Extraordinary new towers aim to change Vancouver skyline

[Drive-By Body Pierce]

I tried to post the images, but they have some strange file extension that is not allowed on the boards. Definitely worth a look, these buildings are crazy looking.

http://www.thepeak.fm/james-sutton/2015/09/16/extraordinary-new-towers-aim-to-change-vancouver-skyline-

EDIT: Images attached at least.

[inane]

I just wish they'd do something more interesting with the 4-6 story stuff. Cambie for example is just gonna be a wall of that dull grey and glass crap. Boring!

[Ghostsof1915]

Can someone tell me how these architects get hired? They are all ugly as sin.

Can't they build something art deco like the Marine Building, or the Chrysler Building?

[PhillipBlunt]

If an earthquake hits with an epicenter anywhere near the Lower Mainland, downtown will be under 4 feet of glass.

[PhillipBlunt]

I've also heard murmurs of a massive tower being built on the St. Paul's lot, once the hospital is razed.

[Armada]

Can someone tell me how these architects get hired? They are all ugly as sin.

Can't they build something art deco like the Marine Building, or the Chrysler Building?

I disagree, those buildings are stunning.

[Neversummer]

Here is another proposal, seems like it's open season to build Vancouver's first signature iconic tower.

Full Story here - http://www.vancouversun.com/downtown+vancouver+church+plans+build+storey+highrise/11372323/story.html

[PhillipBlunt]

This city needs to loosen it's stupid height restrictions. A maximum of 600 feet is moronic when one considers the limited space the downtown peninsula provides.

This "sight cone" garbage is ridiculous and so epitomizes how shallow the culture is in this city.

And any argument related to earthquakes is erroneous as New York is situated near a fault line on the eastern seaboard. Just as much of a risk of an earthquake there. Subduction zones aren't merely an issue out west.

[Mr. Ambien]

I think in the first image with all of them in it, the ones on the left were the most normal looking ones.

I guess normal and safe buildings are out of the question now.

One of them sort of reminded me of the Marilyn Monroe Towers in Mississauga.

[inane]

This city needs to loosen it's stupid height restrictions. A maximum of 600 feet is moronic when one considers the limited space the downtown peninsula provides.

This "sight cone" garbage is ridiculous and so epitomizes how shallow the culture is in this city.

And any argument related to earthquakes is erroneous as New York is situated near a fault line on the eastern seaboard. Just as much of a risk of an earthquake there. Subduction zones aren't merely an issue out west.

How are the view corridors representative of shallow culture?

[taxi]

This city needs to loosen it's stupid height restrictions. A maximum of 600 feet is moronic when one considers the limited space the downtown peninsula provides.

This "sight cone" garbage is ridiculous and so epitomizes how shallow the culture is in this city.

And any argument related to earthquakes is erroneous as New York is situated near a fault line on the eastern seaboard. Just as much of a risk of an earthquake there. Subduction zones aren't merely an issue out west.

While I do see the purpose of some site lines, I think far too much emphasis is put on them. All part of the NIMBY attitude in Vancouver. Putting major condo development in the area east of Main and South of Broadway with fewer height restriction would go a long way towards alleviating Vancouver's housing problems.

[Neversummer]

While housing and affordable one is definitely an issue here in Vancouver ... I don't think that the idea of an iconic tower is remotely related to the housing problem. That's a separate issue all together.

[aGENT]

Sure beats the largely generic glass boxes that currently dominate the skyline.

Still, I wish architects would focus more on actually making something attractive as opposed to what many would kindly refer to as 'unique' or 'funky' (I'm looking at you, design that looks like stacked shipping containers).

You can be original and still create something attractive.

[taxi]

While housing and affordable one is definitely an issue here in Vancouver ... I don't think that the idea of an iconic tower is remotely related to the housing problem. That's a separate issue all together.

I think the current restrictions on building definitely are related to the housing problem. They create an artificial shortage of affordable housing. The issue holding the "iconic" projects back isn't their architecture but height restrictions.

[PhillipBlunt]

How are the view corridors representative of shallow culture?

The view corridors represent the need for people to be artificially connected to the mountains by this inane (I hope you don't mind) need to see them. These are 3,000 - 4,000 ft peaks that are hard to miss.

Requiring a height restriction to enable people to see the mountains is a completely superficial measure. I have never heard any request for view cones to enable residents to see English Bay or Burrard Inlet. This is because the "mountain view" is a selling point in local real estate. However, I know of at least one resident in Coal Harbour whose precious mountain view was taken from them by another larger building.

If people love the mountains so much, get in a &^@#ing car and drive right to them and hike within their wonderful environs, instead of demanding that you be able to see them from the comfort of your dining room, so that you feel like the king of the world.

As taxi has stated, this city needs to ditch the height restrictions, if it hopes to truly take advantage of the very limited space downtown Vancouver has. But Vision Vancouver's name is irony at it's best.

They issue height restrictions to serve nothing, but in doing so, will merely contribute to urban sprawl. They plan to tear down the Viaducts, but offer no solution to the horrific traffic this will cause, and in turn the mass exhaust emissions this will cause. Although, people in the Fraser Valley will continue to be the unfortunate recipients of that due to air currents from the Pacific.

