28 responses so far ↓

• 1 Brandon // Mar 7, 2012 at 4:54 pm

  i sure hope so, keep the theme in tact

• 2 RON // Mar 7, 2012 at 5:05 pm

  My understanding is that it is the clear class windows that have failed, if so, to replace them with the original dark reflecting glazing is a no brainer.

• 3 Solomon Wong // Mar 7, 2012 at 5:16 pm

  12 years ago, Peter Ladner best summarized this:
  “For the sake of one man’s ego, a curse has been cast over not just one building, but over the whole process of trust between the city, its citizens, and its builders. Opponents of any new or daring addition to the city’s architecture will always be able to point to the Wall tower and say: ‘how do we know we can believe you?”

  If the tower does go back to ‘all black’, my view would be “how do we know we can believe in the City’s development permit and urban design review processes?”

• 4 Frances Bula // Mar 7, 2012 at 8:00 pm

  @RON. It isn’t the glass windows that have failed. It is the mechanical systems (heating, cooling) that are failing because the builders never adjusted to compensate for the dark glass being replaced by clear glass, which transmits heat and cold differently from dark glass. The city is insisting that any glass replacement be clear glass, but a new energy-efficient clear glass.

• 5 Brent Toderian // Mar 8, 2012 at 7:42 am

  The title is subtly misleading… if anything, the question might “should it go back to all clear”, since thats what it would actually “go back to”. The black glass was illegal construction, period. It was never intended or allowed to be black.

  The new glass will be less transparent, have a slightly different ‘colour’, be much more energy efficient, and may in fact be the right answer for the whole building… so perhaps it might really “go back” to being light. I for one though, have grown accustomed and even fond of the so-called ‘lipstick-tube”. Because of the colour change, its one of the more distinctive towers on the skyline in a city where most of the buildings look the same, and i frequently hear compliments, or at least discussion (which is good), around the mixed colour.

  Brent Toderian

• 6 Guest // Mar 8, 2012 at 12:04 pm

  The problem with the mixed transparency of the glass is that the window coverings are clearly visble on the upper half and marr the sculptural aspects of the tower.

  Interestingly, the models for the original design showed reflective glass that wasn’t as dark as the bottom, but not clear, either:

  http://www.modelshop.bc.ca/porty2/file/2000/2025/2025-3.htm

  The “light” glass need not be “clear” – it could easily be “silver” reflective glass (like Commerce Place on Burrad) – and still provide a sense of “lightness” while eliminating the unsightly patchwork of window blinds on the upper half of the tower.

  One only has to look at the north and east faces of The Capitol condo tower to see that clear glass can be incredibly ugly.

• 7 Guest // Mar 8, 2012 at 12:06 pm

  See also:

  http://www.modelshop.bc.ca/porty2/file/4000/4020/4020-6.htm

• 8 Bill McCreery // Mar 8, 2012 at 12:33 pm

  Glad to hear the plan is to go back to clear glass. I have never liked that: ‘looks like a mistake’ duality of this building’s facade. Not only was this “a curse… over the whole process of trust between the city, its citizens, and its builders”, it was another black tower that Vancouverites had clearly said they didn’t want more of.

  It’s interesting that the black tower that started that debate was the TD’s cheaper than a Mies curtain wall Kawneer 400 Series Pacific Centre effort. That’s the other half of the earlier bathtub discussion. The TD tower and tub were and are equally disliked.

• 9 MB // Mar 8, 2012 at 12:35 pm

  The problem with initially trying to force Mr. Wall to build a “transparent” tower is that such towers aren’t anywhere near transparent. What you see is 300 sets of drapes opened to reveal a suite’s contents, or closed, and everything in between.

  The darker upper portion of Wall Centre provides a more uniform exterior treatment by obscurring the drapes and interiors and is, in my opinion, more in keeping, with the architectural intent that Peter Busby and his client first proposed.

  Tower ‘transparency’ is a planner’s poorly thought through motherhood idea. Sticking dark glass with an “illegal” moniker is disingenuous.

  Related to this issue, I believe that glass curtain walls will start to break up as the inferior energy-saving and seismic-resistant qualities and weathering / structural resilience ratings of such huge expanses of glass disappoint residents and architects over time.

  The glass curtain wall is cheaper than most other exterior wall types, and that is probably the primary reason they became so ubiquitous.

