Vancouver Images
This image is from my window overlooking English Bay. Might anyone know what those things are? Ventilation fans? The tug seems to be headed in the direction where there is a small forest of construction-cranes-- possibly for the upcoming Olympics:
Ken, if you're reading this, did you catch the lunar eclipse about 2 weeks ago? I did, and later, in the wee hours of the morning, decided to take a quick capture of the full moonset:
Cool. What's the wider orthogonal section in front? A passing layby?
I think someone's sunk your battleship :.. (
I took in a presentation by your head of urban design last year, talking about various issues. One that really caught my attention was what they were requiring for pedestrian-friendly streetfronts- overhangs of certain dimensions, retail door spacings, signage etc. in the downtown. If you're dragging the camera around anyway and you remember this, can you bang off some shots of this recent work? (Don't have to be as pretty as the last ones.)
I, for my part, will try to do the same on our now-forming railway lands streetscapes near the dome, after the snow melts a bit. The guy responsible for it has left, and those remaining in the department are privately admitting that thay've dropped the ball pretty badly when it comes to the pedestrian context there.
Our guys look to New York and Chicago massing issues, and done OK with it, but you'd have to add Vancouver now too. There's still lots of railway lands left to go (about half) so it's not too late to get it right for pedestrians. In the mean time we can take bets on how long before there is a public charette on what to do about the ground plane in the first half....it's pretty bad.
Speaking of massing, have you ever been to http://skyscraperpage.com ? If not, check out the cities pages...
--
MichaelB
www.michaelbulatovich.ca
MichaelB
www.michaelbulatovich.ca
Click to see the full signature.
Michael Bulatovich wrote:
If you have any specifications for this pedestrian friendly design guideline (s?) please email me with them or a link to themas I would love to see them for an upcoming project.
Every single shadow study falls short of a state of the art. The cities are not comparable in many scale respects.
If you have any specifications for this pedestrian friendly design guideline (s?) please email me with them or a link to themas I would love to see them for an upcoming project.
Every single shadow study falls short of a state of the art. The cities are not comparable in many scale respects.
Michael Bulatovich wrote:
Though not as 'technical' as what I saw, here's a couple of links:
http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/020625/rr1.pdf
http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/021126/2002%20Ped%20Report_dm2.pdf
...and section 4.3 of this:
http://vancouver.ca/dtp/pdf/section4.pdf
http://vancouver.ca/dtp/ has a bunch of links...
Warning, first three are pretty heavy pdfs.
Though not as 'technical' as what I saw, here's a couple of links:
http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/020625/rr1.pdf
http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/021126/2002%20Ped%20Report_dm2.pdf
...and section 4.3 of this:
http://vancouver.ca/dtp/pdf/section4.pdf
http://vancouver.ca/dtp/ has a bunch of links...
Warning, first three are pretty heavy pdfs.
++ wrote:
What are shadow studies, and vis-a-vis state-of-the-art and scale?
I might have mentioned this on here before, but why is it that a lot of "inward-looking-use" architecture seems to be situated right on the waterfronts-- areas that would otherwise be put to better advantage for their views?
For examples, in Halifax and Vancouver (Sydney's Opera House?), they have their casino and trade/convention centre, respectively, right on the waterfronts.
There just seems to be a kind of counter-intuitiveness and/or inward-looking way, as to how a lot of urban waterfronts are designed/developed.
(BTW, in Vancouver, they have 2 Stadiums and a mall/cinema along with many residential highrises and assorted retail outlets, in a narrow "peninsular bottleneck".)
What are shadow studies, and vis-a-vis state-of-the-art and scale?
I might have mentioned this on here before, but why is it that a lot of "inward-looking-use" architecture seems to be situated right on the waterfronts-- areas that would otherwise be put to better advantage for their views?
For examples, in Halifax and Vancouver (Sydney's Opera House?), they have their casino and trade/convention centre, respectively, right on the waterfronts.
There just seems to be a kind of counter-intuitiveness and/or inward-looking way, as to how a lot of urban waterfronts are designed/developed.
(BTW, in Vancouver, they have 2 Stadiums and a mall/cinema along with many residential highrises and assorted retail outlets, in a narrow "peninsular bottleneck".)
