|
Thanks for posting this, Jlousa.
massing study - not the final design http://img841.imageshack.us/img841/8093/concordy.jpg Source: http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/planning/rezoning/applications/750pacific/documents/1.12_view.pdf |
And hopefully all these new residents understand that they will be living next to a stadium, with noise and lights and electronic billboards, in an entertainment district with more lights, signs, noise, a casino, bars, hotels, etc....
haha, well, I am dreaming, this is vancouver, they will all complain as soon as they move in... Looks nice though! |
At least the proposal looks different, so +1 from me.
|
So it's finally an official proposal or what?
|
Best proposal Vancouver has seen yet.
|
I'm not terribly impressed overall.
The Uses Diagrams PDF appears to indicate that two sides of the civic plaza will be residential from Level 2 up - that doesn't seem conducive to creating a lively public space (in general and for events...). |
So bland, and the one "interesting" building just blocks the view of the BC Place roof.
|
Very bland.
|
This is about as uninspired as it gets.
I'm dumbfounded as to how James Cheng can go and endorse Bjarke Ingles 1400 Howe project and then come out out without a design as insipid as this. |
Quote:
Quote:
I'm not big on it either. Surely, with its pool of architectural talent, Vancouver can come up with a sleeker design than this. |
What about our beloved neighbourhood casino?
Looks ok, could be better. I agree about the building blocking the view of the stadium, and people won't want to live there anyway. Maybe it will get presold and people will take a bath once it's built, like some units at the Capitol. |
Looks promising. It's no Bjarke and ingles, but it's different and a prominent landmark for the site. The improtant thing would be how they treat the plaza below the arch and the surround ing public space, and what if any amenity would be on the arch roof (roof top observation deck? publicly accessible garden?)
NB, the arch building is residential, so i don't think any amenity on the roof will be for the public. |
I hope this is just a rough idea until it gets further along.
I love the arch idea, but over all this looks as 1985 as what's already there. |
Guys, if you look at the "Key Project Features" pdf, you can clearly see that these renderings are simply intended to show massing and the project will not end up looking exactly like this for a variety of reasons - among them: a)there are no balconies, b)the glass is reflective, c)there are no mechanical penthouses, and d) the glass won't likely be clean curtainwall and will incorporate spandrels and mullions.
The comments here that these renderings are bland or appear like a 1985 project are funny because the next iteration, once they incorporate the above items and knowing James Cheng, will likely be far more ugly... |
really looks like the result of a first year architect's charrette. like cheng is a really uninaginative architect, but this one looks like he must have handed it off to his teenaged son. and that arch building is a tour de force of decontextualized design bordering on anomie - impressively bad design, impressively poor relationship to site and locale, impressively arrogant and anti-popular stand viz the broad consensus on the form the city ought to take.
my guess is that if this is anything like the final proposal, this will, again very impressively, meet such virulently hostile opposition during the approvals process that the entire project will be reworked. |
Agreed that it's just a massing study - the concern of course, is that the arch building is still there!!
I like the retail/restaurant uses right up along the seawall. Personally, I think that the sites along Pacific Boulevard are probably sites where the buidlings could be "one-sided" - with elevator cores facing BC Place and suites facing water views to the south. |
That arch building would have made a tremendous sky terrace for a casino and/or major hotel development. Too bad this project will just be yet another "mixed use" building which in Vancouver terms means 99% residential with a coffee shop on the ground floor.:yuck: To add insult to injury it appears the historic BC Pavilion will be lost as well:( That means yet another reminder of Expo 86 will be lost forever.:(
|
Quote:
All joking aside, I would have hoped the BC Pavilion / Enterprise Hall / Casino would be retained too, I mean, it matches with the green angular glass of the new BC Place now too! But wasn't it said that it had HVAC issues or the glass enclosure was problematic? |
Boxy and blaaaah. we're ruining good opportunities.
|
|
I just wish they would add in a public swimming pool.
|
Quite possibly THE worst place in the city to put that bridge/arch building idea. At virtually any open site in SEFC it could work, but here, at the exact perfect height and location to obscure the far more interesting stadium roof/lighting effects behind it - clearly intentionally - the idea severely detracts from both the stadium and the development. That bridge just doesn't work, hopefully it doesn't make it into the finished product...
