HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Transportation & Infrastructure


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted Feb 18, 2008, 9:52 PM
twoNeurons twoNeurons is offline
loafing in lotusland
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Lotusland
Posts: 6,020
Fixed it with Metric Measurements

Quote:
Originally Posted by LeftCoaster View Post
Well not that I'm expecting or wanting anything 750(~225m)-800(~250m) ft on the waterfront, I was hoping for something along the lines of 160-175m.
Quote:
Regarding the construction of something as tall as 800+ feet(250+m), I think it will happen...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted Feb 18, 2008, 10:53 PM
quobobo quobobo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,053
Thanks for the metric, my mind automatically skips over anything in feet these days...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted Feb 19, 2008, 4:10 AM
officedweller officedweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 38,231
Off-topic, but towers on the waterfront down in Perth:

http://www.perthwaterfront.com.au/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted Feb 19, 2008, 4:22 AM
deasine deasine is offline
Vancouver Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,747
Quote:
Originally Posted by officedweller View Post
Off-topic, but towers on the waterfront down in Perth:

http://www.perthwaterfront.com.au/
Is it just me or is one of the buildings look slanted... the Leaning Tower of Perth?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted Feb 19, 2008, 4:38 AM
mr.x's Avatar
mr.x mr.x is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 12,805
Gotta love that sexy Australian accent....beautiful development btw.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted Feb 20, 2008, 4:37 AM
cc85 cc85 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Island City
Posts: 451
Quote:
Originally Posted by raggedy13 View Post
I fully agree. Unfortunately Vancouver is still lacking in these shorter sorts of iconic facilities as well.

However, I don't see the harm in taller buildings. Perhaps those of you who are not such fans of them can enlighten me as to what you dislike about them. I realize they aren't necessary to make a great city (as you've said), but what's the harm in having them?

As far as I can see they provide the same opportunity to make iconic landmarks as the shorter ones you mentioned yet can have much more of a visual impact as they can be seen from afar, providing a visual reference point as well as solidifying their position in the collective identity of the city as they can be seen more often and by more people at any given time. In this sense they have the potential to be more iconic because they are more likely to be regularly seen than those buildings potentially buried behind walls of condos and as they say, "out of sight, out of mind".

I think this sort of reasoning may explain why out of the landmarks you mentioned, the Sydney Opera House is by far the most visually iconic - it is in a great open spot on the harbour with largely unobstructed sight lines. So basically every postcard-perfect shot of Sydney can include it (and the Harbour Bridge of course). The same can't necessarily be said of the Paris landmarks you mentioned. The Eiffel Tower however is little more than an observation deck, not as great a cultural facility as the Louvre, and is not even as old as the Louvre, yet it is the icon of Paris. Why? Because it is architecturally significant and is one of the most visually conspicuous structures in the city.

For Vancouver I'm not talking ridiculous heights here, merely heights that are nothing more than standard in other cities (and even shorter than standard in some cities).

Anywho, I respect your view cc85, but I'm just curious what it is some people have against taller buildings in our downtown that is already a forest of highrises.


tall buildings create a lack of association between people on the street and the buildings that surround them, they feel intimidated, they dont feel connected to them. you block views (you can try all you want with the view cones, but it doesnt work), you limit sun light (forget the shadow modeling), finally, you destroy another neighbourhoods attempt at achieving a level of success, by concentrating value, actually absurd value in one area of tall buildings, which directly causes a loss of value in other areas creating undesirable urban form.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted Feb 20, 2008, 5:34 AM
officedweller officedweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 38,231
Those aspects aren't necessarily retsricted to tall buildings or caused by height.
Lowrises with massive blank walls can dissociate people from the street - i.e Main Post Office, back of the Law Courts.
Short buildings can block views too - it depends on siting. The CP Station blocks the water view north on Seymour Street.
Lowrises and midrises can create shadows too - I recall lots of streets in London and Paris being in shade due to construction right to the sidewalk.
As for "concentrating value", it would depend on your perspective - evenly distributing office space and residential space in lowrise buildings could produce more intense development across a wider area, destroying some of the "valuable" green aspects currently enjoyed by some areas. (i.e. people may want certain uses kept away from them.)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted Feb 20, 2008, 5:37 AM
quobobo quobobo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,053
Quote:
Originally Posted by cc85 View Post
tall buildings create a lack of association between people on the street and the buildings that surround them, they feel intimidated, they dont feel connected to them.
Tall buildings are pretty much inevitable for downtown areas, and we already have plenty of them. If I feel "disconnected" from Shangri-La, I'm going to feel just as "disconnected" from, say, the TD Tower. It's not like 130m is somehow more psychologically manageable than 200m.