Not really. Not everyone is at the stadium or opera house. The majority of people look past it as they view the water, and that's every hour of every day, not just when an event is taking place. People on the water don't think the water is the most interesting view - it's the shoreline.
You guys are myopic. :)~
R
RicodJour wrote:
Ok, but they're blocking the view and with an inward-looking event no less. Here in Vancouver, when you look out over the water, depending on which way you're looking, you can also see the mountains, the opposite shoreline, and/or far off into the distance. You also can get far more of the sky and sun, including its rises and sets. I guess part of my point is that the main cafe/pedestrian strips where you can hang out and "enjoy" the view are in the middle of the city that, without the above views, make it feel like any other city, with cars and another building and Starbucks across from the ones you're at-- yet more of that inward-looking feel.
Of course the shoreline is also viewable from across the water on the opposite shoreline and there's interesting activity on the water, too.
Ok, but they're blocking the view and with an inward-looking event no less. Here in Vancouver, when you look out over the water, depending on which way you're looking, you can also see the mountains, the opposite shoreline, and/or far off into the distance. You also can get far more of the sky and sun, including its rises and sets. I guess part of my point is that the main cafe/pedestrian strips where you can hang out and "enjoy" the view are in the middle of the city that, without the above views, make it feel like any other city, with cars and another building and Starbucks across from the ones you're at-- yet more of that inward-looking feel.
Of course the shoreline is also viewable from across the water on the opposite shoreline and there's interesting activity on the water, too.
Oh, well, why didn't you say so? That's no problem, just list all of the activities/buildings that require no tradeoffs, are equally enjoyable from indoors and out, appeal to all people at all times, are spectacularly viewable from all angles, and we'll be happy to build them for you...for free.
R
RicodJour wrote:
Well ok, but the indoor inward-looking buildings are probably one of the last things I'd put on the waterfronts if the sky was indeed the limit.
Well ok, but the indoor inward-looking buildings are probably one of the last things I'd put on the waterfronts if the sky was indeed the limit.
Warm Worm wrote:
...and the juxtaposition of building types makes for an image that has some dynamism. A wall of glass condo towers can get pretty dull pretty fast, and turns into a ground without a figure.
...and the juxtaposition of building types makes for an image that has some dynamism. A wall of glass condo towers can get pretty dull pretty fast, and turns into a ground without a figure.
Michael Bulatovich wrote:
That's indeed what they have out here along the water, too-- glass condo towers-- and many of them. It's quite dense in some areas. However, in some places, they seem to be set more back from the water.
Ideally, I was thinking of some sort of progressive heightening of buildings from short at the water's edge to gradually higher the further inland.
That's indeed what they have out here along the water, too-- glass condo towers-- and many of them. It's quite dense in some areas. However, in some places, they seem to be set more back from the water.
Ideally, I was thinking of some sort of progressive heightening of buildings from short at the water's edge to gradually higher the further inland.
Well, air rights go up, and water rights go out and own, not in, so you're creating what? - air-water-shore-view rights? Maybe you should just take some time out from the photography and sketch out where it's okay for people to build. Start with a small city until you find your feet. It'd save a lot of time. :)~
R
On 12 Mar 2008, RicodJour wrote
That depends on the jurisdiction, dunnit -- the concept of "air rights" isn't universal.
(Even the concept of "right to develop" isn't universal.)
That depends on the jurisdiction, dunnit -- the concept of "air rights" isn't universal.
(Even the concept of "right to develop" isn't universal.)
--
Cheers, Harvey
Architectural and topographical historian
Cheers, Harvey
Architectural and topographical historian
Click to see the full signature.
wrote:
The city of Vancouver has already incorporated something along these lines into thier urban design guideline. They have even protected view corridors to a couple of bumps in the mountains known as the 'two lions'. WW is not breaking new ground or being silly, but his musings are quite preliminary compared to those of people in the business. The trick is to balance many competing imperatives, after you've appreciated them all....and even that you'll probably get some of it wrong. Take solace in the fact that it's always changing...