(edit: re swimming pool: at a different location, would love to see an arch building hotel where the bottom floor of the arch has a glass-bottomed swimming pool...) |
The arch building seems extra silly when there's going to be another one of those near Science World. It's like they expected BC Place to be a lot uglier than it is.
|
Quote:
The point is its clear they are trying to block the view of the stadium, and I will bet a pretty penny the city, and specific people in it are the ones pushing this concept. /rant |
And here's the reason they can't build a tall tower in place of the arch:
The City Hall view cone: 9.1 http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/views/viewcones/images/9_1_photo.jpg http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/views/viewcones/91.htm |
The arch is contextually absurd. Not only will it pointlessly obscure attractive views of the brand new stadium roof, the arch seems designed to maximize contact (and thus conflict) between residential suites and the stadium and what is supposed to be an entertainment zone.
|
I didn't know about that page on view cones - thanks! I know people here have troubles with the view cones, but I think they are a good thing for this city. North Shore mountains are such a beautiful part of Vancouver and I love seeing them between the buildings. Would be such a shame if one could not see the mountains from south of Downtown.
To the arch building I must add that after thinking more about it, I am also not sure that's the best place for it. I would like to see such different architecture elsewhere in Downtown, but BC Place is such an impressive building, that obscuring the view with this building is not worth it. |
A couple of buildings with a similar theme.
Here are few building-designs that are more interesting than what is being proposed here, in my humble opinion.
http://i.imgur.com/PTwql.jpg Source. http://i.imgur.com/LfqBF.jpg Source. http://i.imgur.com/5a4Er.jpg Source. http://i.imgur.com/GVn5M.jpg Source. I understand the renders we have are not the final versions... |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
I'm sorry, I'm just so sick of reading everyone's complaints on a decent proposal that would get praised in any other Canadian city. Especially when a generic cookie cutter condo is proposed and everyone wishes it were something different.
|
That arch building would actually look pretty cool on the Cambie Bridge parking lots, stretched over the city-bound lanes of Cambie Bridge. :yes:
|
:previous:Now there is a goo idea, or how about across the viaducts?? Oh wait, sorry vision...
I think the problem with this building is not the design (I actually like it) but the location, blocking the stadium from view (a true landmark) and putting thousands more residents in our new "entertainment district" |
Quote:
:previous::previous::previous: eg-friggin-xactly..... Across the viaducts or the bridge heads? That would be perfect. Here, not so much. |
Agree a bridge building over the viaducts would look pretty impressive, and it would be justifiable because it suits the location. Here not so much, they could've created a 87M tall building shaped like Expo Ernie, at least it would be more appropriate given the location. Come on JKMC give us a super sized Expo Ernie. :tup:
|
Quote:
While Metro-One is usually the first one to reference Japan in any given thread here ;), this reminds me a lot of the Tokyo Telecom Center in Odaiba, Japan. http://i.imgur.com/4eCDQ.jpg http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=9193 |
Quote:
9/11 imagery much? |
Quote:
my sentimental favorite is, shucks, in Japan - the Umeda Sky building in osaka. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ae/Umeda_Sky_building.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umeda_Sky_Building |
If the goal is to preserve views of BC Place, I'd much prefer a tower like this:
http://img502.imageshack.us/img502/6598/skyscrapers103.jpg |
its incredibly banal and badly proportioned...a lazy third rate version of so many bridge buildings around the world
the massing of the other clumps of buildings also look like heaps of junky curtain wall |
I do like that last one
|
Quote:
For sure !! |
who is gonna pay for these mor einteresting buildings? condos already cost too much in this city something more interesting would be ridiculous to buy
|
i felt they hired a scientist or engineer to design this, mathematical perfection or sth,
have a lot of science friends, even they can do sth more creative than this the japanese design refers to the theme of technology, which is rather simple and dull looking, but this is a plaza...public gathering, art, social space we really need someone like Erickson, |
Is there anything new on this project?
I like the fact that it fits my definition of iconic, which doesn't always have to be super tall, but something that should stand out among all the usual towers. I'm a bit surprised about some of the negative comments. |
I was at a public meeting of False Creek residents a few weeks ago where the developer (Canadian Metropolitan Properties) announced that the whole project was dead. Perhaps developers make announcements like this often while negotiating with the City, but it seemed sincere. He said that the Aquilinis and his owners were prepared to let it all sit, as is, for as long as necessary.
|
Edgewater casino extended their lease until 2015, so nothing's gonna happen until they get a new home across the street.
|
Well doesn't seem like this one will get redeveloped for a while, looks like Concord and CMP are going to head to court. Interesting story so far.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/brit...ions-breached-agreement/article28993051/ |
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 6:52 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Prev