We are not a tourist town Jimbo @ # 1! We are a minor resource town in a petro-state!

Accordingly as the mountains and the sea recede from view a little W is squeezed out by a tinseled monster for the rich and a chunk of concrete for the poor. How contemptuous can we get?

Then along comes a toothache on the river and a pseudo Parisienne alleyway to relieve the boredom of shop-’til-ya-drop on, errrrr, thu Canada line.

And now, this thing and, wait for it, no more gambling until no one is looking!

I thought the AGO on Dundas West took the bait for anti-urban or is it the ROM . . . http://digitaljournal.com/article/284624 . . .
on Bloor. But that was another country and besides the wench is dead!

Who are the people that put these monstrous contraptions together?

Do they give out medals for ugly?

Truly, ugly people design ugly buildings! Oh yes, they need the money. QED!

For one, I am quite amazed that the sole focus of the controversy seems to be about the size of the gaming floor. Although he had a great opportunity to voice concern on CBC yesterday, architectural critic Trevor Boddy also only voiced concern ovr the so-called resort aspects of the project. Why not comment on the architecture when you had the chance, Trevor?

At least former director of planning Brent Toderian took the inititive to express his dismay publicly about the form and characer, or lack of it, of the proposed design.

I totally agree with this sentiment. The scale and massing of this development is impossible to understand, intentionally so it would seem. The very placelessness or anywhereness of the architectural expression, its black boxness, its lack of response to location, climate and setting is incredibly dissapointing. The absence of any apparent regard for the pedestrian scale and expereience is also quite shocking.

I’m fairly sanguine that the conditions imposed by the DP Board will not address architecture in any profound way. This is, to me, at the same level of long-lasting insult to the City as is the number of slots.

Last, this leads to another point tht has been touched on on this blog from time to time – where is the voice for urban design and architectural criticism in this city? The Sun and Province offer nobody, and the Globe & Mail is written from a Toronto vantagepoint.

We deserve better.

Frank #4 good comment.
Usually, in this city, majority of architects, planners, “urbanists’ in general, tend to not criticize powers that be, or be too critical of some of their colleagues designs. It could turn against them one day… their spine is too soft. That, of course, until the day they have nothing left to lose. Trevor’s agenda with the City of Vancouver is full, Brent’s not so much.
During the time he was the Director of Planning he basically served the same pastrami…
Having said that, we don’t want to concentrate too much on the exterior architecture when the big white elephant is hidden smartly inside, on the casino’s slot machines floor. Correct?

Ms. Jones@ 6: that seems to be the main concern, correct. Maybe as Trevor called it more of a Trojan Horse, not a white elephant.

I think the architecture here is all about the interior spaces. There’s a massive atrium up through the middle and a grand staircase leading through the building from the BC Place concourse (the City’s concourse circulation study seems to ignore that people will also exit the stadium through the casino).

Sounds like the detractors want “fine grain” on the building, which would end up making it look like any condo building in the city. That’s exactly what the project proponents do not want. They want to it stand out.

At least it doesn’t look like Paris, the Venetian or the Belaggio – those would look incredibly out of place too.

Expect the VAG design to similarly “stand out” – it won’t be clad in mullioned spandrel with balconies, either.

Be careful what you wish for, cuz it looks like you just might get it.

“Black box” is a rhetorical conceit, meaning inward-focused, like all casinos. So its gold, is it. But not Vegas? Hmm. As a detractor, I guess I am also hopeful that it won’t be the worst thing ever to hit Vancouver. Nobody ever said the alternative is to look like any other condo, so come on Guest@10, you can be a little more thoughtful than that. The BIG project at Pacific and Granville is certainly different from the norm and I for one am really looking forward to its realization. Maybe they should have gotten Bjarke Ingels or Thim Mayne to design it. People who know how to handle size with interest at the same time.

If the tables and slots are not full 24/7 then there is room for increased usage. Nicer newer and fancier surroundings will bump up foot traffic and usage.

Frank @ #4 was it not Trev “architectural critic Trevor Boddy also only voiced concern over the so-called resort aspects of the project ” who coined the phrase “resort city“?

“Spot on Frank.” Bill @ #15 Thanqu for raising concerns, or lack thereof, such as the quality of good urban and project design. Urban design has always been the most talked about and least practiced aspect of the development approval process.

The CoV has had an urban design component for as long as I remember yet it’s influence eludes me.

In post #2 I failed to point out how respect for the nature of figure ground, as Transik (http://books.google.ca/books/about/Finding_Lost_Space.html?id=UcdJxonfeGMC) puts it, is of no importance in the contemporary urban debate: certainly not in this town.

This dark and clumsy up side down U-turn does much damage to the already taxed city skyline. Let’s hope some one one in high places makes a U-turn and soon!

Our concept of the city has become the shopping mall as huge isolated and environmentally toxic, spend what you do not have, technique using every perfidiously control mechanism handed down from Edward Bernays and his more up-dated and pernicious off shoots.

Then in contradiction comes the encouragement of gambling addiction with all its parsimonious excuses.

As I wrote in #2 “How contemptuous can we get?” when it comes to a well-integrated, socially responsible sense of urban place? That end of False Creek is vying with Oakridge’s design proposals for La Vache noir and consequent droppings!

And from what I can tell this errrr Up-turned U-turn new C$535m Edgewater casino is one of the most insidious intrusions and anyone who believes the city’s gambling control rhetoric has a mind more sclerotic than what’s left of Brewery Creek!

As for the gambling habit, one has to ask what the hell else is there to do in this benighted town?

Bill IMHO at this stage discussing the esoteric aspects of urban design is quite irrelevant. Grotesque, scale-less, intrusive, this concept as an economic driver is enough to drive anyone to drink, drugs and DUI.

Roger – there will be a day where gambling will slip out of the control of our elected city burghers. The provincial Liberals have just announced another easing of liquor laws where your neighbourhood restaurant or cafe can be a defacto pub.

Can we see a day where a few slots may be added here and there? You betcha!

Guest@19 – I remain hopeful that you are right. A significant amount of design attention has been paid to the public realm that will certainly improve the pedestrian experience in this unconnected part of the downtown/waterfront area.

Efforts to control or regulate gambling are as doomed as efforts to control or regulate the use or sale of illegal drugs. You don’t need a government-approved casino to gamble (or a government-approved plant to smoke or snort).
Both of these campaigns are moral crusades. To succeed they must dispense with facts or logic. This guarantees failure.