  More cladding materials like sheet metal and masonry may well displace half or more of a typical glass curtain wall expanse in future.

  Complete wall panels (frame, insulation, windows, exterior sheathing …) can be made in a factory under controlled conditions and then shipped, lifted, bolted in place and sealed just as glazing is currently done. If fabricated and installed under normal conditions and average skills, they will outlast the glass curtain wall and provide residents and businesses with lower operating costs and much greater replacement deferrment.

• 10 MB // Mar 8, 2012 at 12:41 pm

  @ Bill #8, there is a huge difference between the the TD tower and Wall Centre. The buildings are so far removed from each other architecturally that the fact they share one material — black glass — is almost incidental.

  I’ll take Wall Centre any day. TD is beyond bland.

  My reasoning hinges first upon the treatment of the ground plane, then the form and the orientation to the street grid. These towers are polar opposites in all these regards.

• 11 Frank Ducote // Mar 8, 2012 at 1:37 pm

  Bill – i agree with your sentiments.

  MB @9 – despite your personal likes or dislikes (and feelings about planners and their dreams), the fact remains that this development received special attention and a (very profitable) height increase for a number of reasons including, but not limited to, a sense of transparency.

  Eer review by the advisory design panel and others were part of that process, so to seek to place blame solely on staff is not only misleading, it is wrong in fact. Trust was indeed seriously harmed by the unilateral decision to go to black gass.

• 12 Frank Ducote // Mar 8, 2012 at 1:38 pm

  Oops, meant to say “peer” review. Sloppy typing.

• 13 MB // Mar 8, 2012 at 3:46 pm

  The simple fact is, Frank, glass towers are not transparent. They are, rather, translucent at best, more often opaque.

  It’s almost like there was a ban on dark glass. Architecture is much more than cladding, and though it it an important character-defining component, is isn’t the be all and end all.

  My feeling is that the dark glass on the elliptical Wall Centre would work, in part due to its setting, but proponents of developments like the black glass box known as TD should get stuffed.

• 14 Frank Ducote // Mar 8, 2012 at 4:00 pm

  MB – Nobody in this conversation has anything positive to say about the TD tower or its black glass, so I’m not sure why you suggest otherwise. In fact it was brought up by Bill and certainly not in a complimentary way. Clearly (bad pun intended) you and Mr. Wall agree about his black glass preference, while a number of others of us certainly disagree.

  Furthermore and most importantly, the applicant agreed to clear glass at the time of approval (with its attendant 150′ height and $$ value bonus), which is the central point here. Given that history, “going back” to black should not be the selected avenue of resolution here, IMO.

• 15 MB // Mar 8, 2012 at 4:26 pm

  Frank, I think the dark glass works on the elliptical Wall Centre tower. Maybe it’s a one-off, but to me it wasn’t a mistake to use it. I wouldn’t say that about the other two Wall Centre towers, and of course the TD tower.

  Yes, the agreement called for lighter glass, and the agreement was violated, but I am not party to the deal and can’t vouch for the reasoning behind it other than what I read concerning the Planning Department’s reaction to the dark glass that went up, that “transparency” was important to them.

  In this case, it’s obvious to me that the dark half works in this specific case and the more transparent portion detracts from the building architecture. My architect and photographer friends agree.

  Again, tower ‘transparency’ shouldn’t be a universal principle. All it means is that several hundred sets of window drapes are that much more visible.

  I wait in great anticipation for titanium cladding to appear on the scene.

• 16 Bill McCreery // Mar 8, 2012 at 6:55 pm

  Interesting perspectives to date.

  In the case of the Wall Centre’s elliptical tower, I was looking forward to seeing the added texture that would result from the clear glass in the curved walls. The choice to go that way with this tower was, I may be wrong – but it’s my opinion anyway, because the previous 2 black boxes are a bit dreary and the clear glass would be a contrast to that. 3 black towers, however handsome in their execution, quickly lose their visual appeal precisely because there is no depth. Once you’ve seen it, that’s it.

  It’s interesting to compare this choice to what different sculptors do. Sometimes some choose a smooth, pristine surface for their work (at the risk of oversimplifying, say frequently Bill Reid); other-times, and others, select to create varying degrees of texture (say Henry Moore). In both cases the forms are beautifully dimensional (can’t think of a better description), but the texture, or lack of it is another level of the many languages a sculptor uses to communicate his or her expressions.

