745 Thurlow St | 91m | 23fl | Completed

[towerguy3]

Any idea when Bentall 5 demolition (of the current parkade) will start at Alberni and Thurlow?

[raggedy13]

^Isn't it more like Bentall 6?

Bentall 5...
http://www.bentall5.com/images/homeRendering.jpg

[Hed Kandi]

..

[SpongeG]

i thought it was gonna be started after 2010

[Kwik-E-Mart]

^ It better be given the high costs to get it started in the first place

[Hed Kandi]

..

[Mininari]

Is there a drawing or rendering of this building available yet?

[Cypherus]

What is known is the tower will be 300 feet, quoted by the UDP meeting minutes:

1. 745 Thurlow Street
DE: Rezoning
Use: 23-storey office tower, with other commercial uses at grade, with height of 300 ft. and FSR of 15.4
Zoning: DD to CD-1
Application Status: Rezoning
Architect: Musson Cattell Mackey Partnership
Review: First
Delegation: Mark Whitehead & Mark Thompson, Musson Cattell Mackey Partnership; Chris Sterry, PWL Partnership Landscape Architects Inc.
Staff: Phil Mondor/Ralph Segal

EVALUATION: SUPPORT (3-2)

Introduction: Phil Mondor, Rezoning Planner, introduced the proposal for a rezoning application at the corner of Thurlow and Alberni Streets. The maximum FSR for the area is 7 with applicant seeking 15.4 FSR. The proposal is for a 2 storey retail podium with a 23 storey office tower and below grade parking. There is a view cone from the False Creek Seawall and the height of the tower will be slightly over the 300 foot limit. City Policy encourages transfer of density and the applicant will be transferring density from the Evergreen property on West Pender Street. Although there isn’t a Green Building Strategy in place, the City has an expectation that new buildings will achieve at least LEEDTM Silver. The applicant will be pursuing a LEEDTM Gold registration and will be the first office tower in the city to do so.

The Panel adjourned to the model, where Ralph Segal, Development Planner described the surrounding area and the design development for the property.

Advice from the Panel on this application is sought on the following:
1. Overall built form:
Does the proposed building massing accommodate the increased density, creating an appropriate urban design “fit” in this context?

2. Pedestrian Environment:
Will the proposal’s Public Realm interface contribute to pedestrian activity and amenity?

3. Preliminary Architectural Design Concept:
Does the proposed architectural design respond appropriately to this site and context?

Mr. Mondor and Mr. Segal took questions from the Panel.

Applicant’s Introductory Comments: Mark Whitehead, Architect, further described the proposal noting the various sustainable measures planned for the site including green roofs and water conservation. He noted that they are committed to achieving LEEDTM Gold for the project.
Chris Sterry, Landscape Architect, described the landscape plans for the project noting the roof gardens as well as the plans for green wall proposed for the upper portions of the podium façade on the lane.

The applicant team took questions from the Panel.

Panel’s Consensus on Key Aspects Needing Improvement:

Consider looking at the density on the site and adjusting the form of the building; and
Consider the type and amount of glazing in order to make for a sustainable building.
Related Commentary: The Panel supported the proposal and thought it was a very interesting project and commended the applicant for an excellent presentation.

The Panel thought it was a great location for an office building and that it would animate Alberni Street. Some of the Panel thought the two levels of retail were a benefit in terms of also animating the street. The Panel did not have any concerns regarding shadowing into public spaces.

The Panel commended the applicant for their commitment to achieve LEEDTM Gold registration. One Panel member suggested angling the glass for more solar control especially on the south side of the building. It was suggested that care needed to be taken in the building design to make it sustainable considering the high percentage of glazing.

There was good support for the office use on the site. Several Panel members were concerned with the amount of density being asked for in this submission. There was a comment that, in the Development Permit submission, the applicant should further develop the expression of the building. They felt there could be a more strongly sculpted form to the building. The Panel did not have any concerns regarding the floor plate size and one Panel member commented that they would like to see the floor plates more clearly expressed on the building facade.

Several members of the Panel thought the building had a strong entrance and one member commented that the canopy could project more strongly. It was noted that the quality of the detailing would be key to the success of the project.

