HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     
Welcome to the SkyscraperPage Forum.

Since 1999, SkyscraperPage.com's 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.  SkyscraperPage.com also features unique skyscraper diagrams, a database of construction activity, and publishes popular skyscraper posters.

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

    Pivot in the SkyscraperPage Database

Building Data Page   • Vancouver Skyscraper Diagram
            
View Full Map

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Jan 30, 2012, 10:12 PM
jlousa's Avatar
jlousa jlousa is offline
Ferris Wheel Hater
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 7,237
320 Granville St |119M | 32Fl | Proposed

An offical application has been made, so here are the details.

Quote:
Rezoning Application - 320 Granville Street
VIA Architecture has applied to the City of Vancouver to rezone 320 Granville Street from DD (Downtown) District to CD-1 (Comprehensive Development) District. The proposal is for a 32-storey office building, with retail and a bike station at grade, and a childcare on the top floor. The development would be comprised of approximately 35 303 m² (380,000 sq. ft.) of floor area, with a floor space ratio (FSR) of 25.5, and a height of 119 m (390 ft.).
I the bolded the very large FSR. Not sure if it's a new Vancouver record or not, but it's certainly up there.


Rendering
http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/plannin.../rendering.pdf

City Planning Context
http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/plannin.../rzcontext.pdf

Site Context
http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/plannin...s/siteplan.pdf

Concept Model Views
http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/plannin...nts/aerial.pdf

View Impact Analysis
http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/plannin...ents/tower.pdf

View Cone Analysis
http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/plannin...ents/views.pdf

Shadow Diagrams
http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/plannin...ts/shadows.pdf

Project Stats and Context Aerial
http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/plannin.../projstats.pdf

Parking Plans
http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/plannin...ts/parking.pdf

Floor Plans
http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/plannin...floorplans.pdf

Building Elevation Drawings
http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/plannin...ents/elevs.pdf

Building Section Drawings
http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/plannin...s/sections.pdf

My 2 cents, I'm happy to see this one moving forward. I'm still a touch doubtful as to wether it will make this round of towers but I'm more then willing to be proven wrong. As most of you know I seldom complain about design, this is one building that in it's current state lets me down. I certainly don't expect anything special, but I was hoping for slightly more. Anyways enjoy, discuss, critic.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Jan 30, 2012, 10:21 PM
officedweller officedweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 16,524
Thanks for posting!

The tower seems pretty plain. The setbacks/reveals may end up looking like those on Bentall V, but across the face of the tower.

The only good thing I see with this tower is that the ground plane is nicely opened up to allow views towards the CP Station.

Check out the view cone analysis, which includes a massing study for the towers north of the CP Station.

I wonder what the glazing will be like?
Grant Thornton Place next door is very "shiny", so I wouldn't want mirrored glass, but it would be nice to have glazing that would allow the limestone RBC tower to stand out against it.

Last edited by officedweller; Jan 30, 2012 at 10:31 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Jan 30, 2012, 10:23 PM
LeftCoaster's Avatar
LeftCoaster LeftCoaster is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Toronto
Posts: 6,857
Wow and the office buildings just keep on commin'

There's another decent sized one in the works too, should be a few months before it is announced though!

With regards to this one it seems terribly boring, and why in the world is VIA submitting a proposal to the city rendered in what looks like sketch-up. They are much better than that.

Hopefully the UDP gets them to add some more umph to the design because this one is going to be quite visible from the harbour and is a total snooze fest as is.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Jan 30, 2012, 11:09 PM
trofirhen's Avatar
trofirhen trofirhen is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 4,199

Couldn't agree more. This is potential place for a dramatic "twist" ot "turn" to it (metaphorically speaking) and we're presented with this. The diagonal lines seem like a wimpy attempt to be "daring." The Credit Suisse-funded building seems much more dramatic. As Leftcoaster said, give this one some more "umph" and Fast ! ! It needs an emergency intravenous against blandomyelitis.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Jan 30, 2012, 11:16 PM
Hed Kandi's Avatar
Hed Kandi Hed Kandi is offline
+
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,754
Thanks Jlo!

The design is shit. Let's hope the UDP takes this one for a beating and hands it off to a firm like SOM to work some magic.

And well because I love you guys, I've added this proposal to the development thread. 1075 W Hastings has also been re-branded 'MNP Tower'.

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=138119
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Jan 30, 2012, 11:17 PM
Canadian Mind's Avatar
Canadian Mind Canadian Mind is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,846
I hope the glass isn't nearly as translucent as it is in that picture.

Also, when was the last time the diagrams were updated?
__________________
"you're eating chicken periods" - Vid
"I love eggs, especially the ones with runny yolks" - Me
"EWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW, you're disgusting!" - Vid
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Jan 30, 2012, 11:33 PM
trofirhen's Avatar
trofirhen trofirhen is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 4,199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hed Kandi View Post
Thanks Jlo!

The design is shit. Let's hope the UDP takes this one for a beating and hands it off to a firm like SOM to work some magic.

And well because I love you guys, I've added this proposal to the development thread. 1075 W Hastings has also been re-branded 'MNP Tower'.

