Andy Coupland alerts us to the proposal for the rezoning of the Plaza of Nations at 750 Pacific Boulevard.
.
The talk will likely be about James Cheng’s iteration of a Grand Arch, whether derived from this Parisian precedent or other inspiration.
But it’s the plaza that needs examination. The rendering above is, I assume (I hope!), not the final design. Since this is one of the only places the City will have to develop a gathering place similar to the role the Plaza of Nations has played ever since Expo, it can’t afford to miss the opportunity. (Where’s the stage?)
And it has to be honest about whether the 2,000 apartments proposed, along with 350,000 sq ft of commercial space including a hotel, presents an unresolvable conflict with a place where Vancouverites will be allowed to make more than a little noise.
The worst outcome would be a compromise that satisfies nobody and annoys everyone.
I hope the plaza looks boring because it’s the city that’s responsible for designing that space, not the James Cheng. I remember talking to one of the city’s planners last summer about the Plaza of Nations land, and it seemed like the city had grand visions for a plaza. I doubt it’s that boring space shown here.
Not just the ‘plaza’ the whole proposal seems meh at best. It seems designed to block any potential flow of people through the site. I am guessing it is an opening negotiating tactic….see how much we have changed to accomedate people…
This is truly confusing if not confounding. From China to Rome to the Arc de Triomphe and La Defense, grand arches have been employed in a strictly formal and axial manner. Since this one does not do that, one has to assume it is meant to be playful, in a vaguely tongue in cheek postmodern sort of way. Yet the very severe architectural expression belies that conclusion. One is left with no other conclusion that this idea is very arbitrary and, as such, is an arch to nowhere.
On the plus side, at least the seawall appears to be continuous, at long last.
Having studied the proposal in some depth, the whole things appears to be more of a massing/density exercise then a serious proposal. Having residential on the 2nd floor facing the plaza? They can’t really be serious could they? The design itself is what we’ve come to expect of JKMC in Vancouver, a shame really as the firm is capable of so much better.
During the previous rezoning process, apparently Cheng noted that the arch was just a placeholder – the fact that it has remained in the submissions may mean that they (the developer) are serious about it! It blocks the spires of BC Place!
Although Metropoitan Canadian Properties owns the site (not Concord) see Concord’s “bridge” structure just erected in Toronto at CityPlace:
http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2012/06/concord-s-skybridge-parade-raised-overnight
Item “9” commercial space – doesn’t seem very prominent. And we also know that these condo towers won’t look like mirrored office towers – they’ll have balconies poking here and there, the City hates mirrored glass and being next to BC Place (noise, etc.) they aren’t going to be high end (like Shangri-La or Fairmont Pacific Rim) so the level of finish will be average.
Regarding site circulation, the removal of the greehouse-like BC Pavillion from Expo 86 is meant to open up the seawall path so that it doesn’t leave the waterside. Personally, I’d rather see that iconic building remain. The combination of BC Place (with its new green glass) and the BC Pavillion now look unified. Nice to see the “forest” remain (the existing path is just behind it) – and on the eastern side of the plaza, there looks like the opportunity for active waterside retail/restaurant uses (like Coal Harbour or even Darling Harbour, Sydney) – rather than the standard parkside seawall.
If you’re going to have an arch-shaped building, why not have a promenade underneath it? As was noted above, this plan seems to lack good access points to this plaza, and residential on the second floor facing the plaza is also ludicrous. As is mirrored glass facing BC Place. As is the design of the plaza, but I expect that could be a simple lack of progress at this point.
This would be a perfect place to slow the seawall down a bit, have restaurants, chairs, patios, spaces for people to be and watch people go by.
Rumour has it that people at the City want to obsure BC Place as much as possible and are encouraging the arch …
i.e. an extension of the BC Place casino, bright video boards and oversized Telus signage squabble.
I was very puzzled by this proposal which seemed to be without context, out of place and rather confusing. Then I thought that perhaps this is the building that may store the crown of thorns that the stadium now wears….