Most of the Panel liked the landscape plans and thought the green roof on the lower level would work but they weren’t sure about the green roof on the 23rd floor of the tower as they felt it hadn’t been integrated into the building. A couple of Panel members thought the public realm had not been as well developed as the roof level. There was also a comment that the public open space on the podium was a little too narrow and may have some problems with wind shear. Several members of the Panel noted that it would be wonderful to have the green wall visible from Robson Street.

Several members of the Panel noted that the oval plan forms in the roof landscaping did not seem to complement the oval mechanical enclosure on the roof.

Applicant’s Response: Mr. Whitehead thanked the Panel for their comments and noted that they will be back to the UDP at a future date. He added that they will not be using 100 per cent glazing but some spandrel glass or frosted glass.

It's also listed under the inventory of upcoming office projects: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=142503

[officedweller]

745 Thurlow - elevations look like a rehash of Bentall V - but the floorplate is rectangular so it may look similar in angularity to Cielo.

http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20080722/documents/p5.pdf

http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/1475/newpicture1pz0.png http://img169.imageshack.us/img169/821/newpicture2ad2.png

http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/2747/newpicture3ae5.png http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/3504/newpicture4sw8.png

[LeftCoaster]

Amazing! Thanks OD

Kinda disappointed on the design though. I'm sure it will look good (see Bentall 5) but after all their talk about a dazzling architectural design or some garbage like that I am a little disappointed.

Oh well I shouldnt let myself get wrapped up in the marketing garbage, it looks like it will end up being a nice project. Should complement the glass on Shangri-La well.

[phesto]

Thanks for posting these.

It's about what I would expect from MCMP, generally attractive, but nothing amazing - just like the last two office towers, Bentall 5 and PWC Place, both of which they designed.

They seem to really dig the angular vertical forms - if anyone remembers the original Ritz proposal they did, there was the same triangular shape. Of course, MCMP's design was considered too boring at the time for such a tall building, hence Erickson's twist idea, but I guess it's a sufficient design for something short...

Also good to see ~20,000 sq ft of retail proposed for the second floor.

Hopefully this one gets built someday...

[Jared]

Bentall 5 meets Central City (Surrey).

[Hong Kongese]

Will it be able to add more floors in the future like the V?

[Hed Kandi]

..

[Cypherus]

Bentall 5 meets Central City (Surrey).

Although Central City is a much better design. I expected something more.

[LeftCoaster]

Will it be able to add more floors in the future like the V?

No, what you see is what you get with this one... wouldn't want it too much larger with shadowing concerns over Robson though... rather save the height for a better location.

[northwest2k]

Not tall enough

[Architype]

It has nice angles, but it's a bit fat. It should look better than those renderings.

[raggedy13]

No, what you see is what you get with this one... wouldn't want it too much larger with shadowing concerns over Robson though... rather save the height for a better location.

Except that it is on the north side so it could never shadow Robson due to Vancouver's latitude. But otherwise, I hear ya. ;)

[LeftCoaster]

:yes: Except that it is on the north side so it could never shadow Robson due to Vancouver's latitude. But otherwise, I hear ya. ;)

Hahaha wow... am I ever an idiot. :haha:

[Delirium]

noticed this today on the journal of commerce website

OFFICE TOWER, COMMERCIAL Proj: 9065978-3
Vancouver, Greater Vancouver RD BC PREPARING PLANS
745 Thurlow St & Alberni, V6E 3V5
$62,000,000 est
Start: 2009
Note: Currently in the final stages of rezoning and going to Public Hearing Sept 16/08. Further update at the end of 2008.
Project: steel pile foundation, cast-in-place concrete structural frame, 02220; building demolition, 02230; site clearing, 02315; excavation, 08800; glazing systems, 14280; elevator equipment and controls, proposed commercial office tower; demolition of a few existing bldgs; approx two-three levels of CRU space at the base; approx 33,274 sq m of office space & 3,799 sq m of retail/service space; three-four levels u/g prkg; to use green bldg elements & to achieve a LEED Gold standard.
Scope: 37,073 m²; 22 storeys; 3 storeys below grade; parking for 399 cars; 2,413 m²
Development: New
Category: Commercial offices

[jlousa]

Was too caught up in the EFL development approval last night that I forgot to mentions that the City approved the increase in density for this tower to 15.4FSR up from the 7.0 it was zoned for. So the final hurdle has now been cleared.

