MNP Tower | 143M | 36Fl | Completed

[dleung]

I got really nerdy and tested the tower from several angles (by building a 3d model using the site plan and elevations)

from canada place


from jack poole plaza (fairmont shown under construction)


waterfront skyline (fairmont shown under construction). The view cones are making everything look ridiculous. The tower will be flanked by fairmont and shaw, all three practically the same height.




looking down hastings street


The height would have been perfect if it was 25 metres taller (170m). With the architecture the way it is though, I rather see nothing built. With such a prominent location in the waterfront skyline, the design needs to speak to the West Coast somehow (shaw does, for example), but this building could be anywhere in the USA.

[giallo]

While I'm a bit bummed about the table-top height, the fact that another 36 floors of office will be added to downtown is awesome. It'll add just that much more human activity to the core. Bring it on!

[hollywoodnorth]

wow thanks for doing that work on the 3D renders!

I'm very excited for this project and at LEED Platinum ... its gonna be great

[mr.x]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

A reply to this objection has already been given above.

But to repeat: To answer the question why Vancouver does not have ambitious architecture is essentially to answer the question why Vancouver does not have big corporations. Just as Vancouver is not a place to build seriously, so it is not a place to do serious business. The myriad of suffocating rules, regulations and taxes on the provincial and civic levels discourages both. The causes of (and the cures to) our architectural poverty and economic poverty are identical.

So the big corporations that would build the future Bows of Vancouver are those corporations that would flock (and emerge) here if BC were to become a centre of relative economic freedom.

Very well said. This city could be so much more without its suffocating restrictions and taxes. For starters, view cones need to go - they are absolutely arbitrary. Whenever there are regulations and taxation, it obviously limits what anyone can do whether it be business or architecture. I'm not saying there shouldn't be some sort of regulation, but for Vancouver it has obviously severely limited its potential for economic prosperity (and with that said, it limits the possibilities of architectural design). So, what do we have now? Architects and firms that build only to what is prescribed by the city; they design what they know will get approved to avoid costly red tape - creativity is not an option for them. Businesses and architects have to work within a much more narrower framework, and when that happens there's not only less growth but creativity and innovation also go down.

As for this proposal, at least it's an office tower. But given its prominent location, especially in the CBD, you'd think it would be a bit taller and would be more unique. If there's a rating scale, it barely passes - I'd give it a 51%. And just because it's an office tower.

The same could also be said for the new Fairmont Pacific Rim...far too short, and definitely not something unique for a location so prominent. The area needs something much taller to break the tabletop.

It's sad to see how so many forumers make excuses for everything, shrug it off, and just go along with the mediocrity. Everything just seems to be purely functional in this city, and that's somehow okay.

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by mr.x

Very well said. This city could be so much more without its suffocating restrictions and taxes. For starters, view cones need to go - they are absolutely arbitrary.

As for this proposal, at least it's an office tower. But given its prominent location, especially in the CBD, you'd think it would be a bit taller and would be more unique. If there's a rating scale, it barely passes - I'd give it a 51%. And just because it's an office tower.

The same could also be said for the new Fairmont Pacific Rim...far too short, and definitely not something unique for a location so prominent. The area needs something much taller to break the tabletop.

It's sad to see how so many forumers make excuses for everything, shrug it off, and just go along with the mediocrity.

Very well said, X

[red-paladin]

I for one think this is a very cool proposal.
I'll be able to see the construction from my desk at work, which is even better!

I can't believe that everyone is bitching about the height and the shape.

We all wanted to see new office buildings in this city, and now that one of the biggest ones in 20 years is being proposed and Jlousa even tipped us off about the test drilling at the site, it's a disappointment?

I think this will be a great addition and will add more life to the eastern end of Coal Harbour and the Convention Centre area. Also, it's an interesting shape, and the glass will be a reflective curtain wall and that's all some people seem to think about!

P.S. I love how the ground level is integrated with both adjoining buildings.

[Metro-One]

I agree, so my fingers are definitely crossed for this project. I personally feel that anything much taller than this proposal for this plot would become far to over powering, and destroy some of the charm of the Marin Building (by making it look that much smaller)

There are definitely areas i want to see 600 foot + towers in Van, but this specific site is not one, and I think this tower will fit the bill perfectly!

[Canadian Mind]

The renders provided above changed my tune a bit on this proposal. The height and massing suits it's location. While 25 meters higher would have given the skyline a nice step-up as you are going closer to the core, it would have made the building too thin looking. Having it the same height as Shaw and Fairmont will greatly add to the appearent density and overall mass of the area. Only concern is again the table top look; however, there are plenty of smaller buildings to the west of this building that, in 10 or 20 years, could be torn down for larger and grander towers.

