W1 | 71.6m, 56.4m | 27Fl, 21Fl | Completed

[East Van]

City of Van needs to get off their asses & make Kent ave into a real street. Enough people use it to justify this & it's only a matter of time till land down there gets redeveloped. More traffic is headed that way.

[Metro-One]

Yeah i know, right now it doesn't even have centre lane markings!

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by jlousa

The city is not interested in removing pedestrians from the ground level, and I beleive they are right in most cases. Once the 3 corners are built out and some improvements made to the intersection there is no reason it can't work as well as say Broadway and Cambie. Traffic will adjust as pedestrian volume increases.

Having to drive through that intersection everyday, I wish I was as confident as you are. It's busy and the Canada Line has made it worse. Cambie south of Marine is too narrow for what it is supposed to do, the C-Line pylons make it worse, the awkward angle of the intersection makes it difficult for busses to turn onto Marine from the bus depot, pedestrians jaywalk and the volume of cars is not going down, contrary to some opinions.

Rather than bridges, its too bad geography prevented the train from continuing underground where a station could have had multiple exits to the four corners.

I'll never understand why Oak St was chosen has a site for the Hwy 99 bridge in the 1950's, Cambie with it limited access boulevard and direct connection to downtown would have made far more sense.

[WarrenC12]

I bike over the Canada Line bridge and up Cambie most weekdays. The main problems IMO:

1. Crossing Kent. It's a nightmare, and some jackasses race down that road at 80 km/h.

2. Cambie between Marine and Kent. Despite signage to the contrary, cars are constantly pulled over waiting for people to show up or drop off, and pedestrians are all over the road, jaywalking anywhere and everywhere.

[Crows]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I bike over the Canada Line bridge and up Cambie most weekdays. The main problems IMO:

1. Crossing Kent. It's a nightmare, and some jackasses race down that road at 80 km/h.

2. Cambie between Marine and Kent. Despite signage to the contrary, cars are constantly pulled over waiting for people to show up or drop off, and pedestrians are all over the road, jaywalking anywhere and everywhere.

Agreed especially on 2. I work right there and I am driving north south through the cambie and marine intersection all the time and countless times i thought i was going to kill a pedestrian that didn`t look over their shoulder to cross as i`m coming through marine. It`s a mess of an intersection.

[whatnext]

Out of curiosity, is the 1970's era development currently on this site a strata, or is it social housing of some sort?

[whatnext]

There's an interesting article in the Courier about replacing the human scale of Marine Gardens with yet another Concord highrise. Even more interesting is the suggestion that Council could run headfirst into another Haddon Park, as the land was originally Delta View Park and may have a restrictive covenant on it.

http://www.vancourier.com/opinion/ed...aced-1.1071684

[Klazu]

Has anyone heard anything about this project?

[retro_orange]

An Interesting quote from vancitybuzz:

" the existing complex, built as a “model community” demonstration project for the 1976 United Nations Habitat Forum, is to be demolished."

Article: http://www.vancitybuzz.com/2015/02/m...ent-vancouver/


Pic from cityhallwatch wordpesss page

Quote from the wiki page:
"The Vancouver Declaration

The Vancouver Declaration starts with a preamble stating that "unacceptable human settlements circumstances are likely to be aggravated by inequitable economic growth and uncontrolled urbanization, unless positive and concrete action is taken at national and international levels". The first action is "to adopt bold, meaningful and effective human settlement policies and spatial planning strategies (...) considering human settlements as an instrument and object of development". Among the general Principles, the Conference advocated improving the quality of life through more equitable distribution of development benefits, planning and regulating land use, protecting the environment, integrating women and youth, and rehabilitating people displaced by natural and man-made catastrophes.

In the Guidelines for action, various elements of a human settlements policy are defined. Focus is placed on harmonious integration, reduction of disparities between rural and urban areas, orderly urbanization, progressive minimum standards and community participation.

The Declaration states that "adequate shelter and services are a basic human right" and that "governments should assist local authorities to participate to a greater extent in national development". The Declaration strongly emphasizes that "the use and tenure of land should be subject to public control"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habitat_I

The redevelopment was approved in February.

I feel thats an important historical moment in vancouvers history and while its not an architecturally great townhouse complex its a bit of incentive to maintain and restore at least one row of the townhouses or the ones on the perimeter of the site and put a taller tower in the centre . Top it off with a plaque describing the 1976 habitat forum and how the complex was built for it. Theres not much of historical significance in that area but It would make for a nice little snapshot.

Its not everyday you can say you live in a model community built for a United Nations forum...

[retro_orange]

A little more info on the 1976 United Nations forum

http://habitat76.ca/



"Not strictly part of Habitat Forum, but clearly consistent with its spirit, was the environmentally friendly Paper Pavilion by Arthur Erickson for Habitat. A very early example of paper architecture, the pavilion’s papier mache panels were made by Vancouver schoolchildren and then assembled into this structure on the Vancouver Courthouse’s North plaza (now the Vancouver Art Gallery)."
Quote and pics from website

[officedweller]

I think most of the Habitat conference was hosted at the Jericho Aircraft Hangars - since demolished.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by officedweller

I think most of the Habitat conference was hosted at the Jericho Aircraft Hangars - since demolished.

http://this.org/magazine/2011/08/08/...lindsay-brown/

It's a shame that those hangars were demolished (for parkland), they could have had a lot of community uses.


http://www.jsca.bc.ca/inthewind/itw_09_09_03.html

Now back on topic...

[vanciti]

This project has been branded W1 and is going to be launching sales this Fall. I believe they have started previewing and/or taking registrations.

[osirisboy]

Originally Posted by vanciti

This project has been branded W1 and is going to be launching sales this Fall. I believe they have started previewing and/or taking registrations.

http://www.w1vancouver.com

W1. Should be called s1. It's much more south vancouver than west.

[officedweller]

Renderings from GBL website:


http://www.gblarchitects.com/work/marine-gardens/


http://www.gblarchitects.com/work/marine-gardens/


http://www.gblarchitects.com/work/marine-gardens/


http://www.gblarchitects.com/work/marine-gardens/

[Jebby]

Look like pretty much every condo development in the region.

[Klazu]

Yeah, very generic and "safe" design. Will be a filler for the new town center under development.

[squeezied]

Yea, subtract that 'glow', it looks pretty bland. That white spandrel doesn't look very promising. It's what I've come to expect from GBL and Concord Pacific. Attempts to look 'cool' and 'contemporary' such as the oscillating windows comes off as tacky to me. I'm not sure what material that gold colour veneer is, but I hope it's a good quality material, not some cheap, funky, cool, attention-grabbing material. *end mini rant*

[Marshal]

Well, its not offensive. I agree with Klazu except to add, it will be "OK" filler. Funny thing is I was there today and took a better look at MC2. It too is a background project, but I must say it is quite a good one. Its not trying too hard. In fact its restraint is a strong point. Yes, it will fade from our consciousness as more projects arise, but when it is noticed, I think we will see its quality as refreshing. Important architecture (even when minimalist) tends to stand out, but it is also possible for a filler to stand out when used or experienced close at hand.

[Vin]

I think all these bland towers would look a lot nicer if architects can design something on the crowns of the buildings, but I guess with height restrictions, developers build the liveable floors all the way up to the allowable heights.

Possibly due to a relaxation of height constraints, I find that Burnaby towers have more interesting crown designs, not the flat tops experienced by virtually all the modern residential towers in Vancouver.