The Mark | 123m | Completed - Page 3

jlousa · #41 Posted **Nov 10, 2009, 1:47 AM**

In general those suites are charged a fair rate, less then hotels, but enough that people don't take advantage of them, with the money going back into the strata.

WarrenC12 · #42 Posted **Nov 10, 2009, 5:59 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metro-One

4 guess suites? How is that organized? I have never heard of that in any towers I have been in.

The 501 has 2 guest suites, plus one of the apartments is owned by the strata (intended to be a caretaker suite but rented independently now).

Hed Kandi · #43 Posted **Nov 10, 2009, 4:20 PM**

..

vanman · #44 Posted **Nov 13, 2009, 7:14 AM**

The website for The Mark is now up. Apparently the height increase is still pending approval.

http://www.themarkvancouver.com/

Some sweet new renderings:

Canadian Mind · #45 Posted **Nov 13, 2009, 1:27 PM**

Call me grungy, but I'm quite the fan of metal Lattice (ref. pic #2) on the sides of buildings. It gives the sides of the building a neat 3-D hologram effect, and can serve a practical purpose. So aside from looking neat, what is their purpose here? I could see them being used on residential structures to cut down sunlight during the day in summer, and light pollution from street-level during night, while maintaining a persons views, but that doesn't look to be the case here.

My favorite example of a metal lattice would be the new NY Times building:

photo by me

WarrenC12 · #46 Posted **Nov 13, 2009, 4:57 PM**

It's fugly! I have to say you got the world's best picture of that building. It looked terrible when I saw it in NYC myself.

sacrifice333 · #47 Posted **Nov 13, 2009, 6:03 PM**

The building overall is pretty underwhelming. Thank goodness it's going to challenge the area heights.

But these renders are very nice indeed:

Any idea if those are actual residential units there? They look like they could be pretty cool, sans views.

officedweller · #48 Posted **Nov 13, 2009, 9:03 PM**

Looks good.
Not generally keen on breezeways though (i.e. bringing the groceries up from the car and having to contend with rain (and snow) on the breezeway?).
The wood in that rendering will bleach pretty quickly. i.e. check out the townhouses on 6th Ave near Ash St. I think their wood is aging quickly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Canadian Mind

Call me grungy, but I'm quite the fan of metal Lattice (ref. pic #2) on the sides of buildings. It gives the sides of the building a neat 3-D hologram effect, and can serve a practical purpose. So aside from looking neat, what is their purpose here?

I think there's just on the west side of the podium facing the Granville Bridge ramp to Seymour Street. So presumably they would be for noise mitigation (and maybe to some extent to block the view?)
Personally, I would hate to have permanent screens blocking my view.

officedweller · #49 Posted **Nov 13, 2009, 10:01 PM**

Being referred to public hearing for the space increase and height increase:

http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/...cuments/p2.pdf

Quote:

This report assesses an application to rezone the subject site from DD (Downtown District) to
CD-1 (Comprehensive Development) District. The application proposes a residential
development in the form of a 41 storey tower having a podium of 5 and 7 storeys, with
maximum height of 119.7 m (392 ft. 7 inches). A total of 255 dwelling units are proposed,
including 7 townhouses at grade. It is noted that the unit count may be revised as the project
is refined. Also included are residential amenity space, a 37-space childcare centre and
office/multi-use space for the Vancouver Society of Childcare Centres. LEEDTM Gold
equivalent is proposed.

Rezoning is requested to increase the maximum floor space ratio (FSR) from 5.0 to 7.78. A
total floor area of 25 641 m2 (276,010 sq. ft.) is proposed on this 3 294 m2 (35,457 sq. ft.)
site. A small amount of additional floor area (and FSR) has been added to the proposed total
to accommodate the floor area occupied by heat pumps that improve the overall energy
performance. The revised figures are: 25 752 m2 (277,200 sq ft) and 7.82 FSR. A childcare
centre is proposed at approximately 446 m2 (4,800 sq. ft.) and office/multi-use space of
approximately 480 m2 (5,165 sq. ft.) in area is also proposed.

Staff assessment of this rezoning application has concluded that the application is supported.
Staff recommend that the application be referred to a public hearing, and be approved
subject to conditions.

PROSTSHOCKER · #50 Posted **Nov 14, 2009, 1:52 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

It's fugly! I have to say you got the world's best picture of that building. It looked terrible when I saw it in NYC myself.