[TwoFace]

I don’t want to get "off topic" too much, but when pondering architectural style, one also has to equate cost.
The least expensive thing to build and the most efficient is a Box, once you start deviating from a simple design and adding curves and twists the costs start skyrocketing, if the numbers don’t work it doesn’t get build. It’s that simple.

The days of romantic and futuristic architecture are few and far between, most of the provocative and wild buildings are sitting empty and bankrupt in Dubai due to a global financial crisis.

[navazan]

it'd be nice if oil died out completely and hydrogen became the fuel standard, then dubai would be totally vacant- all the nice skyscrapers would be empty. i propose we pool our resources and buy the burj kalifa and turn it into a massive indoor paintball arena.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

I agree, so my fingers are definitely crossed for this project. I personally feel that anything much taller than this proposal for this plot would become far to over powering, and destroy some of the charm of the Marin Building (by making it look that much smaller)

There are definitely areas i want to see 600 foot + towers in Van, but this specific site is not one, and I think this tower will fit the bill perfectly!

Metro, in your opinion, where would be a good part of downtown to have some 650 ft++ towers. I think that Howe St. north of Georgia has that "big city feel" potential. Of course, that's not the only spot. At any rate, I'd love to see a touch of Toronto-style density downtown, or maybe downtown south, near the Wall Centre (love that building!!). Where would you put a couple of 50-story-ish buildings?

[wrenegade]

I know you didn't ask me, but my top 5 sites for 500'+ towers would be:

1. The Turn (1133 West Georgia)
2. Bay Parkade (NE corner Georgia & Seymour)
3. Canada Post building
4. Sears building
5. 1111 West Hastings (NW corner Hastings & Thurlow)

The last one may be the most unrealistic but it is probably my favourite site in the city. I'd love to see a mixed use office/hotel/condo (or two of the three) building go up there. I'm sure there are view cones that bisect the site and Coal Harbour residents would kick and scream about shadows, but I can dream.

[phesto]

^I would place 1133 Melville @ #2 on that list.

The Renaissance (1155 West Hastings) will likely get redeveloped before the 1111 West Hastings office tower does - it is a bigger site without any long term leases in place.

[jlousa]

On topic people.

[navazan]

Originally Posted by Canadian Mind

The renders provided above changed my tune a bit on this proposal. The height and massing suits it's location. While 25 meters higher would have given the skyline a nice step-up as you are going closer to the core, it would have made the building too thin looking. Having it the same height as Shaw and Fairmont will greatly add to the appearent density and overall mass of the area. Only concern is again the table top look; however, there are plenty of smaller buildings to the west of this building that, in 10 or 20 years, could be torn down for larger and grander towers.

i agree, these renders make the tower look a lot better than what my lil mind could imagine. almost looks taller than Shaw... i guess due to the elevation. a fine addition to my favorite part of town.

[navazan]

As for the design of the building- i personally think office towers should look serious/blocky, and residentials should look nice and stylish and curvy... i think thats generally the rule. and regarding the off topic tall tower locations, i dont think anything taller than 200m will be going up in downtown van in the next 15 years. if this current proposed office is only 135m, then chances are nothing is going to be needed much taller than that...unfortunately. unless some magical yet-to-be heard of corporation decides to move to DT van.

[EdinVan]

Reminds me a bit of London's Tower 42.

[officedweller]

I was thinking that too.

[jsbertram]

I'm not disappointed with this building. In fact I'm quite happy with how they are tying this building into Guiness House by extending the Guiness House parking structure up to the Marine building and creating a new exit ramp (on to Cordova) as part of this new construction. The enlarged plaza replacing the current exit ramp is a nice way to open the space between the buildings.

However, if you're not going to keep anything except the facade of the old building, what the point? To me, the interior space is more important to preserve than the outside.

Here's a classic example of preserving the facade while building new:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&sour...61.89,,0,-5.02

Bonus points to anyone who knows why this was preserved & re-attached to the new building.
I have no idea why this was done - which is what people in 50-75 years will be saying too. Why bother keeping the exterior front wall of the University Club (which hasn't even been in there for a quarter of a century) which has no context with the new construction. If the new building was "University Club Tower", I can understand trying to make it part of the new building.

I remember the bickering and fighting that the Terminal City Club went through while deciding to refurbish the old place or knock down & build new. As much as I liked the old place (some people thought its interior was the plushest & stuffiest Gentlemens Club in the city), I think you'll only hear from the 'old guard' that the new Terminal City Club tower isn't as nice as the old building.

If you're not keeping the interior of the old University Club, whats the point of keeping the false-front then?

Sorta like the Louvre saying "We're using a Jackson Pollock to fill the space where the Mona Lisa used to be, but we'll put the Pollock in the old frame to remind people what was there"

[touraccuracy]

Originally Posted by EdinVan

Reminds me a bit of London's Tower 42.

okay THAT'S where i know it from! thought it looked familiar.