The city of Vancouver has already incorporated something along these lines into thier urban design guideline. They have even protected view corridors to a couple of bumps in the mountains known as the 'two lions'. WW is not breaking new ground or being silly, but his musings are quite preliminary compared to those of people in the business. The trick is to balance many competing imperatives, after you've appreciated them all....and even that you'll probably get some of it wrong. Take solace in the fact that it's always changing...
RicodJour wrote:
What does this mean?
> Maybe you should just take some time out from the photography and > sketch out where it's okay for people to build.
I'd say build "wherever", just keep it incrementally shorter and sweeter towards the water I suppose. :)
If I ever get the time and desire, maybe I could look into some kind of city simulation.
What does this mean?
> Maybe you should just take some time out from the photography and > sketch out where it's okay for people to build.
I'd say build "wherever", just keep it incrementally shorter and sweeter towards the water I suppose. :)
If I ever get the time and desire, maybe I could look into some kind of city simulation.
Warm Worm wrote:
I think this has to do with land use history and the scale of redevelopment planning, not some lack of vision per se. Urban waterfronts were too valuable to be preserved for 'views'. These areas are usually reclaimed from derelict former commercial areas in these port cities. The lands are often reclaimed or toxic. There's often infrastructure like railways or highways adjacent, etc. forming barriers to access. There's also often a long period of transition, when some of the former uses persist legally on adjacent lands limiting the commercial viability of some types of redevelopment. You have to take a long view and be patient, or put in power a totalitarian strongman with a new interest in urban destruc...er...I mean ...design. I've got someone in mind ; )
I think this has to do with land use history and the scale of redevelopment planning, not some lack of vision per se. Urban waterfronts were too valuable to be preserved for 'views'. These areas are usually reclaimed from derelict former commercial areas in these port cities. The lands are often reclaimed or toxic. There's often infrastructure like railways or highways adjacent, etc. forming barriers to access. There's also often a long period of transition, when some of the former uses persist legally on adjacent lands limiting the commercial viability of some types of redevelopment. You have to take a long view and be patient, or put in power a totalitarian strongman with a new interest in urban destruc...er...I mean ...design. I've got someone in mind ; )
Michael Bulatovich wrote:
You mean that rust-coloured I-beam "bridge"? Unsure, but I'll take a guess that it's supporting electrical, communication and/or water mains.
I was an innocent civilian who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
I'll try to include that when I attempt this:
One of my ideas for an alt.arch thread is to post a "directed photographic study" of some favorite downtown retail shops' interiors-- perhaps with a view toward some inspiration for and application to other areas.
I look forward to it.
Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I seem to recall some interesting pics from you regarding a silvery gallery or museum or something that jutted over a sidewalk?
I think so and will try to find the time to return.
You mean that rust-coloured I-beam "bridge"? Unsure, but I'll take a guess that it's supporting electrical, communication and/or water mains.
I was an innocent civilian who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
I'll try to include that when I attempt this:
One of my ideas for an alt.arch thread is to post a "directed photographic study" of some favorite downtown retail shops' interiors-- perhaps with a view toward some inspiration for and application to other areas.
I look forward to it.
Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I seem to recall some interesting pics from you regarding a silvery gallery or museum or something that jutted over a sidewalk?
I think so and will try to find the time to return.
Warm Worm wrote:
The the large orthogonal excavation in front ot the drilled cylindrical tunnels atthe back.
The the large orthogonal excavation in front ot the drilled cylindrical tunnels atthe back.
Michael Bulatovich wrote:
You mean the whole "square" pit that the construction workers, blue portable toilets, scaffolding and materials occupy? If so, I'm unsure. Probably a few reasons. I think there's an underground mall in the area too.
You mean the whole "square" pit that the construction workers, blue portable toilets, scaffolding and materials occupy? If so, I'm unsure. Probably a few reasons. I think there's an underground mall in the area too.
Site Timeline
Constructing Earthquake-Proof Buildings
- - next thread in Architecture and Design
Earthquake resistance: Linear, or not...?
- - previous thread in Architecture and Design
Inside Allerton: The Essential Guide to Robert Allerton Park
- - newest thread in Architecture and Design
Name for cellar doors
- - last updated thread in Architecture and Design
filling gap around water heater exhaust pipe and hole in wall
- - the site's newest thread. Posted in Home Repair
grading around foundation question
- - the site's last updated thread. Posted in Home Repair