[vansky]

the skyscraper future is in surrey, downtown vancouver is too far from surrey's growing population.

[MistyMountainHop]

the skyscraper future is in surrey, downtown vancouver is too far from surrey's growing population.

There's plenty of room yet for more downtown skyscrapers (especially farther to the east).

The Surrey planning department needs to get their shit together and stop approving so many low density, single use developments. The current projects in the Whalley area are a start, but they're not nearly enough.

[jlousa]

Unfortunately for Surrey is they are starting all this good work just as the economy is turning. But at least they will have some better guidelines for the next boom.

[agrant]

The Surrey planning department needs to get their shit together and stop approving so many low density, single use developments.I too would prefer less single houses and much denser neighborhoods.
But Surrey is just doing what Vancouver did a hundred years ago, and it's what most cities do when they have undeveloped land. ;) I don't think high density sprouts from nothing. Does it?

[LeftCoaster]

^Dubai?

[agrant]

:previous: My point exactly. :D

[MistyMountainHop]

But Surrey is just doing what Vancouver did a hundred years ago, and it's what most cities do when they have undeveloped land.

Yeah, let's wait 100 years! :D

[phesto]

Latest I've heard on this one is that barring some massive pre-lease commitment, Bentall will not be buying out the leases on the existing building. Those leases are set to expire in 2011, so we're not likely to see movement on this (ie. demolition) until then.

Presumably all the necessary approvals could be in place and ready to go before that time, but completion would be 2013/2014.

[rather_draconian]

Wow. That means there would not be a single office tower built in the CBD in 6 years (considering the last one was Bentall 5)

[LeftCoaster]

Wow, I’m somewhat surprised about this, I always thought the best time to build office space was during an economic downturn. I wonder if this is a sign of Bentall being somewhat trepidatious or if it is a larger sign of a market which has been artificially propped up by high resource prices and is finally showing its weaknesses.

[wrenegade]

The collapse of resource prices hurts office deals here more than most with the number of large (or not-so-large anymore) mining companies we have based here. But that isn't really the biggest deal. Yes, construction prices are coming down and will likely come down further, but whether it costs $200 million to build a new tower or $100 million to build a tower, it's really really tough to get financing for ANYTHING right now. It's tough getting financing to close on a $30 million sale of income-generating shopping centre for god's sake. The debt markets suck out there.

Chances are the only big projects that will be starting from here on out (next year at least) will be infrastructure projects by the federal or provincial governments because they are the only ones with a strong enough covenant. With the city backstopping the Olympic Village loan, even their credit rating won't be what it used to be. Plus more sub-lease space is coming back on the market. Lululemon's 80k sq. ft. of space at Crossroads and 2 of Intrawest's floors at 200 Burrard are only 2 of what is likely to be much more good space coming available.

[phesto]

I'm sure Bentall would like to be aggressive and be the first to deliver a new building, but unlike previous cycles, or when they went ahead with Bentall5 phase 2, the pension funds for whom they manage these assets (in this case bcIMC) are now over-allocated in their real estate investments and are being very cautious about proceeding with both investments and new developments. The prospects for financing and leasing in the short-term are not good, but I still think they'll move ahead in a couple of years even in a down market as financing (pre-lease) requirements ease and construction costs come down.

[EastVanMark]

91 whole meters....wow...NOT! They should tear down the first 2 Bentall towers and build a sixty to seventy floor tower and simply call it Bentall One.

[LeftCoaster]

yeah cause that would be a fiscally responsible thing to do :rolleyes:

[EastVanMark]

It would be in the long run cause you would get much better use out of a particular sight, and it can be built in stages anyways as was the case in Bentall 5 instead a bunch of stubby office towers.

[mr.x]

Leave the Bentall towers alone, there are so many other sites in downtown where you could build office. Those two towers are a huge part of downtown's office supply, it makes no sense to demolish them. but instead.....i.e. demolish Sears and use it as an expansion of Pacific Centre on lower levels and maybe 60/70-levels of office above, with an exception to view cones/height restrictions.

