BLVD Beltline | 118.87m | 37s | ONE Properties | Arquitectonica

I was referring to the project's scope than the tower designs.

Since you brought it up, I'm definitely not seeing what you are seeing with the towers. Design is subjective. I'm still I little shocked you find these that exceptional to be among the top 10% in Vancouver and the top 5 in Alberta.
 
To each their own I suppose. Vancouver doesn't really have many nice residential towers, nor does Alberta. I find this design to be elegant, and the retail podium is pretty exciting.

A whole sea of the Victoria Park parking lot ocean gobbled up :)
 
~50 is a lot of nice residential towers. Lol. They're just lost in an ocean of foam green CP garbage.

Most cities don't have nice residential towers, I mean, according to the standards of these forums here.
 
Just my opinion, but if Vancouver's skyline was a movie it s title would be 'Attack of the clones' . There are a fair number of nice towers in Vancouver, but I find that there are so many that look the same, that their quality gets lost in the shuffle, and their polish wears off quickly.
 
I'm not really sure I get this need for variety just to please our desire for constant change. Having a certain level of consistency gives a city it's visual voice. Great cities tend to have a distinctive and memorable architectural look. Think of places like Copenhagen or SF or Brooklyn or Amsterdam…there is usually a consistent visual voice there to make you remember the place.

Vancouver found it's voice and ran with it. There's a certain aesthetic spectrum they play in, but it's very appropriate and distinct…or it was until every city in North America started aping it, including Calgary.

It’s the same reason why while I’m not a big cowboy/western guy myself I think it’s important for Calgary to not ignore it. It’s what sets us apart in many ways.
 
DiscoStu said:
I'm not really sure I get this need for variety just to please our desire for constant change. Having a certain level of consistency gives a city it's visual voice. Great cities tend to have a distinctive and memorable architectural look. Think of places like Copenhagen or SF or Brooklyn or Amsterdam…there is usually a consistent visual voice there to make you remember the place.

Vancouver found it's voice and ran with it. There's a certain aesthetic spectrum they play in, but it's very appropriate and distinct…or it was until every city in North America started aping it, including Calgary.

It’s the same reason why while I’m not a big cowboy/western guy myself I think it’s important for Calgary to not ignore it. It’s what sets us apart in many ways.
Click to expand...

I agree with you 100% regarding Copenhagen, Paris, Brooklyn, SF, Amsterdam, etc..... not sure about Vancouver though. Those other cities have a distinctive architectural look from another era, that isn't common in other cities whereas Vancouver's look isn't distinctive, only more of what other cities also have. The tall skinny condo towers made of glass and spandrel has been repeated in cities in north America (Toronto, Miami, Portland, Sand Diego, Seattle) and other parts of the world. I just don't see it as a special look. The Vancouver look was already in San Diego before Vancouver. Bosa's condos that were leaking back in the 90's were based on designs from San Diego condos.
Diversity vs a distinctive look is a personal thing I think. I like Amsterdam and San Francisco, but also like London, and Berlin.
 
I'm not sure it's fair to blame Vancouver for other cities aping it’s condo style. I think that says more about it’s appeal than anything. How often do we hear “it looks like something from Vancouver” when someone sees a greenish glass tower? When’s the last time you heard anyone say that about any other city in this country?

And it’s not just about glass condos. West Coast Style is a pretty distinct and legitimate architectural style originated in the Greater Vancouver area. Like most things, nothing is designed in a vacuum, so of course there was inspiration from other settings…but Vancouver applied it to their unique setting to create something that resonated on another level.
 
Vancouver definitely has established its look, and the sheer amount of it is cementing that image as the 'Vancouver look'. I'm not a huge fan of the look when in mass like I am of a low rise look of Amsterdam or Brookyln, San Fran etc.. but it is a look. Personally I prefer the variety look so long as the variety is good quality....Calgary's still working on that aspect, but is getting better.
 
I think the Calgary "look" these days is somewhere between west coast style and the prairie/midwest style you see in places like Chicago. But as you said, still a work in progress. We did have the somewhat unique sandstone aesthetic back in the early years of the city, although Im not the biggest fan of it myself in contemporary settings.

