Highrise architectural evolution of Vancouver?

[dleung]

Having been disappointed by many of our recent proposals, it seems like Vancouver's architectural evolution has stagnated. Looking back at past projects, many of the early ones in the list below were way ahead of their time. It is quite likely that from the 90's till early 2000's, the world's nicest residential highrises were in Vancouver. With Carina's 3D convex curve curtain wall, I think 2003 was the peak of architectural quality here relative to elsewhere.

In the ensuing decade, the rest of the world has caught up and surpassed us. If you take away all the projects in this list, the "average" tower built today has had almost zero progress from the Concord Pacific towers of the 90's. Like, why can't some of our mid-market boxes look as well-resolved as the one from 1998? Looking among the better projects though, it looks like there's a shift from curves to sharp angles over the last decade too.

[trofirhen]

I haven't been back too much over the last few years, but I can see what you mean.

Vancouver architecture does seem to have stagnated. There's nothing really magnificent, original or captivating.

Hopefully, architects will break the timidity/bland conformism barrier, and come up with striking (not bizarre, just striking) new ideas for the future. Here's hoping, anyway.

*ps: In fact, I have to admit, there are indeed some striking buildings here, Wall Centre, JH and The Georgia among them.

[Metro-One]

Woodwards is very celebrated on this forum, many from Ontario, Alberta and Quebec have recently expressed their love for that tower (and desire to have it in their own cities)

Also, 1021 is going to be an amazing looking tower IMO, as will that new proposal beside Granville Street bridge if it goes through similar as shown.

[dleung]

I'm ok with Woodwards... I tend to hate faux-historic, but this one is more retro and retro done right

[entheosfog]

Interesting stuff, great work with this thread!

[touraccuracy]

i find the 93-99 stuff pretty ugly.

[LeftCoaster]

Honestly I feel the exact opposite of you dleung. I always found earlier Vancouver architecture to be somewhat timid. Sure today and yesterday the bulk of Vancouver's residential buildings are bland, but that is the case anywhere in the world, from Hong Kong to Toronto to Manhattan. What I have noticed in particular is the few standout buildings we seem to get each year are getting better and better while the bland filler that represents 90% of the residential construction is staying at about par.

Also it's important to note I'm just talking about tower aesthetics, not complete package architecture, where even filler Vancouver buildings are quite well designed in how they meet the street and create a sense of place.

I see bright futures for Vancouver's architectural world.

[dreambrother808]

I agree with Leftcoaster. Even in the image presented, you can see that progression.
It may not ramp exponentially but there is still growth in design over time.

[dleung]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

...while the bland filler that represents 90% of the residential construction is staying at about par.

That's what stagnating means, lol. There's no reason why each successive year our typical highrises can't be outdoing the previous year. If a well-designed tower was achieved in 1998 at say $500psf today, the city should consider it the new minimum standard; every $500psf project that comes after should be equal or better. But that hasn't been the case.

In fact I prefer some of our utopian 90's towers down by Marinaside Crescent or Bayshore, than crap like Cosmo, Spectrum, Patina, Capitol, Salt, etc...

[s211]

Originally Posted by touraccuracy

i find the 93-99 stuff pretty ugly.

Ironically, some other cities are only now seeing projects that look like Vancouver in the 90s, and they're having wet dreams over them...