Vancouver House (1400 Howe St) | 151.5m | 52Fl | Completed

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

Hope it doesn't come down too much, I'd really like this one to be as prominent as possible.

Given certain statements by the architect/developer, I got the feeling that the height could possibly increase.

[sacrifice333]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Given certain statements by the architect/developer, I got the feeling that the height could possibly increase.

OOOOooo... that could be interesting if the top of the building was more a reciprocal of the base, creating a terraced peak!

[officedweller]

Hopefully it'll step back a bit towards the core - reducing the "top-heavy" look.
They'll have to be careful that the profile doesn't create a "busty" profile - or then again, we'd have our own "Marilyn" tower....

[Canadian Mind]

Originally Posted by sacrifice333

OOOOooo... that could be interesting if the top of the building was more a reciprocal of the base, creating a terraced peak!

Would be cool. I always thought that style would work if the building could be built taller. It's shape being reminiscent of a whales fin or a sail

[wrenegade]

The revised Rezoning Application has been posted on the city's website. There are a dozen+ PDFs so I'll just post the link.

REVISED Rezoning Application - 1412-1460 Howe Street, 1410 and 1429 Granville Street, and 710 Pacific Street

[jlousa]

Not much has changed, 51 floors now and slight bump in floor space.

[osirisboy]

Ok again am I missing something? Out of all that detailed information there was nothing about what colour/type of materials used to actually clad the exterior of the building. The closest thing I found was how energy efficient the windows will be with the double glazing

[Canadian Mind]

Christ, they couldn't have given the thing another 3 feet for an even 500?

[officedweller]

Thanks.

The parking ramps under the tower look like a race track!

Under Rezoning Rationale "Built Form, Massing and Character" - it noted supported materials were contemporary metal cladding, heavy timber structural elements, glass and steel, brick and architectural concrete.
It then says "We propose using all of these except for brick and heavy timber."
(i.e. the heritage type materials are excluded and the "usual" materials appear.)

The "Sustainability, Archtectural Performance" page renders show a different cross-hatching between the floorslab and the solid facade sections - does that mean those walls are not concrete? - the notes suggest recycled components in the building materials but don't say where.
Also, does it look like those framed balconies are going to be made of steel (cantilevered from the facade) - the cross sections seem to suggest steel supports embedded into the floorslab.

I also see an issue with their airflow diagrams. They show airflow along the balcony floor, into the window, up the inside of the window and out the top window. The problem is that they don't account for the balcony railing. If that railing is solid (glass enclosure) - it will block all the wind and no wind will ever enter that bottom window. A friend of mine lived at London Place (on Howe) where the wrap-around balcony (brick wall) was taller than the flip-out windows, and he said it was insanely hot during the summer because they was no air circulation, even with the windows open (they had to keep the sliding glass door open, which raised security issues with the continuous balcony).

[Klazu]

I have hard times deciding if I like this project or not. I guess my problem is that the top part looks so massive and 'heavy' from some angles. Despite being bold and interesting when viewed from the north, from south and Granville Bridge it looks rather boring (and again, massive).

There definitely needs to be something that tall on this site, but I would have prefered something slightly "slimmer". Or then the building should also include some 'twist' on the south side for being more like a sculpture. I realize that the site doesn't make it easy, but they could have rotated the building some 20-30 degrees to make it more visually appealing from additional directions. Why all Vancouver towers need to stand in almost precise 'lines', aligned same way to the street network?

By the ways, has there ever been any public plans for that site opposite to this building? If well planned, these towers could be a great gateway to the city. Maybe build the same building also on that site, but just make it twist from the top?

[osirisboy]

Originally Posted by Klazu

I have hard times deciding if I like this project or not. I guess my problem is that the top part looks so massive and 'heavy' from some angles. Despite being bold and interesting when viewed from the north, from south and Granville Bridge it looks rather boring (and again, massive).

There definitely needs to be something that tall on this site, but I would have prefered something slightly "slimmer". Or then the building should also include some 'twist' on the south side for being more like a sculpture. I realize that the site doesn't make it easy, but they could have rotated the building some 20-30 degrees to make it more visually appealing from additional directions. Why all Vancouver towers need to stand in almost precise 'lines', aligned same way to the street network?

ahhhh no I would hate it to be slimmer, im so sick of these dinky slim towers. I know thats what vancouver likes to do but im personally tired of slim point towers. I like it being heavy looking!!

[Hed Kandi]

Originally Posted by Canadian Mind

Christ, they couldn't have given the thing another 3 feet for an even 500?

We're lucky that we're getting what we are.

The site was zoned for 425' (+10% mechanical) as part of the higher buildings policy.

[huenthar]

Well I still think that the shards between the bridge approaches should be 1-2 stories higher. And the top of the main building should have something done to make it look less... rectangular... maybe stepping back from the S + E sides for a few floors (sort of continuing the bottom curve around the building at the top) and work up to a blunt point on the NW corner. Of course, still better than the average as-is. My favorite is still the under-bridge public plaza - +1 to the climbing wall/outdoor theatre!

Would also be nice if they could acquire the property on the SW corner to complete the site assembly...

[dleung]

i don't mind fat buildings, and especially like the fact that this one is top-heavy. Only fear is that it'll throw off the scale of the existing skyline and make it look small. The other problem, if you look at the floorplans, is that fat point towers have terrible unit layouts, with tons of wasted hallway space. Units in slabby towers often get more daylight than these.

[Delirium]

i find this squat medical centre looking building to be totally out of place. it doesn't even look like it's part of the same complex.
a small park with water feature or something would have been nice so you could appreciate the whole building from top to bottom and make the site less cramped.

[ainvan]

Stunning! Vancouver is catching up fast with TO.

[officedweller]

Have these model pics been posted:

http://bbscalemodels.com/2012/06/beach-howe/


http://bbscalemodels.com/2012/06/beach-howe/


http://bbscalemodels.com/2012/06/beach-howe/

http://bbscalemodels.com/2012/06/beach-howe/


http://bbscalemodels.com/2012/06/beach-howe/

[vansky]

this city is getting better every year with all th enew projects, what we want really, is to see new development every day...

[dleung]

This city is too obsessed with podiums... this tower design really doesn't want one.

[Klazu]

The podiums are fine and it's a good thing Vancouver encourages those. I am surprised how small Maddox looks in comparison to this building!