  The half and half doesn’t have either expression, which is part of the duality that is aesthetically uncomfortable. In fact what detracts from this building is the poorly integrated transparent and dark halves, not the transparency.

  These OK differing opinions partly illustrates a difference between architecture and urban design/planning values and ways of thinking. Important here is that the what’s happening inside connection to what’s happening outside and vice versa are essential in creating a high density humanistic urban environment. By contrast the image that comes to mind is of driving through downtown Dallas on the freeways and going by one black box after another and then a silver one and a gold one without knowing whether there are people, or aliens from space or what inside.

  Another, IMO, valid reason to want transparency in a tower is that if mass after mass of towers Downtown are opaque blobs, there is no external connection at all to the street or surrounding buildings. That is not healthy urbanism, particularly when, in this case, there is an entire block of it. The term: “alone in the city” comes to mind.

• 17 Frank Ducote // Mar 8, 2012 at 7:42 pm

  Bill – I appreciate your take on things, even though we don’t always agree. IMO we need a fresh architectural slash urban design voice in this city, say for the Vancouver Sun (the one at the G&M doesn’t seem to be going anywhere soon). Why don’t you approach them? I’d second that motion.

  Thanks also to MB for this informed exchange. I think I’m beginning to zero in on your identity. Care to out yourself for people like me who prefer to know who they’re dealing with? Do you work in/for the City of surrey, perchance?

• 18 Guest // Mar 9, 2012 at 1:36 am

  The other problem that you have with clear glass is there is often a jarring transition (or lack thereof) where spandrel panels are used.

  For example, look at the contrasting whitish spandrels and clear glass that’s being installed at “The Mark” at Seymour and Pacific:

  http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=174320&page=13

• 19 Roger Kemble // Mar 9, 2012 at 3:15 am

  Looking into the whys and wherefores of this current conversation about the Wall Centre to illustrate my point my first thought came to 181 Keefer Place: Paris Place, designed by local architects, VIA Architecture.

  Paris Place is a tower, and that alone seems to get some of us quite giddy . . . a ha but is in the downtown peninsular so all is forgiven (a rationalization that is lost on me!)

  As a point of conversation the tower nays have a point though: no less the very insensitively designed Marine Gateway. Not only is MG totally out of context, it will also harm the viability of Marpole’s traditional shopping centre at 75th.

  However, when it comes to a tower my first inclination is to study how it integrates into the fabric of the city: comparing, in this case for instance, The Wall Centre to Paris Place.

  For me Paris Places, at ground level, works as it wraps around Keefer Place in a most welcoming manner especially as it accommodates a variety of small commercial enterprises. Complementing the tower is the crowning turret: a deft artifice of connecting ground to sky.

  Paris Place was one of the first, if not the first for Concord Pacific. Pity CP lost its touch on the rest of FCN/NEFC. So far as the urban design lessons PP offers it may as well be on the moon: that includes VIA’s subsequent work.

  In contrast, The Wall Centre is an insensitive urban intrusion: bigger is best seems to be its motivating rationale. Whereas Paris Place has a concaved, textured, welcoming presence at street level Wall is a diagonally convex to the street corner as if to push us away: its fronting plaza, useless.

  Most of this conversation seems to be about the proposed change to the exterior cladding: there is more to life than 4 Diamonds and 48 floors.

  Yet the new brutalist black cladding of the TD center has the answer. We about to repeat our urban mistakes over again.

  The impact of changing the transparent cladding of Wall is a massive job: it will last for may decades and must be done properly. The appearance of Vancouver’s skyline, from say a cruise ship sailing for distant parts is very important, but not as profound as for Wall’s residents, hotel guests, or indeed us plebs walking by every day.

  As for street level ambience on the corner of Burrard and Nelson there are many ways to ameliorate the unwelcoming, insensitive convexed (as opposed to concaved) Lipstick tube: and we have yet to learn how to value such urban sophistication.

  IMO the impact a tower has at street figure ground level can make or break its acceptance.

  I hope I have added to the conversation!

• 20 MB // Mar 9, 2012 at 10:19 am

  I appreciate this intelligent and respectful exchange, though our opinions obviously differ.

  Pulling back to the helicopter view for a minute, it’s obvious there is a general backlash against dark opaque glass cladding, and that tendency unfortunately seems to stem from a single project by Cesar Pelli. Perhaps it should be a more nuanced case-by-case policy. Policies framed around generalizations become cliche’s when too broadly painted over the streetscape.