Oh my god but the architecture is beyond anything comparable in its class as far as modernist boxes are concerned. The interior and especially the news room has, dare I say, artistic merit. So much design compacted into the building thar.

However, In terms of recent midtown skyscrapers in New York, the Bank of America building is a contenter for my favourite

JUST SAYING, MANG.

trofirhen · #51 Posted **Nov 14, 2009, 2:09 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Canadian Mind

Call me grungy, but I'm quite the fan of metal Lattice (ref. pic #2) on the sides of buildings. It gives the sides of the building a neat 3-D hologram effect, and can serve a practical purpose. So aside from looking neat, what is their purpose here? I could see them being used on residential structures to cut down sunlight during the day in summer, and light pollution from street-level during night, while maintaining a persons views, but that doesn't look to be the case here.

My favorite example of a metal lattice would be the new NY Times building:

photo by me

Snazzy! But only a big city like NYC, Chicago, or maybe Toronto could pull something like that off succesfully. Vancouver just isn't "big" and vital enough, although I love the look and feel of your photo.

nova9 · #52 Posted **Nov 14, 2009, 3:08 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Snazzy! But only a big city like NYC, Chicago, or maybe Toronto could pull something like that off succesfully. Vancouver just isn't "big" and vital enough, although I love the look and feel of your photo.

Trofirhen, I'm just curious, when was the last time you've been to Vancouver? I know you moved to Paris 15 years ago but wondering if your opinions are based on Vancouver circa early-90s or Vancouver 2009.

You're pretty down on Vancouver all the time. I know you live in Paris and it is exciting but Vancouver isn't exactly a suburb (but it ain't NYC that's for sure). But still.....

vansky · #53 Posted **Nov 14, 2009, 4:32 AM**

it's still as dead as the 90s, despite growth...

Architype · #54 Posted **Nov 14, 2009, 6:15 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Canadian Mind

Call me grungy, but I'm quite the fan of metal Lattice (ref. pic #2) on the sides of buildings. It gives the sides of the building a neat 3-D hologram effect, and can serve a practical purpose. So aside from looking neat, what is their purpose here? I could see them being used on residential structures to cut down sunlight during the day in summer, and light pollution from street-level during night, while maintaining a persons views, but that doesn't look to be the case here.

Any material that isn't glass is good imo. The reason I don't comment much on new Vancouver projects is that they all look much alike because of the extensive use of glass.

This one looks ok, better than average - so is the proposed height 140m or 119.7m as mentioned in the post above ?

smho · #55 Posted **Nov 14, 2009, 6:45 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Architype

This one looks ok, better than average - so is the proposed height 140m or 119.7m as mentioned in the post above ?

The document link in that post specifies the proposed height (Appendix G, second last page in document):
Top of parapet: 119.7m
Top of mechanical roof: 123.4m

I wonder if the mechanical screen on the west elevation is taken into consideration for the overall height as it seems to extend beyond the mechanical roof. The detailed Elevations in the link below clearly shows the screen 1-2m higher than the mechanical roof. I would only guess that it's outside the view cones.
http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/plannin...mour/index.htm

nova9 · #56 Posted **Nov 14, 2009, 9:47 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by vansky

it's still as dead as the 90s, despite growth...

i'm disappointed that you think so. but it must be because i was a teenager in the 90s and now have the freedom i require.

oh wells. i guess my vancouver keeps me busy enough.

ckkelley · #57 Posted **Nov 14, 2009, 7:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by nova9

i'm disappointed that you think so. but it must be because i was a teenager in the 90s and now have the freedom i require.

oh wells. i guess my vancouver keeps me busy enough.

I loved Vancouver in the 90's and I love Vancouver even more today!

vansky · #58 Posted **Nov 14, 2009, 9:31 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by nova9

i'm disappointed that you think so. but it must be because i was a teenager in the 90s and now have the freedom i require.

oh wells. i guess my vancouver keeps me busy enough.

in relative to paris, nyc or etc.

nova9 · #59 Posted **Nov 15, 2009, 8:46 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by vansky

in relative to paris, nyc or etc.

yes, always relative. I'm never BORED but I can't imagine how exhausted I'd be with all the choices in NYC or Paris. However, a lot of that is waaayyyyy above my paygrade, heheh. So it's a moot point even if I were to move there. So in that case, Vancouver's natural beauty gives it the edge to me staying.

Indescribable · #60 Posted **Nov 15, 2009, 6:48 PM**

The tower is interesting but not a big fan of the name.