HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     
Welcome to the SkyscraperPage Forum

Since 1999, the SkyscraperPage Forum has been one of the most active skyscraper enthusiast communities on the web. The global membership discusses development news and construction activity on projects from around the world, alongside discussions on urban design, architecture, transportation and many other topics. Welcome!

You are currently browsing as a guest. Register with the SkyscraperPage Forum and join this growing community of skyscraper enthusiasts. Registering has benefits such as fewer ads, the ability to post messages, private messaging and more.

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > SSP: Local Vancouver > Downtown & City of Vancouver

    MNP Tower in the SkyscraperPage Database

Building Data Page   • Comparison Diagram   • Vancouver Skyscraper Diagram
            
View Full Map

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2010, 4:44 AM
jlousa's Avatar
jlousa jlousa is offline
Ferris Wheel Hater
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 7,397
MNP Tower | 143M | 36Fl | U/C

Since there is an actual application in at the city, I decided it's time for it's own thread.

Retail/restaurant on the ground floor
Office space floors 2-36 (serviced by 2 low rise elevators/6 high rise elevators plus one freight elevator)
444ft to roof slab
470ft to elevator machine room slab
12.0FSR
4 levels of u/g parking (serviced by 2 elevators)

Lobby will be small with 11 elevators and both staircases.

Knowing how much people like images here are links to a couple of renders. Please note the shape of the building which does not really come out in the renders.

Site Plan
http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/develop...s/siteplan.pdf

North and East Renders
http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/develop...elevations.pdf

South and West Renders
http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/develop...elevations.pdf

Notification Letter
http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/develop...gs/notiltr.pdf
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2010, 5:02 AM
touraccuracy's Avatar
touraccuracy touraccuracy is offline
Registered Loser
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 2,758
little bland looking. guess i'll wait for a better render.
__________________
"The modern metropolis is a teeming hive of strung-out dope heads, rapists, home invaders and fine regional cuisine." -Cracked.com
Don't quote me on that.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2010, 6:10 AM
dleung dleung is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,840
I'm not even going to wait for the better render.

Sticking a wall of glass next to the Marine Building might possibly be spun as a low-key "mirror" or something, but I see it as generic and uninventive. A more solid aesthetic with less glazing would have been especially appropriate (call it sustainability, whatever). I get they're trying to preserve views looking out from the 2 towers, but the fact that the floorplate is practically a equilateral hexagon actually voids the little attempt to orient one face parallel with the Marine Building. The floorplate isn't efficient either with how tightly it wraps around the core... why not have a side-loaded core and let it be exposed as a solid vertical element to ground the architecture?



Something like this building, but with a brown stone/copper cladding would be nice.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2010, 6:14 AM
wrenegade's Avatar
wrenegade wrenegade is offline
ON3P Skis
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: SEFC, Vancouver, BC
Posts: 2,257
So this will be a hair taller than the Fairmont and a hair shorter than Shaw tower. Lots of grey glass. Yawn. The density is great but I feel this building will be lost from many angles, although perhaps that's not a bad thing. Great to see more office being built but I would rather see the GM Place....err, Rogers Arena tower or Bentall 6 built first.
__________________
Flickr
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2010, 6:36 AM
Metro-One's Avatar
Metro-One Metro-One is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 8,667
I believe the Fairmont is 140M. Anyways, I would hardly say we are seeing more office getting built, since none of the other proposals lately have made it past the drawing board.

How many proposed office towers is this now?

And how many have broken ground???? Hint, the answer is 0.

It is nice to see these proposals, but I wont be taking this, or any of the other office proposals seriously until a crane is erected. After what has happened with "Vancouver's Turn" excavation is not even enough for me to get excited anymore, hehe.

I take Vancouver office proposals as seriously as 150m + tower proposals in Surrey. In both cases we have seen a lot of talk, but no walk.
__________________
Bridging the Gap
Check out my video production website at: http://www.hailstorm-media.com
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2010, 6:59 AM
LeftCoaster's Avatar
LeftCoaster LeftCoaster is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Toronto
Posts: 7,178
If I were you I would take proposals from certain firms seriously.

Oxford is one of those firms to be taken seriously.

Despite my personal alegiances, there is little doubt they are the premier office developer in the country.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2010, 9:03 AM
mrjauk mrjauk is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 554
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeftCoaster View Post
If I were you I would take proposals from certain firms seriously.

Oxford is one of those firms to be taken seriously.

Despite my personal alegiances, there is little doubt they are the premier office developer in the country.
Moreover, just as this completes the global economy should be pulling out of its economic doldrums--like 2014, 2015, or so.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2010, 12:35 PM
Prometheus's Avatar
Prometheus Prometheus is offline
Reason and Freedom
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Toronto/Vancouver
Posts: 2,320
A 135 metres! Wow! It should be really exciting watching this supertall go up! Can't hardly wait. The era of the flat, monotonous skyline is hereby over.

Last edited by Prometheus; Sep 29, 2010 at 12:50 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2010, 2:10 PM
TwoFace's Avatar
TwoFace TwoFace is offline
Dig-it
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Downtown
Posts: 711
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metro-One View Post
It is nice to see these proposals, but I wont be taking this, or any of the other office proposals seriously until a crane is erected. After what has happened with "Vancouver's Turn" excavation is not even enough for me to get excited anymore, hehe.
Having the site approved is the Big deal from the landowners perspective regardless if the project goes ahead or not.
This establishes market value and precedent for the site with a turnkey option if the situation warrants. Luckily for them they don’t have to pay taxes based on the sites maximum potential.
__________________
All my photos are copyright - unless stated otherwise
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2010, 2:42 PM
Canadian Mind's Avatar
Canadian Mind Canadian Mind is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,853
Based on the floorplate size, location, developer, and other factors, do you guys think this will be an efficient and effective development? Further, based on the efficientcy of the smaller floorplates, does anyone else feel that this actually would have been one of the better sites downtown for a hotel/residential development vice office?