[jlousa]

Figured it's time to dig this thread back out of hibernation. There is an application before the city to increase this project from 22 floors to 23floors, the height will remain the same at 300', the fsr will increase to 16.1 (418,000sqft) that's a very large project. Some new updated renders in the pdfs.

Context Plan
http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/planning/rezoning/applications/745thurlow/documents/context.pdf

Elevations
http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/planning/rezoning/applications/745thurlow/documents/context.pdf

Ground Floor Plan
http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/planning/rezoning/applications/745thurlow/documents/groundflr.pdf

[deasine]

I think you meant for Elevations:
http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/planning/rezoning/applications/745thurlow/documents/elevations.pdf

[LotusLand]

I'm surprised there would be no retail at the corner of Alberni and Thurlow. Plus any retail that goes into that office must be high end? It's also surprising that the space across Burberry is still vacant. I for sure some high end company would move in there.

[red-paladin]

Looks great. It's going to be cool to watch this one go up. Nice to see another office tower for a change!
It does look a bit like Bentall 5 crossed with Central City.
As for retail, probably the would have a coffee shop in the lobby like Shaw Tower. Everyone likes the rent money they generate compared to a big empty ground floor.

[hollywoodnorth]

is that 2 trees I see up top! ;) :)

[Metro-One]

What happens when the trees on top grow over the 300 foot limit? hehehehe.

I hope there is a lighting feature or a logo that goes with this tower.

[PaperTiger]

Does this mean BCIMC is going ahead? Last time I heard they were on hold until the office market picks up. Downtown vacancies have been growing in recent months, despite the overall improvement to the economy.

I hope they do go ahead, it would position themselves well for the next upswing. Plus, they can afford it.

[Canadian Mind]

Figured it's time to dig this thread back out of hibernation. There is an application before the city to increase this project from 22 floors to 23floors, the height will remain the same at 300', the fsr will increase to 16.1 (418,000sqft) that's a very large project. Some new updated renders in the pdfs.

Context Plan
http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/planning/rezoning/applications/745thurlow/documents/context.pdf

Elevations
http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/planning/rezoning/applications/745thurlow/documents/context.pdf

Ground Floor Plan
http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/planning/rezoning/applications/745thurlow/documents/groundflr.pdf

Wow, this building is gonna be very fat. That's almost 20 000square feet per floor.

[whatnext]

Does this mean BCIMC is going ahead? Last time I heard they were on hold until the office market picks up. Downtown vacancies have been growing in recent months, despite the overall improvement to the economy.

I hope they do go ahead, it would position themselves well for the next upswing. Plus, they can afford it.

Today's Sun reporting that downtown vacancy rate edged down to 5.8% in Q4.

Nice to see an office tower, with it attendant jobs, being planned downtown.:tup:

[officedweller]

Having the office lobby doors on the corner provides more animation to the corner than having a store there.

[Mininari]

Hey, fat is not bad for an office tower as it provides larger floorplates.
Would Bentall be looking to move forward next spring/summer?

[SFUVancouver]

I snapped a couple photos of the model for Bentall 6 through the window of B+B Scale Models on Granville Island.

http://img682.imageshack.us/img682/5029/img00377201001071632.jpg

http://img704.imageshack.us/img704/7944/img00374201001071631.jpg

[Yume-sama]

Hmm. Interesting... it has a strong resemblance to something :P

http://www.cineshoppe.com/graphics/ex0065.jpg

[VanHowe]

That is uncanny. LOL

[Hed Kandi]

..

[trofirhen]

The planned Bentall 6 is original and unusual in its asymmetricality, but IMHO it looks top-heavy, and somehow not pleasing to the eye. It triggers thoughts of that office building constructed years ago in downtown Seattle on a pedestal. While that is also very original, there is, again IMHO a singular ugliness to it. But who cares? My tastes usually run against the grain anyway.

[dleung]

I wouldn't mind if it tilted in one direction (for some very good reason), but this just looks cartoony. The podium also looks about as urban as an outlet mall or lifestyle centre.

