320 Granville St |115m | 32Fl | Completed

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by vansky

s211,

anyways, since you've made a point, I should still clarify things.

You cannot expect investors to invest in shits that do not give them some kind of a maximum profit in return, because all they care about is money. Designers always want sth creative, but clients want something cheap. it's a war, and clients win, but people should open themselves up for creativity. they usually do not, we are the guys who are stuck inside our creative drive,since when will this world ever care more about creativity?

what is "want sth creative" ?

[trofirhen]

It's better than nothng, if you want a building for the sake of a building. It's just too bad that the, at least in the CBD, design originality / continuity is not a prerequisite of the UDP. Surely there could be stricter esthetics for a small part of Vancouver; the high-profile areas.

This is another example of utilitarian square-headedness calling the shots.

[TwoFace]

Since it is a prominent location and also the gateway to Gastown (kind-off), personally I would prefer they forgo the glass tower concept altogether and do a mid-rise brick building with heavy retro design ques.

[Hed Kandi]

How one can relate an organic form to a ubiquitous box is beyond me.






to






I'm delighted that this design was rejected. The task of architecture can now be handed off to a more competent firm.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Hed Kandi

How one can relate an organic form to a ubiquitous box is beyond me.






to






I'm delighted that this design was rejected. The task of architecture can now be handed off to a more competent firm.

I agree with you, but will it be handed to a more competent firm, or just tweaked a bit here and there? Such a location calls for something dramatic and compelling, not just another gussied-up box (which Vancouver seems so good at)

[vansky]

Originally Posted by s211

Thanks for explaining. Sorry if I was catty.

it is ok, i had ADD, hahaha

[vansky]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

what is "want sth creative" ?

something = sth

[trofirhen]

Regarding this building, I wouldn't mind something a bit post-modern, to complement Waterfront Station and the Sinclair Centre.

[dleung]

What's that unique architectural feature 4-6 floors from the top, in the last model pic?

Could it be one of these?

[ckkelley]

Yeah...not a fan of that.

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by vansky

something = sth

No need to twitterfy here, since you have more than 140 characters to work in.

You can also relax & use 'preview post' to formulate your thoughts before committing them to electrons and phosphors.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by ckkelley

Yeah...not a fan of that.

Me neither. Looks as if the buildings have a tumour or something.

These examples from Las Vegas, Montreal, Seattle, San Francisco and Chicago, although bigger in size than 320 Granville, give me a lot more inspiration than the design propsals for the site so far.

They may not be "politically corrrect" for Vancouver, but they sure beat a blah, insipid shoebox in what should be a prime location.


http://www.wayfaring.info/wp-content...ara-hotel2.jpg


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...3%A9vesque.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...KPMG_Tower.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...n_Square_2.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...arcadero_4.jpg


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...2C_Chicago.jpg

[easy as pie]

^ uh, you've pin-pointed the most hated buildings in both mtl and sf.

obviously, one hopes that vancouver planning forces a re-design on this site, considering its importance as a 'gateway' building for so many folks. but it's not nearly as bad as the embarcadero complex or actually anything along dorchester and vancouver isn't such a design city that this banality would surprise anyone.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by easy as pie

^ uh, you've pin-pointed the most hated buildings in both mtl and sf.

obviously, one hopes that vancouver planning forces a re-design on this site, considering its importance as a 'gateway' building for so many folks. but it's not nearly as bad as the embarcadero complex or actually anything along dorchester and vancouver isn't such a design city that this banality would surprise anyone.

oops, awfully sorry, awfully sorry. Maybe not good examples (depending upon individual tastes), but the point was that these weren't just insipid shoe boxes, even if they are "hated," as you say they are. It was hard to find examples. These were just random picks, anyway.

[queetz@home]

I don't even know why this project's design is being debated. Will this office tower even happen? Given the impending NDP win, and the competition from existing office projects already going up but still not fully leased, I doubt anything will get off the ground for the next six years...

[Hourglass]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

It's just too bad that the, at least in the CBD, design originality / continuity is not a prerequisite of the UDP. Surely there could be stricter esthetics for a small part of Vancouver; the high-profile areas.

This is another example of utilitarian square-headedness calling the shots.

Sorry, did I miss something? Didn't the UDP just reject this design?

Your comment at the beginning of the previous page was that "anything is better than that cheap ugly parkade".

So one can only conclude that what you're actually saying is that the UDP is being square-headed for rejecting a mediocre design that is still better than the cheap ugly parkade that is there?

I'm not quite following the logic.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Hourglass

Sorry, did I miss something? Didn't the UDP just reject this design?

Your comment at the beginning of the previous page was that "anything is better than that cheap ugly parkade".

So one can only conclude that what you're actually saying is that the UDP is being square-headed for rejecting a mediocre design that is still better than the cheap ugly parkade that is there?

I'm not quite following the logic.

Excuse me. My first remark, ways back, about "anything being better than a cheap ugly parkade," was really hyperbole.

My understanding was that the design that the UDP rejected was the one in the renders: the "dumbed-down" design. Did I get that wrong? Sorry if I did, but I remember another person being confused about that, too.

My examples of buildings with more "design" in them, whether one likes 'em or hates 'em, was just a way of saying that more design and interest CAN be put into a building if the willingness is there (although, yes, this is normally compromised by $$$ factors)

The statement I was trying to make was, why can't they put something in that place that is interestingly designed. As another poster pointed out this is "ground zero" of the tourist area of Vancouver.

The examples I used disgusted many posters, including "Easy as Pie" from SF. Maybe he's right. But all I was really trying to say was: if they're going to build something in such a high-profile location, why can't it be snazzy and interesting, and not just infill. Excuse the obfuscation.

[jsbertram]

found this in the Modern Architecture Forum:

115 Bathurst Street
Sydney, Australia

Originally Posted by Hed Kandi

Source: http://www.archiscene.net/residentia...ts/#more-36992

[yogiderek]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

found this in the Modern Architecture Forum:

115 Bathurst Street
Sydney, Australia

I could only dream of this project at granville and cordova. lol, well I actually do hope they build this in Sydney.

[osirisboy]

As if that would ever get built here. Just think of the view cones. We have to protect them you know!