Vancouver is only going to see an increase in population and without proper measures taken, it will end up a mess of a city. But at least they'll have their view cones and community gardens to take their minds off the constant exhaust in the air.

[Hobble]

The Chinese are going to love them.

[inane]

The view corridors represent the need for people to be artificially connected to the mountains by this inane (I hope you don't mind) need to see them. These are 3,000 - 4,000 ft peaks that are hard to miss.

Requiring a height restriction to enable people to see the mountains is a completely superficial measure. I have never heard any request for view cones to enable residents to see English Bay or Burrard Inlet. This is because the "mountain view" is a selling point in local real estate. However, I know of at least one resident in Coal Harbour whose precious mountain view was taken from them by another larger building.

If people love the mountains so much, get in a ???? car and drive right to them and hike within their wonderful environs, instead of demanding that you be able to see them from the comfort of your dining room, so that you feel like the king of the world.

As taxi has stated, this city needs to ditch the height restrictions, if it hopes to truly take advantage of the very limited space downtown Vancouver has. But Vision Vancouver's name is irony at it's best.

They issue height restrictions to serve nothing, but in doing so, will merely contribute to urban sprawl. They plan to tear down the Viaducts, but offer no solution to the horrific traffic this will cause, and in turn the mass exhaust emissions this will cause. Although, people in the Fraser Valley will continue to be the unfortunate recipients of that due to air currents from the Pacific.

Vancouver is only going to see an increase in population and without proper measures taken, it will end up a mess of a city. But at least they'll have their view cones and community gardens to take their minds off the constant exhaust in the air.

I agree with you about getting out and enjoying the mountains rather than just looking at them. But I question your assertion that higher towers will decrease sprawl. The number of additional units you could get from higher towers is minimal relative to the number of units required for growth. I'm not saying that from a 'save the views' point of view, just from a numbers point of view. I would think statistically you'd be achieve more units by turning more of the townhouses into 4 storey buildings or changes like that. Plus adding a few floors on a huge tower isn't really going to be creating any new affordable housing.

I totally disagree with you about the viaducts and your 'horrific traffic' assertion, but that's a different debate.

[PhillipBlunt]

I agree with you about getting out and enjoying the mountains rather than just looking at them. But I question your assertion that higher towers will decrease sprawl. The number of additional units you could get from higher towers is minimal relative to the number of units required for growth. I'm not saying that from a 'save the views' point of view, just from a numbers point of view. I would think statistically you'd be achieve more units by turning more of the townhouses into 4 storey buildings or changes like that. Plus adding a few floors on a huge tower isn't really going to be creating any new affordable housing.

I totally disagree with you about the viaducts and your 'horrific traffic' assertion, but that's a different debate.

Interesting perspective on the towers issue.

Not sure if there is a viaduct discussion on the boards, but if not, I'll assume you believe that trashing the viaducts is a good idea?

Please explain.

[inane]

Interesting perspective on the towers issue.

Not sure if there is a viaduct discussion on the boards, but if not, I'll assume you believe that trashing the viaducts is a good idea?

Please explain.

I think there was before, but in a nutshell, the viaducts were built as part of a freeway system that never materialized. They're overbuilt for their purpose and take up a ton of super valuable real estate. Think about what's under most of the viaduct--nothing. Land will be open for development, parks, etc.

More info here:

http://vancouver.ca/files/cov/viaducts-information-technical-findings-july-2015.pdf

http://vancouver.ca/files/cov/Vancouver-viaducts-presentation-sept-1-2015.pdf

[PhillipBlunt]

I think there was before, but in a nutshell, the viaducts were built as part of a freeway system that never materialized. They're overbuilt for their purpose and take up a ton of super valuable real estate. Think about what's under most of the viaduct--nothing. Land will be open for development, parks, etc.

More info here:

http://vancouver.ca/files/cov/viaducts-information-technical-findings-july-2015.pdf

http://vancouver.ca/files/cov/Vancouver-viaducts-presentation-sept-1-2015.pdf

Yet those viaducts are used constantly to bring traffic into/and out of the downtown core.

They connect trucks coming down Clark, as well as the garment/textile district to downtown. They are used quite heavily and removing them without replacing them is a horrible idea.

All those pretty little condos will be filled with people (mostly foreign investment) and those folks will probably drive. Yet they and everyone else will use Hastings and Terminal as routes heading east? Horrible idea.

Hastings has a speed limit of 30 km/h from Cambie to Princess because of the junkies strolling mindlessly out into the street like the walking dead, and Terminal is only two lanes each way with a tiny connector going down 1st Ave, which is notoriously choked already.

Those routes will be so choked up with all the diverted traffic, it will be insane. And the exhaust caused by the hundreds, if not thousands of cars idling along these routes will offset any greening of the city.

Vancouver wants so desperately to be taken seriously as a major city, constantly calling itself world class, but does unbelievably short sighted things like this.

This is just another typical Vancouver move. Tear down infrastructure to put up condos that very few people who truly live here can buy, and turn the rest of the land into parks for junkies to litter with needles.

What next? Cambie Bridge? Burrard Bridge?