[flight_from_kamakura]

^ and it seems sort of a weird fit for the site. still, nice to have some variation in there. nice find, od.

[jlousa]

You can't see the podium in those pics, at least not the podium that matters, that would be the side fronting the alley, note the parkade entrance.

[officedweller]

^ and it seems sort of a weird fit for the site. still, nice to have some variation in there. nice find, od.

That was SFUVancouver who posted those.

I agree that it looks topheavy - at least from that angle. I think the elevations showed a vertical facade facing Carmanah Plaza.
The odd thing is that it won't be allowed to hang over the sidewalk (due to setbacks) so from a distance (from the north), its angularity may be be hidden by Shangri-La - either that or its angularity will be highlighted by the verticality of Shangri-La so close by.

[dleung]

You can't see the podium in those pics, at least not the podium that matters, that would be the side fronting the alley, note the parkade entrance.


I know that, but it just lacks a certain rigor (like in an outlet mall) with the way the diagonal slash of the awning kills any semblance of a street wall (not that there was much of one considering the podium's only 2 stories). And just how much energy are they going to save on cooling by tilting the south facad... if it is an architectural feature, it should have been saved for the north side where it can actually be appreciated from the street, not to mention its benefit in redcing the wind canyon effect for pedestrians, awning or not.

Unles there's a wall centre style switcheroo at the last minute, expect glass similar to RBC centre in Toronto:
http://img695.imageshack.us/img695/917/rbccentre.jpg

[s211]

Hmm. Interesting... it has a strong resemblance to something :P

http://www.cineshoppe.com/graphics/ex0065.jpg

I had the same thought, also. You beat me to the punch!

[Ronnie Yau]

I hope they'll start demolishing the
parking garage later.

[raggedy13]

This 4Q 2009 report by Avison Young says construction won't start until 2012, though that doesn't necessarily mean demolition of the parkade won't start before that...

Meanwhile, Bentall Capital is awaiting development permit approval for its 745 Thurlow site. Renderings call for a 400,000-sf office building including two to three floors of retail. The developer says the earliest construction start date for the project is January 2012.
http://www.avisonyoung.com/library/pdf/Van_Research/OMR_YE_2009_WEB.pdf

[Prometheus]

This 4Q 2009 report by Avison Young says construction won't start until 2012, though that doesn't necessarily mean demolition of the parkade won't start before that...


http://www.avisonyoung.com/library/pdf/Van_Research/OMR_YE_2009_WEB.pdf

Bummer. (Not that I have any special feelings for this stubby mediocrity.)

[squeezied]

I just realized towerguy created this thread:cool:

[Metro-One]

This 4Q 2009 report by Avison Young says construction won't start until 2012, though that doesn't necessarily mean demolition of the parkade won't start before that...


http://www.avisonyoung.com/library/pdf/Van_Research/OMR_YE_2009_WEB.pdf

Why no mention of the GM tower, for are they not hoping to start construction late this year? That tower must be at least 300 000 sq feet of office space.

[raggedy13]

^Probably not mentioned because the report is a few months old now and the GM Tower plans weren't officially revived until more recently.

[dleung]

Too short. Which means a lot, coming from me! I wouldn't want to have 500 feet of fat office plates, but they should scrap part of the view cone and slot in an extra 20 stories of hotel on top. As for GM, I wouldn't mind 450 feet of office floors due to the scale of the neighbourhood, again f*** the view cones...

[red-paladin]

You would think with the success of Bentall 5, they would at least allow for a possible future increase in height.

[Mininari]

It would be "hedging a bet" to build "Bentall 6" strong enough to support any additional floors. The bet being that one day, down the road, the people of Vancouver realize that potential of Downtown Vancouver will rest upon higher office densities, more job-space creation, etc.
Transit infrastructure converges on the downtown, and it would seem logical that to support sustainable regional development, one would want further job growth in areas serviced by rapid transit.

Hence: modify / eliminate the viewcones.

So many prime locations have already been developed (with condos), and taking down an existing building and replacing it with something new is costly (re: Grosvenor building, 600ft building st), it could be argued that a building be built to support additional floors above the height limit, for future development. I am willing to bet there is NO language in any guidelines that would restrict this.