  I haven’t been to Dallas, Bill, but with their high insolation I can see why they trend toward filtering dark or reflective silver or gold glass. I really like the Daon building (NE corner of Burrard x Hastings) and feel it’s another case where the juxtaposition and form of the building are superior considerations along with the reflective gold glass. The building was turned at an angle with the purposeful intent to mirror the delightful Marine Building facade several blocks up Burrard St. I have a few nitpicks about the tiny plaza out front and the slippery clay tile paving, but still appreciate the overall architectural intent.

  Further, I don’t know one person who can can rightfully claim their pre-construction vision is perfect, but everyone’s is always 20/20 after the thing goes up.

  Major decisions on things like building finishes are often made from limited architectural renderings and small sample panels. Sometimes materials and colours get approved based on these tools, then the reality turns out to be a mistake. Case in point, the “liver” building (SE corner of Burrard x Pender) where the small samples looked good, but the huge expanses of the colour turned out ugly. Ray Spaxman joked about it years later. That is like choosing a paint colour for an entire room from one tiny paint sample chip.

  Roger, I still contend that Wall Centre was executed with greater forethought and care than Cesar Pelli’s TD / Sears monstrosities. Wall Centre’s orientation to the street grid is angled, with only the podium base flush with Hornby (a necessary evil because this is the parking and service access). By pushing the the tower into the NE corner of the block, a generous landscaped courtyard / plaza was created. Moreover, the tower was pulled back respectfully from the heritage Wesley church giving it some breathing room.

  With a critic’s 20/20 hindsight there is always something in the detailed execution to nitpick about, but I learned to appreciate this pleasant open space for its interesting textured paving, and restful greenery + water while walking on Burrard 20 or 30 times a year over a decade. That is the only pedestrian open space on the entire length of Burrard Street, with the exception of the little park at Burrard Station.

  Lipstick tube ….. I wonder if anyone from Perkins Will (Busby) is reading this.

  Frank, I do not work or live in Surrey (nor would I). I do live in Vancouver. I’ll leave it there ’til I’m retired and free to open the opinion floodgates under my own name without fear of employer reprisals.

• 21 Bill McCreery // Mar 9, 2012 at 10:50 am

  Frank, thank you for your supportive suggestion. Whoever it might be, Vancouver does need an effective “fresh architectural slash urban design voice”. There are many issues continually coming up, and the general public are not even aware of them or that there are those who’ve taken time to become informed or get informed in the process of the discussions who are debating their pro and cons. Unfortunately, and this became very clear over the campaign, what we talk over here has little bearing on the voting public.

  I too really do appreciate the exchanges here. They are by and a large informed, intelligent and mostly respectful. I learn a lot and value them.

• 22 Joe Just Joe // Mar 9, 2012 at 10:54 am

  Just to clarify Paris Place is not a Concord product but rather was done by Henderson.

• 23 jolson // Mar 9, 2012 at 11:26 am

  FB has posed a provocative question, but does color really matter to the public? Is this an issue of concern for government to some how try to regulate in the public interest? How will we go about this? Who will decide these cosmetic questions of beauty? Beauty faded? Beauty lost? An impossible narrative no doubt invented by someone intent on pontification.

  The public is not mindless and has a right to expect that the builders of Cities and the designers of buildings get with the issues of the times and forget the cultish and irrelevant obsessions of past practice.

  When the boat is sinking we do not have the luxury to argue about the color of the sail. We need buildings with zero environmental impact. We need to achieve this condition with every construction project starting today.

• 24 Roger Kemble // Mar 9, 2012 at 11:39 am

  MB @ #20

  “. . . Wall Centre was executed with greater forethought and care than Cesar Pelli’s TD / Sears monstrosities.” Pelli was, at that time, an employee of the massive US mall design firm Victor Gruen reflecting the corporate one style fits all prevalent at the time: so, yes, right.

  As for Wall, it is of the same outdated mold.

  You say, “Wall Centre’s orientation to the street grid is angled,” to what purpose? If you want a garden, rectangularity would suffice “. . . with only the podium base flush with Hornby (a necessary evil because this is the parking and service access).” What necessary evil? There are many ways to get cars into parking spaces.