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=138119

Love the ethereal (no height, no date given) of 99 West Pender in that thread. Now THAT or something more like it would be worthwhile and difficult to argue down, I think. French immersion pie!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2012, 4:48 AM
logan5's Avatar
logan5 logan5 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Mt.Pleasant
Posts: 1,783
(These renderings are always frustrating for me to look at. The rendering is so vague to me that I couldn't possibly interpret what the final product is going to look like. I'm not doubting others, that's just my own experience.(with renderings)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2012, 5:17 AM
dleung dleung is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,737
How can something proposed 13 years after Bentall 5 look this ugly....
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2012, 5:19 AM
trofirhen's Avatar
trofirhen trofirhen is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 4,199
Quote:
Originally Posted by dleung View Post
How can something proposed 13 years after Bentall 5 look so ugly....

This is Vancouver ............. {I hate to use that polemic tone, but this city seemingly just can't break through the design barrier}

Last edited by trofirhen; Jan 31, 2012 at 5:42 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2012, 5:45 AM
officedweller officedweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 16,524
I don't find it ugly - I just find it plain.

I think it will look a lot like the sides of Bentall V - and blame the view cones for the flat roof.
It's actually a bit more interesting than some office towers like Bay-Adelaide in TO.

Here are the reveals on Bentall V - I think the reveals on 320 will appear the same - hopefully there will be some differentiation in the facade on each side of the reveal:

From the Bentall website:


http://www.bentallcentre.com/

By Uncle Buddha from Flickr:


http://www.flickr.com/photos/uncle_b...n/photostream/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2012, 6:09 AM
deasine deasine is offline
Vancouver Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,489
Ironically, the second line on the rendering says:

Quote:
320 Granville Street - The Pivot of Opportunity
(emphasis mine)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2012, 6:53 AM
Hed Kandi's Avatar
Hed Kandi Hed Kandi is offline
+
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,754
Quote:
Originally Posted by dleung View Post
How can something proposed 13 years after Bentall 5 look this ugly....
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2012, 7:05 AM
dleung dleung is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,737
I was so dismayed I created my own proposal:

Assuming the 12' floor-to-floor heights of the current proposal, mine is 330 feet high and 26 stories. At first I tried a 450 foot version to step "up" from Granville Square, but seeing that the site is A) near the waterfront, and B) surounded by smaller-scale historic buildings, hence C) will not see a lot of height nearby in the forseeable future, I think the tower height should step down instead, preserving vistas from the Harbour Center observation deck. This is not a good spot to stick a "skyline addition".

Floorplates (minus a 1500sf core) average just over 8500sf, for a total of 220,000sf. The main gesture of course is opening up the ground plane for clear sightlines to Waterfront Station, and to Granville Plaza from the adjacent buildings.












Last edited by dleung; Jan 31, 2012 at 7:47 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2012, 10:48 AM
EdinVan EdinVan is offline
EdInVan
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sodom and Gomorrah
Posts: 481
Anything is better than what's there now.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2012, 3:37 PM
phesto phesto is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: yvr/bwi
Posts: 2,129
I wouldn't get too worked up about the design, as there is a good chance this is just a placeholder until the rezoning is achieved - which would explain the choice of architect and what appears to be minimal cost and effort in the design work so far.

If they get approval for this density, don't be surprised if the site is sold before it hits the DPB/UDP stage which would allow for some refinements and tweaks to the design (but no more height or density).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2012, 5:08 PM
wrenegade's Avatar
wrenegade wrenegade is offline
ON3P Skis
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: SEFC, Vancouver, BC
Posts: 2,206
I agree the height/density is the important thing here, but that design is really uninspired. Not ugly, just blah. I hope to see some change as well.

Anyone else think the rooftop daycare is a bit of a strange use for what would ordinarily be the most prime view office real estate?
__________________
Flickr
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2012, 5:33 PM
s211 s211 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 2,542
Quote:
Originally Posted by wrenegade View Post
Anyone else think the rooftop daycare is a bit of a strange use for what would ordinarily be the most prime view office real estate?
One of the first things that caught my eye. It smacks of triple bottom line run amok.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_bottom_line
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2012, 9:37 PM
officedweller officedweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 16,524
I think it's about trying to encroach on the view cone with a component that would be politically incorrect for the City to delete.
To be withion the view cone, an entire floor would have to be deleted.
And remember that the City doesn't like daycare outdoor space on podium rooftops because of all the stuff (including dead bodies) that seem to fall on them.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2012, 10:45 PM
trofirhen's Avatar
trofirhen trofirhen is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 4,199
Quote:
Originally Posted by officedweller View Post
I think it's about trying to encroach on the view cone with a component that would be politically incorrect for the City to delete.
To be withion the view cone, an entire floor would have to be deleted.
And remember that the City doesn't like daycare outdoor space on podium rooftops because of all the stuff (including dead bodies) that seem to fall on them.
Agreed totally on the "politically correct" armlock attempt. Interesting (and disturbing) the dead bodies: (where do they come from?).

Anyway, some years earlier, I had seen a Time-Life photgraph of a highrise rooftop preschool in Mexico City, and understood there were others like it.
Tried to research it but must have looked in all the wrong links.
Do they still exist? Is this relevant to Vancouver at all? (not in this case; sorry for the digression)
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 7:36 PM.

     

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