A 500-525' Bentall 6 sure would compliment the Shangri-La, and 66-storey whatever-its-called-now.

Oh well, we can always pin some hope on that 'Amacon' tower thats disappeared from the rumor mill. There has to be demand for the space afterall!

[trofirhen]

I hate to be a killjoy, but to me, this Bentall 6 Tower is "bitty" looking, in that it is on the wrong scale for the central city area.
*
Also, although I like the original use of angles (such as on the Georgia) this one looks awkward and top-heavy. It just isn't aesthetic. It has no elegance to it. It has style, yes, but poor style (IMHO)
*
Call me an intellectual snob if you will, but my gut reaction to it is 'ho-hum' at best and 'yuck' at worst. Sorry if I'm going against the flow. I would have expected something classier from the Bentall group. :(

[ozonemania]

@ trofirhen I don't think you're against the flow. It's very, very mediocre based on the few renders/models I've seen.

This is a prime piece of real estate. There really should be more excellence coming from this project.

I just think people are just grateful that we're actually building 100% commercial skyscrapers (if you can call these skyscrapers).

Personally I'd prefer tall. But I'm ok if it's shorter. But please make the design exceptional.

And actually add to the streetlife. I always thought Alberni/Thurlow should be a more vertical district like Ginza, Shinjuku, Akihabara. You already see a bit of it.

[PROSTSHOCKER]

now it'd look a bit better if this design is stretched a hundred or more so odd feet - sorta like an upside down John Hancock Center but with seafoam green glazing minus any interesting exterior bits

[EastVanMark]

I hate to be a killjoy, but to me, this Bentall 6 Tower is "bitty" looking, in that it is on the wrong scale for the central city area.
*
Also, although I like the original use of angles (such as on the Georgia) this one looks awkward and top-heavy. It just isn't aesthetic. It has no elegance to it. It has style, yes, but poor style (IMHO)
*
Call me an intellectual snob if you will, but my gut reaction to it is 'ho-hum' at best and 'yuck' at worst. Sorry if I'm going against the flow. I would have expected something classier from the Bentall group. :(

You are not alone in your line of thinking. (not by a long shot).

[Canadian Mind]

Not a fan of the architecture, or height. But at least it is a new office development. As cool as condo's are, I'm getting sick of em.

[Metro-One]

I think the feeling is unanimous on this forum about this proposals terribly short height for its central business location (it is a good idea to gain as much floor space near the heart of our transit system as one can, if council truly wants to be green they should start weighing in the props and cons of the view cones).

Also the design is lacking in general, but as others have said, at least it is office, and at this point, I think we will take any office tower we can get. Even if it is shorter than the majority of condos currently being built.

[Yume-sama]

Well, just to more or less confirm what the Avison Young report said, I was talking to the owner of one of the businesses that would have to move, and he said they are in the process of renewing their lease for another 2.5 years, that is when they'll be out, depending on what the market is like at that time. Guess we'll have to wait a bit longer for our big popcorn box :P

[Mininari]

:previous:
Whatever. There's many other more interesting buildings / projects / etc to keep us entertained until then!

[wrenegade]

My girlfriend will be happy to hear this, as she lives across the street, and it means Shanghai Bistro will be sticking around a bit longer!

[LeftCoaster]

And Sambas!

I wonder why this isnt going ahead, it seems like all the market fundamentals are beginning to allign. Maybe Bentall knows something we dont, perhaps too many office proposals are coming up at once and potential tenants have already been scooped?

[jlousa]

I remember talking to the guys from Bentall when the proposal first came out and they were very unhappy with the timing of the gateway project as they were hoping to build during the height of the down turn and gateway was going to kill the lull. Never really understood why they were so upset with it, and now it looks like they are timing it for after gateway, I can't see the link at all. It's almost like whoever is financing the tower is also financing gateway and doesn't have enough to do both, but that isn't the case.

[LeftCoaster]

Hmm that does seem strange, there is no shortage of capital right now, nor are rates prohibitive to say the least.

Maybe they were talking about cheap construction costs, and Gateway filling in the gap in many tradesworkers schedules? Seems somewhat dubious to bet they will drop post gateway though.