Quote:
you block views (you can try all you want with the view cones, but it doesnt work), you limit sun light (forget the shadow modeling),
You block a couple people's views in exchange for providing living and working space for tens of thousands. Sunlight is a valid point, but I'll take a more vibrant downtown over slightly reduced sunlight any day. Besides, almost everywhere downtown is a kilometre or less from the waterfront.


Quote:
finally, you destroy another neighbourhoods attempt at achieving a level of success, by concentrating value, actually absurd value in one area of tall buildings, which directly causes a loss of value in other areas creating undesirable urban form.
Quick, we have to tell New York/Tokyo/Osaka this before they develop undesirable urban form and nobody wants to live there!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted Feb 20, 2008, 5:42 AM
youngregina's Avatar
youngregina youngregina is offline
Edan
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Victoria Park, Calgary
Posts: 963
lol
__________________
#YYC
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted Feb 20, 2008, 5:48 AM
cc85 cc85 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Island City
Posts: 451
Quote:
Originally Posted by officedweller View Post
Those aspects aren't necessarily retsricted to tall buildings or caused by height.
Lowrises with massive blank walls can dissociate people from the street - i.e Main Post Office, back of the Law Courts.
Short buildings can block views too - it depends on siting. The CP Station blocks the water view north on Seymour Street.
Lowrises and midrises can create shadows too - I recall lots of streets in London and Paris being in shade due to construction right to the sidewalk.
As for "concentrating value", it would depend on your perspective - evenly distributing office space and residential space in lowrise buildings could produce more intense development across a wider area, destroying some of the "valuable" green aspects currently enjoyed by some areas. (i.e. people may want certain uses kept away from them.)
sorry, i thought good urban design was automatically factored in, i didnt address it. **** of course a blank wall is going to kill urban behaviour.

when i talk about height, im not condoning 20 story buildings, let alone 40 stories, height in OUR CDB is simply the result of land economics, and people maximizing their yield at the expense of outlying areas. go to any european city, see the skyscrapers? no, i dont i guess they have more head offices there, thats why they dont have high rises, some inverted correlation. hmm, land is more affordable, howd that happen?

spreading out development is finicky, im not talking about 0.5 far, or even 1, im talking about 70 upa/ 2.5 far; an amazing amount of green space would be left over if we did that.

i'd love to be farther away from the sea planes taking off, or the lafarge plant, or the container ships unloading, but that small 1/4 acre park down there in them streets is only enough grass for the dogs in one building to kill, oh and i forgot about the fact that the brochures never tell you about the reverberating sounds coming from all those lovely activities.

Quote:
Originally Posted by quobobo View Post
Tall buildings are pretty much inevitable for downtown areas, and we already have plenty of them. If I feel "disconnected" from Shangri-La, I'm going to feel just as "disconnected" from, say, the TD Tower. It's not like 130m is somehow more psychologically manageable than 200m.



You block a couple people's views in exchange for providing living and working space for tens of thousands. Sunlight is a valid point, but I'll take a more vibrant downtown over slightly reduced sunlight any day. Besides, almost everywhere downtown is a kilometre or less from the waterfront.




Quick, we have to tell New York/Tokyo/Osaka this before they develop undesirable urban form and nobody wants to live there!
eventually you reach a point where the additional height does not provide any additional benefits for the area, simply reducing views, sunlight, as in bye bye north shore mtns, im sure if we spread that density over south slope, wed have even better views had we had this hindsight.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted Feb 20, 2008, 6:08 AM
mr.x's Avatar
mr.x mr.x is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 12,805
how in the world did a skyscraper fan forum end up with a anti-skyscraper guy?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted Feb 20, 2008, 7:03 AM
officedweller officedweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 38,231
Quote:
Originally Posted by cc85 View Post
height in OUR CDB is simply the result of land economics, and people maximizing their yield at the expense of outlying areas. go to any european city, see the skyscrapers? no, i dont i guess they have more head offices there, thats why they dont have high rises, some inverted correlation. hmm, land is more affordable, howd that happen?
A couple of scenarios come to mind -
Some European cities like Paris and London do have new highrise office districts on their firnges (La Defense and Docklands) - just not near the touristy spots (though the City in London is playing catch-up).
In Metro Vancouver and elsewhere, there has been lowrise office development in the suburbs - in office parks - and they have been quite successfully taking tenants from the more expensive downtown core. In the past, some US cities saw their densified cores wither in favour of development in the suburbs (i.e. Detroit and its suburbs).

