555 W Cordova | 114.7M | 26Fl | Proposed

[Architype]

The base and entrance of the tower are certainly interesting, but the building from a distance just feels like something I've seen before.

BTW here is another article about this, I didn't see it linked here.

Architecturally unique 26-storey origami Waterfront Station office tower deemed “too tall”

http://www.vancitybuzz.com/2015/01/w...-west-cordova/

[EastVanMark]

Although not a bad design for the building, the city has squandered yet another opportunity to finally have an iconic tower on this important site. But hey you have to admire the consistency. Our skyline is very Halifax like. Very impressive. Way to shoot for those stars Vancouver

What happened to the Cordova connector? Or did that good idea get neutered or killed off too?

This site is adjacent to billions (plural with a B) of dollars worth of public transit investment. This is an area where height and density should be encouraged, not restrained by a nimby, short cited city. For shame

[Pinion]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Given its lack of height, it is the only way most people will see the tower.

That's being a little dramatic, it's on the edge of the inlet. It'll be a major part of the skyline from one of the most photographed angles.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

What happened to the Cordova connector? Or did that good idea get neutered or killed off too?

Here, I've marked it on the site plan.
Note how the building's east façade will be cantilevered right over the curb.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by Pinion

It'll be a major part of the skyline from one of the most photographed angles.

Major part of the skyline? It will be swallowed by the skyline. That's the point: it's another beautiful idea for a building that, for lack of vertical freedom of expression, has no impact whatsoever on Vancouver's already-timid skyline.

Moreover, this apparent "most photographed angle" is not the most experienced angle for pedestrians, unless you can walk on water. And when the railway tracks to the north are eventually covered and redeveloped as part of the future transportation hub plan, the view of this middling building will be smothered from that angle too.

It is another lost opportunity for greatness.

[Infrequent Poster]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

It is another lost opportunity for greatness.

This is what bothers me the most about all the new (and old) stumpy buildings in Vancouver. They are just squandered opportunities (in my opinion).

This building is stunning, but like so many other Vancouver buildings it could be so much more if it were allowed to exist in a grander scale.

[officedweller]

I think that with the view cones in place, there is very little incentive to build interesting rooftops, since developers will build to the height limit and they need the space occupied by floorspace, not spires or empty space.

I wonder, if the architects had not been mistaken about the height limit, whether the original concept for 555 West Cordova would have been different - i.e. something with a flat roof.

In the present case, I can't help but think they kept the peak because they couldn't "go backwards".

The Exchange Tower is one example where they did eliminate a peaked roof (albeit with a whole new design) to comply with the view cone.

[Vin]

Truly Sad, when it comes to height and transportation hub amenities. That's all I can conjure up for now...

[Vin]

Originally Posted by officedweller

I think that with the view cones in place, there is very little incentive to build interesting rooftops, since developers will build to the height limit and they need the space occupied by floorspace, not spires or empty space.

I wonder, if the architects had not been mistaken about the height limit, whether the original concept for 555 West Cordova would have been different - i.e. something with a flat roof.

In the present case, I can't help but think they kept the peak because they couldn't "go backwards".

The Exchange Tower is one example where they did eliminate a peaked roof (albeit with a whole new design) to comply with the view cone.

Flat tops make a great table top of a city.

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Major part of the skyline? It will be swallowed by the skyline. That's the point: it's another beautiful idea for a building that, for lack of vertical freedom of expression, has no impact whatsoever on Vancouver's already-timid skyline.

Moreover, this apparent "most photographed angle" is not the most experienced angle for pedestrians, unless you can walk on water. And when the railway tracks to the north are eventually covered and redeveloped as part of the future transportation hub plan, the view of this middling building will be smothered from that angle too.

It is another lost opportunity for greatness.

Exactly. And you just know that's precisely where this is headed. Our major transportation hub will be left to "meh" status while other cities work to highlight theirs

[Steveston]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

Haha I know, Epcor, Telus, Delta and if you look really closely Edmonton's Scotia building... not to mention whatever they turned 200 Granville into.

But you're only supposed to be looking at one building!

I love how the Seabus makes a hard turn to port immediately upon clearing the dock -- "Disney cruise ship dead ahead, Cap'n!"

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

Our major transportation hub will be left to "meh" status while other cities work to highlight theirs

It's not looking too good so far. Private industry possibilities versus predetermined city-imposed limits:

Originally Posted by phesto

Thanks. I hadn't seen this massing before...it shows the 2009 Whitecaps massing proposal and subsequent City proposal.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

[officedweller]

At least the City's plan has an open air transit concourse, rather than (presumably) underground.

The Whitecaps plan would have, however, left the site of 555 West Cordova (T3) as open space, by combining its density with the tower to the north.

[Klazu]

The video has now been put behind a password. I wonder why that is?

[Delirium]

wow so much melodrama in this thread! maybe you guys should start a support group to help you through this?

[csbvan]

Originally Posted by Delirium

wow so much melodrama in this thread! maybe you guys should start a support group to help you through this?

What a tragedy that such an attractive building should be built in our city!

[csbvan]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Doubt any large law firms would move there - it's too far from the Law Courts.
Borden Ladner is at Waterfront Centre - but that's a stretch.

Dentons is down in that area as well.

[Delirium]

Originally Posted by csbvan

What a tragedy that such an attractive building should be built in our city!

right. anyone who's travelled the world a bit would quickly realize that a 'skyline' is so completely irrelevant to the overall experience of a city other than a postcard shot.
IE. Berlin, barcelona, DC, Venice, cape town, i could go on and on. all cities i've been to which are amazing.
i guess the mentality here is more dubai than quality. so be it.

[squeezied]

Originally Posted by Delirium

right. anyone who's travelled the world a bit would quickly realize that a 'skyline' is so completely irrelevant to the overall experience of a city other than a postcard shot.
IE. Berlin, barcelona, DC, Venice, cape town, i could go on and on. all cities i've been to which are amazing.
i guess the mentality here is more dubai than quality. so be it.

The important thing is that the base/pedestrian experience looks great, height is secondary.

[Infrequent Poster]

Originally Posted by Delirium

right. anyone who's travelled the world a bit would quickly realize that a 'skyline' is so completely irrelevant to the overall experience of a city other than a postcard shot.
IE. Berlin, barcelona, DC, Venice, cape town, i could go on and on. all cities i've been to which are amazing.
i guess the mentality here is more dubai than quality. so be it.

You are saying this on a website devoted to people who are skyline/skyscraper enthusiasts. It doesnt really seem like a relevant comment in that context (no offence meant).

As to your comment about Dubai, in my opinion that is the real melodrama (again no offence meant). It seems like whenever someone suggests that a building (in vancouver) would look better taller. Comment(s) are always made suggesting that the person(s) obviously want a tall piece of shit built just for the sake of being tall.

I have in the past made a comment(s) suggesting how more height would be nice, and even said in my comment that I am in no way suggesting any sort of sacrifice in building quality and or design. The very next comment is "we dont need tall shitty/crappy design buildings here just for the sake of being tall"

Its almost like its just a kneejerk response. I see nobody here suggesting the building is ugly. Nor have I ever seen/heard anyone say they want a bunch of super tall tacky assed buildings built (for the sake of being tall).

This building is short and has been made even shorter, this is undeniable in my opinion. Nice but short. Its even more of a disappointment because it is a very nice looking building in a prominent location.