[SpikePhanta]

Ok they better have retail at the bottom, because the area should be retail down there. Open a new Mcdonalds since now for breakfast i'll have to go to the Burrard Royal location which has a lot of bums.

[Yume-sama]

I have heard the plans call for a "luxury" shopping centre. Maybe that has something to do with it :P? No major luxury retailer is willing to commit right now...

What does Shangri-la have to do with this, if anything? Because some people seem to think they are involved.

[phesto]

It's pretty simple and Leftcoaster touched on it - there are no large tenants right now willing to pay the rental rates required to get this project going. Both bcIMC and Bentall are pretty conservative with their development program; even phase 2 of Bentall 5 (though not bcIMC) wasn't really on spec...Bentall had tenants lined up. I don't think financing is an issue, nor are construction costs really...it's really just a matter of demand. If they could get a tenant to take even just 1/3 of the building, they'd probably build it.

Plus the current building has decent holding income, so it's not like they're sitting on a vacant site...

I would be shocked if they were structuring new leases without demo clauses. They probably still have some flexibility to get the project going on short notice...and I would still give this one the best chance to be first in the ground...Amacon's is dead, and GM Place, while it could be resurrected anytime, I don't think we'll see it soon...

[flight_from_kamakura]

thanks phesto.

[squeezied]

I thought demand on office lease was pretty tight in downtown. Has it subsided somewhat now?

[officedweller]

Application to add one floor of office space to the tower - BUT no change in height - additional space is achieved by lowering ceiling heights of floors to keep everything within the same massing envelope:

http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20100921/documents/p1.pdf

[Mininari]

Hmm, this one still has a pulse!

Of course, we'd all rather see the following:

"Applicant has filed for an increase to building height from a stubby 300', to an impressive 700' landmark office tower. Developer has secured a major multinational corporation as an anchor tenant, who is willing to provide countless community benefits to offset ruining the view."

Still looks like a popcorn box too! Yay!

[wrenegade]

Maybe we can get Orville Redenbacher (ConAgra) to move their Canadian HQ here?

[PROSTSHOCKER]

oh my god it looks worse than the popcorn box i thought itd be. I officially hate this project

[Hed Kandi]

..

[ozonemania]

The design is somewhat weak, but it is still an enormous improvement over what is currently standing at that site.

True but anything basically is an enormous improvement over what's there now. What's there now looks like a converted bomb shelter.

I'm really, really disappointed with what I see there. There are some good functional features being put into the design, but that's about it.

It looks like a suburban office park building. On prime commercial property? C'mon!

[SpikePhanta]

And its a very popular area, lots of foot traffic, any ideas on retail for the site?

I won't miss the Mcdonalds that much because the past 3 years the service at the place is horrible, so I guess Wendys and A&W will claim the former Mcd's customers

[navazan]

kinda looks like a giant foot decended from the heavens and squashed the trans canada tower in calgary to half its size...

[Mininari]

Did this slip by us or what?
http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/planning/dpboard/2010/Agendas/Nov1.html

Looks like they applied for their development permit. Nothing is posted on the outcome of that, but could this project actually be moving forward?

[phesto]

Did this slip by us or what?
http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/planning/dpboard/2010/Agendas/Nov1.html

Looks like they applied for their development permit. Nothing is posted on the outcome of that, but could this project actually be moving forward?

They haven't decided to go ahead with the project yet. They're just getting the development permit in place so that if they decide to build it, they can just apply for a building permit right away.

All these proposed projects are competing for the same tenants, so being first in the ground is a huge advantage.

I forget what the time limitation is on a development permit. I think five years?

[jlousa]

Actually only a single year, but you can keep renewing it quite easily.

[SFUVancouver]

745 Thurlow passed the DPB a few weeks ago.

[hazel]

They can start kicking out tenants Fall 2011.

[mezzanine]

I strongly recommend trying Aki Restaurant before they demo the parking garage. a surprising basment resto filled with japnese nationals eating there - theri specialty is the grill. The mackerel lunch special is a good deal.

I hope they come back. to me getting to this place hidden away gave it cache... :(