  By what criteria, or should I say, lack thereof should we condone insensitive urban design. You seem MB not to have noticed my mention of the welcoming concaved entrance to Paris Place.

  My point is concaved = welcome, versus convexed = go away: the urban design vocabulary of a pedestrian street. No extra budget, no complications just imagination and a bit of sensitivity and forethought.

• 25 MB // Mar 9, 2012 at 12:05 pm

  I, too, agree with Frank on the “fresh architectural slash urban design voice.”

  There is an ADP, but perhaps ‘going the extra mile’ needs a recharge on council beyond the ADP. Not voting for you, Bill, was a mistake last time around. I sure hope you have the gumption to run one more time.

  Roger, I am not familiar with Paris Place, but in general I agree with you. My comparison was with the TD tower which is neither concave or convex.

  St Peter’s Square comes to mind with the embracing semi-circular arms of the enclosing buildings.

  Jolson, I agree from the energy aspect.

• 26 Bill McCreery // Mar 9, 2012 at 5:05 pm

  Thank you MB re: Council, but suspect another run is not in the cards, unless Vision Vancouver continues unabated and some new, younger recruits don’t appear. I do intend to stay on top of what’s going on, however, and with you, others and myself, hopefully, there will be some opportunities to move things forward intelligently.

  Speaking of opportunities, I think we have a window of same in the next little while with this Council for them to sincerely change, and become inclusive rather than exclusive in their dealings with the voting public.

  If that does not happen I, and I expect from those I’ve spoken to, an ever growing group of voters, who’ve taken their time to become informed, will continue to enhance the public dialogue and press this Council issue by issue.

  In order to start along such a positive path, I would challenge Vision Vancouver to change their ways of doing business as follows:

  1) Follow through on your suggestion to significantly limit election spending for the next election; ask the Province to legislate, failing that, get all party buy-in.

  2) Schedule Council meetings for 2 – 5.30PM for in camera and nuts and bolts business and 7 – 10 for matters of direct interest to the public; do the same for Committee meetings.

  3) Remove the DoP’s power to recommend to Council that they over-ride zoning by-laws and neighbourhood plans on a project by project basis; stop spot rezonings outside the DTD; make CAC charges public, up font and fixed so developers know what they’re getting into when they buy land and the public knows what’s in it for them and how that fits into the neighbourhood plan.

  4) Establish a true community focused methodology for the just starting neighbourhood planning processes with a more inclusive stakeholder involvement; maintain an on-going dialogue with the broader community using newly available tools such as PlaceSpeak; appoint an imbedded planner to work with and advocate for the local community, where the Planning Department provides the neighbourhood planning committee with the basic data needed to determine the viability, location and size of the retail, service and office functions needed to create safe, walkable, bikeable, sustainable neighbourhoods, and then works with them to create realistic alternatives that reflect that communities values and priorities, including building types and distribution of anticipated increased densities.

  This is a part of what could, at least from my perspective, be used to start an open dialogue with all members of Council on how the City can move forward in a positive, constructive direction. If the fortress, ‘them and us’ mentality continues unchanged the next three years will not be pretty.

  Perhaps if there are others of similar mind, we can approach Council and start the dialogue.

• 27 vancouverstreetblog.blogspot.com // Mar 9, 2012 at 6:07 pm

  In the bigger scheme of things does it really matter whether the glass at Wall Centre is translucent, transparent, or dark. Should not the question be asked why Wall Financial had the audacity to ignore the criteria laid out by the City of Vancouver. Do they believe they are beyond following regulations. Brent states in #5 that the installation of the black glass was illegal.
  Wall Financial has continued to defy city regulations with the conversion of rental suites to condos at 1265 Barclay in the West End. On March 2nd the work being done to upgrade the entrance/lobby was Shut Down because Wall Financial had not obtained a permit to do the work. In mid January tenants on the 6th floor found a note under their door offering cash incentives if they vacated their suites within 2 weeks. Tenants have complained of no hot water on a nightly basis and cars being broken into on a continual basis sometimes less than a week apart. So one wonders why people would be surprised by the actions of Wall Financial.

• 28 Kirk Williams // Mar 16, 2012 at 9:11 am

  Just a clarification on one of the earlier posts: the windows ARE failing. CBC broke this story about a year ago. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2011/05/13/bc-wall-centre-windows.html
  Stay tuned. More to come.