Personally, I really like the Scandinavian feeling aesthetic you see in some of the recent projects in East Village, and think it could be an inspirational springboard for something more distinct (Scandinavian Prairie!) as generally their design standards are very high, and more appropriate for our climate than Vancouver.
 
This is almost the same response I just posted at urbantoronto. I judge towers on their individual merits and not how they look as a group. You can get a little too wrapped up in a skyline and miss out on the architecture. Any city that has built as may towers as Vancouver is going to develop a sameness. What I appreciate is the attempt to keep twins and triplets to a minimum and designed commercial podiums with varied facades so it doesn't look all the same. Riocan East Village does this with varying success. It's not even attempted here. Same with the towers. They are all the same. This is engineered rather than designed.

Anything built in the East Village is finer grained than this. Luna, Stella are better too. Their massing shows off their height over hindering it.
 
I sometimes wish DT Calgary's streets were a little - messier - for lack of a better word. We have, essentially a grid pattern stretched across the entirety of the core, only ever really disrupted by the rivers.
It's quite easy to build a lot of boxy, "engineered" as maestro put it, towers, as the surroundings pose little challenge for designers.
Looking at older cities, the jumbled streets of DT Copenhagen, the Cob-web pattern of Paris, and the meandering streets of London, all sorts of different building shapes are required to fit into land parcels.
Even in NYC, where space is so limited and large towers are everywhere, they've adapted by shoving towers into extremely small parcels of land, and increasing their height to compensate.
These factors can all drive uniqueness.
While in Calgary, we have 100-200m x 100-200m rectangular plots of land. Again and again and again. It's possible to make something really cool and unique, but not usually necessary, like it can be in other cases.
That being said, I'm glad we've still got some iconic towers. The Bow, Telus Sky, Calgary Tower, 707 5th, etc.
I'll take this project too, mainly because of its height ... but i'd be open to them redesigning it.
 
Meikkhaell said:
I sometimes wish DT Calgary's streets were a little - messier - for lack of a better word. We have, essentially a grid pattern stretched across the entirety of the core, only ever really disrupted by the rivers.
It's quite easy to build a lot of boxy, "engineered" as maestro put it, towers, as the surroundings pose little challenge for designers.
Looking at older cities, the jumbled streets of DT Copenhagen, the Cob-web pattern of Paris, and the meandering streets of London, all sorts of different building shapes are required to fit into land parcels.
Even in NYC, where space is so limited and large towers are everywhere, they've adapted by shoving towers into extremely small parcels of land, and increasing their height to compensate.
These factors can all drive uniqueness.
While in Calgary, we have 100-200m x 100-200m rectangular plots of land. Again and again and again. It's possible to make something really cool and unique, but not usually necessary, like it can be in other cases.
That being said, I'm glad we've still got some iconic towers. The Bow, Telus Sky, Calgary Tower, 707 5th, etc.
I'll take this project too, mainly because of its height ... but i'd be open to them redesigning it.
Click to expand...

Ya i was totally thinking that too. Downtown looks so plain and boring because of the whole grid system, they should curve a few roads so it looks like ur surrounded around buildings in all directions. I feel like the city hall planners need to be removed and a younger crowd needs to be brought in. Im not sure how long they've been in position but I have a feeling since Nenshi first got elected. There's absolutely no uniqueness in the downtown just a straight-line of buildings. Im not going to be too happy if they use a grid system of streets in the Victoria park master plan. One of the things that makes central/downtown living unique and attractive in cities like Paris, London, Boston... is because of their narrow and jungled wavy streets. I know this won't happen but if in a 100 years people became more open to redevelopment, I hope they take a chunk out of the lower/upper Mount Royal neighbourhood and expand the beltline so it includes a hilly/curvy area.
 
Best parts of Manhattan are where there aren't any towers.

The tall condo towers being built aren't any denser that the solid street walls they are replacing. Some like 432 Park have less square footage than the buildings demolished. The height is achieved with very high ceilings and much lower lot coverage compared to the buildings they are replacing. The driving force is entirely the sale of 40 plus million dollar condo apartments.

Vancouverism in the heart of Midtown. It doesn't look good.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top