Don't get me wrong, the more office the better. But I would have hoped for a single 600 foot Amacon tower rather than this slender figure & the stubby Bentall 6.
__________________
"you're eating chicken periods" - Vid
"I love eggs, especially the ones with runny yolks" - Me
"EWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW, you're disgusting!" - Vid
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2010, 2:51 PM
phesto phesto is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: yvr/bwi
Posts: 2,182
Thanks for posting jlo.

It is really a shame that MCMP appears to be the only architectural firm entrusted with designing office buildings in this city. They specialize in efficient and cost effective designs and their buildings look okay...Bentall 5, 745 Thurlow are both good looking buildings, but I don't think anyone drooled over them; and definitely not this one.

As far as this proposal becoming a reality; it is all part of the game. There will eventually be one or two existing downtown companies with a large enough requirement to warrant pre-leasing in a new tower. If these large office building owners/managers such as Bentall and Oxford aren't as prepared with a DP in place, then they will be behind their competitors.

dleung- the floorplate doesn't have an exposed core for circulation issues (ie. the floorplates would be cutoff and not as desirable for full floor tenancies) Agreed it isn't very efficient, but with floorplates so small efficiency is kind of thrown out the window.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2010, 4:40 PM
PaperTiger's Avatar
PaperTiger PaperTiger is offline
scared of rain
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Gastown
Posts: 418
There is no pleasing some people.

All this forum says is "more office, more office!" We finally get a proposal on an interesting site that I'm sure most of you didn't even consider was development site, and it is all “too short,” “ wrong place,” “wrong glass,” “wrong shape.”

Jeez guys, we are not getting the Bow, we are never getting the Bow. Get over it.

I for one am excited to see this proposal , and I hope it gets built. I think it will create a really interesting block with some good examples of some different eras of architecture offering a nice compare and contrast.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2010, 5:32 PM
trofirhen's Avatar
trofirhen trofirhen is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 4,639
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prometheus View Post
A 135 metres! Wow! It should be really exciting watching this supertall go up! Can't hardly wait. The era of the flat, monotonous skyline is hereby over.
... ... or should we say () another "superbland" ....
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2010, 5:35 PM
DKaz DKaz is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Fleetwood, Surrey BC
Posts: 3,004
Isn't there already a 1075 W. Hastings? The glass building from the 60s?

EDIT: N/m it's 1055, with its sorta twin 1066 across the street, but if the existing building is 1055 and the new building is east of 1055, shouldn't the number be lower?

EDIT 2: Drawings say 1021 W. Hastings.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2010, 6:10 PM
Prometheus's Avatar
Prometheus Prometheus is offline
Reason and Freedom
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Toronto/Vancouver
Posts: 2,320
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaperTiger View Post

Jeez guys, we are not getting the Bow, we are never getting the Bow.
But why? Why can't we build The Bow and even better? Is there some immutable law of nature specifically precluding Vancouver from building exceptional skyscrapers? Or is our predicament the result of suffocating policies (which limit economic growth and architectural boldness) implemented by paternalistic bureaucrats and politicians?

If the latter, then our predicament is the product of choice (and human foolishness) and is neither inevitable nor permanent. It can be changed. So, contrary to your assertion, we can have The Bow and far superior, if certain people would just stop interfering.

Last edited by Prometheus; Sep 29, 2010 at 6:56 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2010, 6:22 PM
Hed Kandi's Avatar
Hed Kandi Hed Kandi is offline
+
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,920
Atleast this one isn't being handled by James Cheng. I'd love for it to be an iconic tower but that's doubtful considering it's MCM who is designing this.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2010, 6:32 PM
EastVanMark EastVanMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,034
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prometheus View Post
But why? Why can't we build The Bow and even better? Is there some immutable law of nature specifically precluding Vancouver from building exceptional skyscrapers? Or is our predicament the result of suffocating policies (which limit economic growth and architectural boldness) implemented by paternalistic bureaucrats and politicians?

Such policies are the product of choice (and human foolishness) and are neither inevitable nor permanent. They can be changed. So, contrary to your assertion, we can have The Bow and much, much better, if certain people would just stop interfering.
Very well put.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2010, 6:46 PM
Hed Kandi's Avatar
Hed Kandi Hed Kandi is offline
+
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,920
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prometheus View Post
A 135 metres! Wow! It should be really exciting watching this supertall go up! Can't hardly wait. The era of the flat, monotonous skyline is hereby over.


Only in Vancouver can a highrise be deemed with the highly coveted supertall status.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2010, 7:41 PM
Coldrsx's Avatar
Coldrsx Coldrsx is offline
Community Guy
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 39,438
^nope... Edmonton too. Our new 149.3m tower i nearing the Burj heights.
__________________
"The destructive effects of automobiles are much less a cause than a symptom of our incompetence at city building" - Jane Jacobs 1961ish

Wake me up when I can see skyscrapers
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2010, 8:09 PM
Porfiry Porfiry is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 555
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prometheus View Post
But why? Why can't we build The Bow and even better? Is there some immutable law of nature specifically precluding Vancouver from building exceptional skyscrapers? Or is our predicament the result of suffocating policies (which limit economic growth and architectural boldness) implemented by paternalistic bureaucrats and politicians?
Which corporation, flush with cash, would finance Vancouver's "Bow"? Even EnCana (which had the largest profit of any Canadian company in 2009) has been forced to downscale the Bow. Who in this poor city has a few billion to spend?

"Architectural boldness" is nothing but talk unless you can find someone with money to burn.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
   
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > SSP: Local Vancouver > Downtown & City of Vancouver
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:33 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.