Quote:
i'd love to be farther away from the sea planes taking off, or the lafarge plant, or the container ships unloading, but that small 1/4 acre park down there in them streets is only enough grass for the dogs in one building to kill, oh and i forgot about the fact that the brochures never tell you about the reverberating sounds coming from all those lovely activities.
It's buyer beware - i.e. do your due diligence. Go there at night to see if it's noisy, check out the actual location of the suite, not everyone can tolerate living downtown (and downtown won't change despite the Mayor wanting to silence sirens). Wait til the Woodward's buyers find out what neighbourhood they bought into (the display centre was in the Shaw Tower). Hmmm...

Quote:
im sure if we spread that density over south slope, wed have even better views had we had this hindsight.
Maybe, but there's a huge backlash about spreading density around via EcoDensity. Even an incremental change in density will face opposition.
Millennium Water will probably be one of the first midrise districts in Vancouver with view potential (as opposed to the Carling O'Keefe lands on Arbutus), maybe along with Mt Pleasant. Whether or not the tightly spaced building will allow much in the way of views remains to be seen.
Lower Fairview Slopes may also fall into that category, although the density is lower, and the steep slope helps provide views.

Last edited by officedweller; Feb 20, 2008 at 7:19 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted Feb 20, 2008, 8:08 AM
worldwide's Avatar
worldwide worldwide is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Vancouver - Ktown
Posts: 704
cc85. this is strange, you sound well educated and articulate but your ideas they make no sense.

did they send you over from the fraser institute?
__________________
Hieroglyphics yeah, to the kick and the snare like that, there, yeah, we keep it raw rare
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted Feb 20, 2008, 3:32 PM
eduardo88 eduardo88 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Berlin + Madrid
Posts: 1,024
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr.x2 View Post
Perhaps they could make a second line through Surrey via the Grandview Cut.
Ive always been hoping for something like that, but not just to surrey, it should go all the way to abbotsford via langley
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted Feb 20, 2008, 5:31 PM
twoNeurons twoNeurons is offline
loafing in lotusland
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Lotusland
Posts: 6,020
Quote:
Quick, we have to tell New York/Tokyo/Osaka this before they develop undesirable urban form and nobody wants to live there!
Tokyo doesn't have many high-rises. And in general has wider streets and open spaces. It's far less claustrophobic than Vancouver.

The same goes for Osaka.

A few images of Tokyo. Shibuya (Most popular subway stop):


Akihabara (Electronics District)


View from Mori Tower:


Images taken from here

DENSITY doesn't require WALLS of Skyscrapers. I think that's the point cc85 is making.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted Feb 20, 2008, 5:44 PM
jlousa's Avatar
jlousa jlousa is offline
Ferris Wheel Hater
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 8,371
Glad to see there are more people that share my view. Density>height.

For the person that made the comment on Woodwards, you have got to be joking, do you really thinking people bought units w/o knowing where the building was? Maybe the presentation centre was at Shaw Tower because the developer had empty space there.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted Feb 20, 2008, 7:22 PM
phesto phesto is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: yvr/bwi
Posts: 2,675
Can't believe I missed this thread, you guys have some interesting ideas.

For the Granville Street extension, you can see the plans developed by Read Jones here: http://vancouver.ca/bid/bidopp/RFP/d...sionREPORT.pdf
(officedweller - I think this is the report you're referring to?)

For new office development - Cadillac Fairview doesn't own the rights over the CP tracks - Kerfoot does. This really limits what Cadillac Fairview can do.

Cadillac owns the Granville Square (bldg/plaza/parkade) and the Station building and parking lot. They have 418,000 sq ft of residual density, plus a potential heritage bonus for preserving the interior concourse of waterfront station. For the past several years there has been talk of a Granville Square 3 project, and Cadillac submitted a letter of enquiry for a development on the parking lot east of the station building back in 2005, but I haven't heard anything since. Assuming the granville street extension moves forward, there is no room for a new tower except to the east of the station building since the plaza at Granville Square is too small to accomodate another tower on either side. I suppose another option would be partial demolition of the station building just east of the newly extended Granville street, but I can't see many people supporting that idea. I think Cadillac is content to wait and see what happens with these plans. Even though they are on the aggressive side, construction costs are way high, and I don't think they have any major tenants up their sleeve...

