to the viewcones, it could easily be re-purposed and sold as condos if they were able to re-zone it that way. I personally hope that is what happens.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #511  
Old Posted Sep 26, 2016, 6:05 PM
lio45 lio45 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Quebec
Posts: 41,956
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper View Post
Funny you bring up Manhatttan. Despite what many think, their planning polices are a bigger impediment to intensification that Vancouver with its height limits and view cones.
But that (air rights system, etc.) is mostly meant to protect existing built heritage, which is much more precious in the grand scheme of things than view cones. (IMO at least.)

Say, if some developer wanted to raze Vancouver's 1912 Sun Tower to replace that building by something bland, soul-less and twice as tall, the main reason to oppose that project wouldn't be because the new twice-as-tall commie block would be blocking more view cones than the Sun Tower currently does.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #512  
Old Posted Sep 26, 2016, 6:10 PM
LeftCoaster's Avatar
LeftCoaster LeftCoaster is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Toroncouver
Posts: 12,624
Quote:
Originally Posted by lio45 View Post
We'll definitely have to agree to disagree (and it's okay, it's just opinions). IMO there's no need to be able to see mountains from the middle of the city. It's certainly useful to have mountains nearby (for hiking, skiing, etc.) but from an urban point of view I'd rather have more density than views, no question.
The viewcones are not from the middle of the city, they preserve views of the mountains from the Fairview Slopes neighbourhood, entry points into the city, and the false creek sea wall. They aren't meant to preserve views of the mountains from within downtown, the street grid more or less assures that there will always be end of canyon views of the mountains when looking north or west.

The real issue here is that there are too many viewcones. Preserving a few sacrosanct views is actually not a bad idea in my opinion since the mountains are so intrinsic to Vancouver's cultural identity and tourism is such an important economy there.

The city tomorrow could remove half the viewcones, opening up many more sites for taller buildings, while still maintaining the most important views.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #513  
Old Posted Sep 26, 2016, 6:28 PM
WhipperSnapper's Avatar
WhipperSnapper WhipperSnapper is offline
I am the law!
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Toronto+
Posts: 21,893
Quote:
Originally Posted by lio45 View Post
But that (air rights system, etc.) is mostly meant to protect existing built heritage, which is much more precious in the grand scheme of things than view cones. (IMO at least.)

Say, if some developer wanted to raze Vancouver's 1912 Sun Tower to replace that building by something bland, soul-less and twice as tall, the main reason to oppose that project wouldn't be because the new twice-as-tall commie block would be blocking more view cones than the Sun Tower currently does.
Yep, it's your opinion. The mountains to Vancouver are as much a landmark as the Peace Tower is in Ottawa. I agree there are too many of them. Likewise, Manhattan's heritage policies are out of control.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #514  
Old Posted Mar 29, 2017, 8:10 PM
thomax's Avatar
thomax thomax is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto
Posts: 5,379
Hamilton | Egerton Shaver Home | Built 1856, Demolished 2017


Egerton Shaver Home (c. 1856) Demolished | March 28, 2017 by Joe, on Flickr


Egerton Shaver Home (c. 1856) by Joe, on Flickr


Egerton Shaver Home (c. 1856) by Joe, on Flickr


Hamilton | Bishop Ryan Catholic Secondary School | Built 1959, Demolished 2017


Demolition of Former Bishop Ryan Catholic Secondary School by Joe, on Flickr


Demolition of Former Bishop Ryan Catholic Secondary School by Joe, on Flickr


Demolition of Former Bishop Ryan Catholic Secondary School by Joe, on Flickr


Hamilton | Parkside Secondary School | Built 1960, Demolished 2017


Demolition of Parkside Secondary School by Joe, on Flickr


Demolition of Parkside Secondary School by Joe, on Flickr


Demolition of Parkside Secondary School by Joe, on Flickr
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #515  
Old Posted Jun 9, 2017, 10:43 AM
jthetzel jthetzel is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: St. John's, NL
Posts: 178
The National Trust of Canada just announced the Top 10 Endangered Places for 2017: http://www.nationaltrustcanada.ca/is...angered-places

Included this year is St. John's own Bryn Mawr (Baird Cottage). Last year, the previous owner applied for a demolition permit, but local protests led to City Council designating it a heritage building. A developer, Kevin King's KMK Capital purchased it anyway and is now suing the city (and thus the residents of St. John's) for, reportedly, $7.2 million.

KMK recently succeeded in getting a demolition permit for the 1848 Richmond Hill Cottage, even though that building was protected by municipal heritage designation.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #516  
Old Posted Jun 9, 2017, 3:46 PM
TorontoDrew's Avatar
TorontoDrew TorontoDrew is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 9,765
Why did they tear down that little stone cottage in Hamilton?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #517  
Old Posted Jun 17, 2017, 1:48 AM
Rumors's Avatar
Rumors Rumors is offline
Ciao tutti
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: French Canada.
Posts: 1,125
The old Montreal Children's Hospital. My shots.
,,,
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #518  
Old Posted Jun 20, 2017, 12:50 AM
Rumors's Avatar
Rumors Rumors is offline
Ciao tutti
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: French Canada.
Posts: 1,125
This is across the street from YUL my shot.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #519  
Old Posted Jun 20, 2017, 1:00 PM
MolsonExport's Avatar
MolsonExport MolsonExport is offline
The Vomit Bag.
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Otisburgh
Posts: 44,639
One less Domino's. This is good.

is the Montreal children's hospital coming down or being repurposed?

edit: found an answer here: http://montrealgazette.com/business/...tate-developer and here: http://globalnews.ca/news/3129260/fo...using-project/
__________________
"If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."-President Lyndon B. Johnson Donald Trump is a poor man's idea of a rich man, a weak man's idea of a strong man, and a stupid man's idea of a smart man. Am I an Asseau?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #520  
Old Posted Jun 20, 2017, 1:51 PM
Rico Rommheim's Avatar
Rico Rommheim Rico Rommheim is online now
Look at me!
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: City of Bagels
Posts: 13,567
Terrible shame about the Children's. It's a unique 50's neo-deco type of complex of building, to be replaced by generic developer living boxes.

They couldn't even save the 1930's 11 storey art-deco wing. SAD!
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:38 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.