The Ultimate Vancouver Rumour Thread!

[djh]

Originally Posted by jlousa

Think members need to pay more attention to who says the things, instead of just what is said... I tend to trust LeftCoaster's voice on these matters as he's shown to be be quite trustworthy over the years.
I know i seldom make comments about future projects being spectacular just because of the amount of criticism on this board. The only exception I can think of on my part was the BIG proposal for Howe St.
There is one more upcoming project that I feel will land into that category but it's still much to early in the process to release details on.

It's nothing to do with "who says these things".

It's the process. A developer has a vision of a great building. An architect sketches a great building. That gets leaked, and people get excited. Somewhere in the process between the accountants, the marketers, the public and the city, we end up with something bland.
The vision gets lost because so many other hammers knock the creativity out of the original plan.

I will place a bet right now that exactly the same thing will happen to the new Vancouver Art Gallery.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by djh

It's nothing to do with "who says these things".

It's the process. A developer has a vision of a great building. An architect sketches a great building. That gets leaked, and people get excited. Somewhere in the process between the accountants, the marketers, the public and the city, we end up with something bland.
The vision gets lost because so many other hammers knock the creativity out of the original plan.

I will place a bet right now that exactly the same thing will happen to the new Vancouver Art Gallery.

Design by "committee".

[jlousa]

While that's true of lots of government projects the same really isn't true of private projects. By the time you see a proposal it's already gone thru costing, marketing and everything else. There will always be some substitutions in the construction phase due to new information and/or lack of availability but it's pretty minimal. The biggest changes come between putting a pencil to paper and having the engineers look it over.

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Design by "committee".

... produces a camel, rather than a racehorse.

[djh]

Originally Posted by jlousa

While that's true of lots of government projects the same really isn't true of private projects. By the time you see a proposal it's already gone thru costing, marketing and everything else. There will always be some substitutions in the construction phase due to new information and/or lack of availability but it's pretty minimal. The biggest changes come between putting a pencil to paper and having the engineers look it over.

Sorry, I don't buy that.

That would imply that the engineers in Vancouver look at a great building and say "sorry, it cannot be built. You *have* to make the design more structurally sound..." and they dumb-down an iconic design into something standard but safe.

So how come there's so many other iconic buildings elsewhere?

If a private developer really wants a great building and is willing to push it through with enough appeasement to the various groups with their palms out, it will not be stopped by mere engineering issues. Those can be worked around. Look at the BIG building for a perfect example. I wouldn't dump the blame in the engineers' laps.

[mr.x]

Originally Posted by djh

Sorry, I don't buy that.

That would imply that the engineers in Vancouver look at a great building and say "sorry, it cannot be built. You *have* to make the design more structurally sound..." and they dumb-down an iconic design into something standard but safe.

So how come there's so many other iconic buildings elsewhere?

If a private developer really wants a great building and is willing to push it through with enough appeasement to the various groups with their palms out, it will not be stopped by mere engineering issues. Those can be worked around. Look at the BIG building for a perfect example. I wouldn't dump the blame in the engineers' laps.

In Vancouver, we've got mediocre urban planners and city officials who lack a sophistication. Add in a lot of arrogance, the whole self-congratulating of thinking they've done a good job and seeing no wrong in what they do at all.

It's tunnel vision, really.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by mr.x

In Vancouver, we've got mediocre urban planners and city officials who lack a sophistication. Add in a lot of arrogance, the whole self-congratulating of thinking they've done a good job and seeing no wrong in what they do at all.

It's tunnel vision, really.

Right on, "mr. x" Yes, yes, and yes !! (sad, pathetic, but true)

[jlousa]

You don't need to buy it, I'm not selling it just stating the truth. The reason you don't see more so called iconic buildings isn't because of urban planners, or engineers shooting them down, it's because the developers aren't proposing them to begin with, they cost a lot more money for minimal return. We are in a city where buyers are stretched to the max to buy as is, and you'd be hard pressed to find enough people willing to spend an extra 10-15% for a buiding that looks better exteriorly.
Look at your own budgets and tell me you'd rather spend an extra 50K for a building that looked better or would you spend that 50K for a bigger unit or one in a better location?
We need to stop expecting every building to be iconic, it just doesn't happen in any city. Think about how many buildings stand out in any given city, you there are probably only a half dozen in the largest cities, in a city the size of Vancouver you'd be hard pressed to have more then a couple of iconic buildings. We are acutally doing quite well, that's not to say we shouldn't strive to do better, but lets call it for what it really is.

[Canadian Mind]

Originally Posted by jlousa

You don't need to buy it, I'm not selling it just stating the truth. The reason you don't see more so called iconic buildings isn't because of urban planners, or engineers shooting them down, it's because the developers aren't proposing them to begin with, they cost a lot more money for minimal return. We are in a city where buyers are stretched to the max to buy as is, and you'd be hard pressed to find enough people willing to spend an extra 10-15% for a buiding that looks better exteriorly.
Look at your own budgets and tell me you'd rather spend an extra 50K for a building that looked better or would you spend that 50K for a bigger unit or one in a better location?
We need to stop expecting every building to be iconic, it just doesn't happen in any city. Think about how many buildings stand out in any given city, you there are probably only a half dozen in the largest cities, in a city the size of Vancouver you'd be hard pressed to have more then a couple of iconic buildings. We are acutally doing quite well, that's not to say we shouldn't strive to do better, but lets call it for what it really is.

While I agree that not every building needs to be iconic, some variety would be nice. I was just down in Calgary over the weekend. Their stock of iconic buildings is larger than normal. But excusing those examples, the rest of the building stock contains a lot of variety, whereas since the 1990s most structures in Vancouver look the same.

Hell, even Burnaby has better variety.

[dreambrother808]

Forumers are just looking for someone to blame when it comes to their fantasies not coming true. Let's blame the city. Let's act like we live in some horrible, provincial backwater, when the reality is actually far more balanced and mundane, as Jlousa has stated.

Burnaby has better variety? REALLY?

Sometimes I imagine that this forum consists largely of ungrateful teenagers, the kind who think they have it all figured out and complain about their parents' practical, adult counterpoints. But that isn't so, is it? It just seems that way.

[officedweller]

Burnaby has more condos with pointy hats and interesting roof lines.

[idunno]

Pointy hats make up for cheaper/more standardized bodies I'd say.

[Canadian Mind]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

Forumers are just looking for someone to blame when it comes to their fantasies not coming true. Let's blame the city. Let's act like we live in some horrible, provincial backwater, when the reality is actually far more balanced and mundane, as Jlousa has stated.

Burnaby has better variety? REALLY?

Sometimes I imagine that this forum consists largely of ungrateful teenagers, the kind who think they have it all figured out and complain about their parents' practical, adult counterpoints. But that isn't so, is it? It just seems that way.

The way you word your post makes you sound like some self declared ivory tower intellectual.

I'm sorry if my opinions offend anyone, and for the times I make mistakes. But those are my opinions and my mistakes to make. In this case, my opinion is, cheap or not, Burnaby is able to pull more variety out of it's sleeve than Vancouver. Granted, Vancouver has several unique towers. One Wall, Shangri-La, Woodwards, Shaw, and the Melville all stand on their own. The rest truly seem like cookie cutter designs, some on steroids.

[logan5]

I don't think any tower in Vancouver really sticks out on a global scale. The office towers in Vancouver (imo) are vastly superior architecturally than our condo towers. Shangri-la, One Wall, Woodwards, and Grace are the only 4 residential towers that come to mind. So 4 nice towers built in the last 20 years or so?

Maybe density bonuses for excellent architecture. Certainly would be a public amenity.