The City has suggested that there is potential for new development in excess of 800,000 sq ft on the lots over the CP tracks owned by Kerfoot. Back in 2005/06 Kerfoot had been talking to local developers about doing a JV for an office building, but this was obviously contingent on the stadium plan moving forward and we all know how that story went.

I think in time we will see 2 new office towers in that area. Nothing tall, although Cadillac's could be pretty large if they play their cards right.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted Feb 20, 2008, 7:49 PM
Yume-sama's Avatar
Yume-sama Yume-sama is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Vancouver / Calgary / Tokyo
Posts: 7,523
Shibuya and Akihabara are really not the best example of Tokyo as a whole, to say they have not many high-rises. They're both not major business center such as Shinjuku, or Tokyo (by Tokyo Station), so there is no need for huge high-rises. Although you can clearly see many high-rises in the photo you posted from the Mori Tower (a skyscraper itself), which is a traditionally foreigner friendly residential / business community in Roppongi Hills.

Here is a pano I took from the 48th floor of the Shinjuku Park Tower.

http://66.90.101.237/tokyo.jpg

You can see a small part of the Shinjuku skyscrapers on the left, the center some skyscrapers around Shinjuku Station, and out far Skyscrapers around Tokyo Station and Roppongi Hills (the Mori Tower), all what would be considered business districts, like our downtown. The other areas would be like our Surrey () and more residential areas. Keep in mind Tokyo is also 844.5 square miles, while Vancouver is only 44.3 - and looking out that window live a good 6 - 8 million people of their total 12 So, no, density doesn't REQUIRE a ton of skyscrapers, but in the business districts, such as our downtown, they are a necessity.

Vancouver would probably be wise to build some sort of tall building by their most central station, I think that's the case in every major city in the World, for more than just for the sake of having a tall building

Last edited by Yume-sama; Feb 20, 2008 at 8:04 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #59  
Old Posted Feb 20, 2008, 8:05 PM
officedweller officedweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 38,231
Sweet! Thanks Phesto!

I wonder whether Option A is even viable now given that the sites for the viaduct bent footings would be on top of/through the Canada Line Waterfront Station site - and the excavation, at least on the east side, goes right to the property line (there's a suspended sidewalk there).

I prefer Options B or C because it introduces the slope to the Canada Place Way viaduct that would naturally occur with the escarpment tailing off towards Gastown - otherwise, the deck might be artificially tall to the east. Option B probably has the most reasonable slope for the Canada Place Way viaduct extension. Both Options B and C require additional piles for structural support - including what look like one through each of the Skytrain and WCE platforms.

Option B would mean a 3 ft drop in slope from the Canada Place Way end (elevation 143ft) to the street end at the 140ft elevation.
Option C would mean a 14 ft drop in slope from the Canada Place Way end (elevation 143ft) to the street end at the 129ft elevation (this may be a bit steep in a one block distance, but not unmanagable (Cordova probably does the same)).
Option A would actually mean a 10 ft increase(!) in slope from the Canada Place Way end (elevation 143ft) to the street end at the 153ft elevation.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jlousa View Post
For the person that made the comment on Woodwards, you have got to be joking, do you really thinking people bought units w/o knowing where the building was? Maybe the presentation centre was at Shaw Tower because the developer had empty space there.
That was me. Westbank would have had space there, sure, but if you had forced the overnight (or even daytime) line-up of potential buyers to wait at a presentation centre on Hastings Street, it probably would have affected sales. People (particularly investors) would know the location on a map, or remember the heyday of Woodward's, but may not be familar with the area in its current form.

Last edited by officedweller; Feb 20, 2008 at 8:48 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #60  
Old Posted Feb 20, 2008, 8:07 PM
Yume-sama's Avatar
Yume-sama Yume-sama is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Vancouver / Calgary / Tokyo
Posts: 7,523
Quote:
Originally Posted by officedweller View Post
Sweet! Thanks Phesto!



That was me. Westbank would have had space there, sure, but if you had forced the overnight (or even daytime) line-up of potential buyers to wait at a presentation centre on Hastings Street, it probably would have affected sales. People (particularly investors) would know the location on a map, or remember the heyday of Woodward's, but may not be familar with the area in its current form.
The majority of people who bought at Woodward's have no intention of ever living there, or going there. There are dozens of units already for sale at a premium price.

You don't want people with millions of dollars to invest to have to go down there....
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 > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Transportation & Infrastructure
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:10 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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