It’s stunning.
From Georgia and Bute in the late afternoon, when the building captures the sun and is fully lit from base to crown, its height revealed without obstruction and its slenderness and angularity exaggerated by the bulk of the towers that frame it, there is no doubt: the Shangri-la justified the risk.
This hotel/condo is the second of the super-tall towers (the first was the Wall Centre hotel) that began with the 1996 skyline study, authorizing buildings up to 180 meters (about 600 feet) on a few selected locations in the downtown core. (More here.) The study began with a motion I moved (with helpful wording by planner Larry Beasley) in 1995, Ray Spaxman led the consultants, and the new limits were approved in 1997.
By the mid-90s, it was clear that developers wanted to break the 450-foot height limit that had been in place for decades. Better, I thought, to take a look at the skyline as a whole before adjudicating the merits of a single building. Without a rationale, the public would be justifiably concerned that a single approval would establish a precedent for ever-taller towers without constraint.
Fortunately, the City had already established designated view corridors in 1989, guaranteeing that mountain views would always be preserved from particular points south of False Creek. While still contentious (developers are always arguing for exemptions), that guarantee allowed for more open-minded consideration of taller towers in the spaces between the corridors.
Ultimately, seven sites were approved for consideration:
What gives the Shangri-la so much of its power is in fact the view it has had to respect. The western face of the tower, slicing across the site, is the physical expression of one side of the corridor.
The most compelling argument in favour of taller buildings, however, was their collective effect: without them, the city skyline would eventually flatten out as towers bumped up against the 450-foot limit, reducing the drama of the downtown profile by benching it out. Rather, I felt, it would be better to effectively duplicate the profile of the mountains behind – a series of peaks and valleys, producing a sense of climax similar to that of arguably the most renowned skyline in human history:
But the height increase would not be given away. Additional density would have to be transferred from some other site, in the process preserving a heritage building or providing a public amenity. A special design panel would be convened to ensure the building met a higher standard of architectural design. And additional public amenities would have to be provided on site.
Since the Shangri-la is not yet complete, particularly the sculpture garden on the podium, we’ll come back to that later. One thing for sure: the building has already transformed a previously bleak block of Alberni Street.
UPDATE: Another view of the Shangri-la from Robson and Burrard:
From Lost Lagoon:
The main problem that I see with the higher buildings policy, is that the City has interpretted it so that the view cones rank in priority to the higher buildings policy. Since the view cones restrict most of the dark-outlined area to heights well under 600ft – the notion that the higher buildings policy would allow buildings up to 600ft throughout the outlined area really amounts to “lip service”.
While there are areas within the dark outlined area that can exceed the previous 450 ft height limit with the higher buildings policy, an examination of the above map shows that even before the higher buildings policy, much of the area was (and still is) restricted to heights below 450 ft.
The only area that can truly go to 600 ft is the area along West Georgia Street that lied under the area marked “No View Cone Restrictions” (i.e. the 1000 and 1100 blocks) where Shangri-La and Ritz-Carlton are located – and even within that limited area, most of the existing buildings (including the landmark 1075 West Georgia (Erickson-designed former MacBlo Building) are unlikely to fall to redevelopment.
After the Shangri-La and the Ritz-Carlton, the only likely candidate site for a 600 ft building would be on the block occupied by the Burrard Building (which following a 1980s recladding was stripped of its 1960s international style heritage value).
What, I wonder is the real origins of the 450 and 600 foot limits? Is there a market in Vancouver for an 800 or 1000 foot structure, or more?
On the commercial side, not since the 1970s and not in the foreseeable future – on the residential side, maybe in the future, but not in the current martket.
Any very tall tower would likely be mixed use in Vancouver’s market – possibly doable if all of the markets have demand. i.e. it would have been nice if Shangri-La had a base of office space, given its location in the edge of the CBD (note that Bentall has an office tower project slated for the parkade site just across Alberni from Shangri-La – currently seeking tenants and probably on hold til some are signed up).