W1 | 71.6m, 56.4m | 27Fl, 21Fl | Completed - Page 3

Jebby · #41 Posted **Dec 10, 2015, 5:57 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

MC2 looks quite good. It's a simple design and the execution wasn't bad. My only gripe is the color of the spandrel. If they had gone for a darker shade the building would pretty great (considering it is nothing more than a mid-market infill tower in a non-luxury area).

squeezied · #42 Posted **Dec 10, 2015, 9:24 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

This corner of Marine and Cambie is already relaxed in terms of height. The corner has some of the tallest buildings in Vancouver, yet some of the simplest crowns. Relaxing it further isn't going to produce a more interesting design. Developers respond to the market and this is not a particularly high-end neighbourhood. 1-beds start at around 450sqft and 2-beds start at around 700sqft. You can't expect a fancy design, tall or not. The selling point of this development is the convenience and proximity to a transit hub, not so much its design quality.

The Amazing Brentwood is going to be one of the tallest towers in the region with one of the blandest (in my opinion) flat crowns.

Allowing higher buildings isn't going to produce a more interesting design.

Marshal · #43 Posted **Dec 10, 2015, 9:45 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jebby

MC2 looks quite good. It's a simple design and the execution wasn't bad. My only gripe is the color of the spandrel. If they had gone for a darker shade the building would pretty great (considering it is nothing more than a mid-market infill tower in a non-luxury area).

I know what you mean. But, if this colour was not used on so many other towers, and used in much less simple and unrestrained ways, then MC2 would look refresahing. To me (in general), spandrel is not the issue; how its used and what colours and character it has is. The design of MC2 uses spandrel in a restrained manner, and, more importantly, it is used to define larger elements on the facade.

Marine Gardens, on the other hand, could be a spandrel disaster. The renderings look OK, but if the material of it's envelope is what we commonly see in so many other projects (blah spandrel with chunky mullions), it won't be so good. I hope the detailing on the renderings is accurate because it appears that the solid white surfaces will be some kind of solid panel; not stone, but not glass either. Metal or even concrete (or other solid panelling) could be options. As for the glazed areas of the facade, it looks like the typical is going to be implemented once again.

Vin · #44 Posted **Dec 10, 2015, 10:47 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by squeezied

This corner of Marine and Cambie is already relaxed in terms of height. The corner has some of the tallest buildings in Vancouver, yet some of the simplest crowns. Relaxing it further isn't going to produce a more interesting design. Developers respond to the market and this is not a particularly high-end neighbourhood. 1-beds start at around 450sqft and 2-beds start at around 700sqft. You can't expect a fancy design, tall or not. The selling point of this development is the convenience and proximity to a transit hub, not so much its design quality.

The Amazing Brentwood is going to be one of the tallest towers in the region with one of the blandest (in my opinion) flat crowns.

Allowing higher buildings isn't going to produce a more interesting design.

Solo district towers, Station Square, towers at Edmonds area and a few others in Burnaby have pretty interesting crowns.

For Vancouver, just look at Marine Gateway, Joyce and Olympic Village and you would see what I mean.

I don't believe those have nothing to do with height restrictions.

squeezied · #45 Posted **Dec 11, 2015, 8:01 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vin

Solo district towers, Station Square, towers at Edmonds area and a few others in Burnaby have pretty interesting crowns.

For Vancouver, just look at Marine Gateway, Joyce and Olympic Village and you would see what I mean.

I don't believe those have nothing to do with height restrictions.

Cherry-picking examples doesn't prove your point. I can too can cherry-pick examples of interesting buildings within view corridors in Vancouver and tall bland buildings in Burnaby but that doesn't prove or disprove anything.

You can be sure that while Burnaby doesn't have viewcones, they have height restrictions in their zoning bylaws. No developer can build however tall they like. Those buildings that you like in Burnaby have height restrictions. Height restrictions are not the governing reason as to why a building looks bland or uninteresting as I've mention earlier.

The Marine Gardens was allowed to exceed the height restrictions by 7.6m/25ft for decorative roof treatments (http://former.vancouver.ca/commsvcs/.../cd-1(071).PDF). The developer chose to have a flat crown. If you want to blame someone, blame the developer, not the height restrictions which is virtually in every city's bylaw, Vancouver or not.

Your statements should be backed up by facts instead of presumptuously dismissing every negative aspects of a building on height restrictions.

vanman · #46 Posted **Jul 10, 2016, 11:59 AM**

The title of the thread should be changed to W1. Site clearing is now underway.

VancouverOfTheFuture · #47 Posted **Jul 10, 2016, 6:46 PM**

another tower going into that area? wow that is getting dense.

vanman · #48 Posted **Jul 11, 2016, 8:14 PM**

Another two towers actually.

Caliplanner1 · #49 Posted **Jul 20, 2016, 9:25 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by vanman

The title of the thread should be changed to W1. Site clearing is now underway.

Any (site) pictures posted on the upcoming Marine Gardens project would be greatly appreciated. The residential/commercial girded gentrification of this once funky (river adjacent industrial) area offers an interesting case study as to the potential transformative power of mass/rapid urban rail line construction.

Pinion · #50 Posted **Jul 20, 2016, 10:10 AM**

I wouldn't call it funky nor river adjacent. The riverfront will remain industrial.

WarrenC12 · #51 Posted **Jul 20, 2016, 1:39 PM**

Are any of the new residents in the area complaining about the transfer station smell yet?

Caliplanner1 · #52 Posted **Jul 20, 2016, 5:22 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pinion

I wouldn't call it funky nor river adjacent. The riverfront will remain industrial.

...well there is talk about softening/ameliorating the environmentally hardened/run down areas next to the nearby Fraser River (a stone throw from the Marine Gateway project) via the construction of a riverside park and pedestrian boardwalk.....

vanman · #53 Posted **Jul 20, 2016, 5:29 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caliplanner1

Any (site) pictures posted on the upcoming Marine Gardens project would be greatly appreciated. The residential/commercial girded gentrification of this once funky (river adjacent industrial) area offers an interesting case study as to the potential transformative power of mass/rapid urban rail line construction.

Yeah I'll try and keep this thread updated. So far only site clearing has begun.

vanman · #54 Posted **Jul 20, 2016, 5:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pinion

I wouldn't call it funky nor river adjacent. The riverfront will remain industrial.

That is not entirely true. Either side of Cambie, from Marine Drive down to the Fraser will potentially be redeveloped into mixed use as per the Marpole Community Plan.

Quote:

Originally Posted by officedweller

I think the white areas remain industrial - the dark areas are where the Cambie Corridor will result in redevelopment of the light industrial uses to mixed use.

http://vancouver.ca/files/cov/cambie...3-overview.pdf

vanman · #55 Posted **Jul 20, 2016, 5:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Are any of the new residents in the area complaining about the transfer station smell yet?

On most days the smell isn't noticeable. It's only on especially warm days that it can be a problem.

trofirhen · #56 Posted **Jul 20, 2016, 6:56 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by vanman

On most days the smell isn't noticeable. It's only on especially warm days that it can be a problem.

Is the smell due to ozone, or to other chemicals?

Genauso · #57 Posted **Jul 20, 2016, 8:12 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Is the smell due to ozone, or to other chemicals?

There is a city garbage dump / compost pile, downhill due SE.

* Not a landfill, transfer station is the term I believe. But the city and other businesses also sell compost, manure, woodchips, rocks and associated landscaping material down in some of those industrial zoned lots.

vanman · #58 Posted **Sep 9, 2016, 4:32 AM**

Again I would like to ask that a mod please change the name of the thread to W1.

The site has now been cleared and excavation is underway. My pics from today.