Landmark on Robson - U/C

[bb1510]

The development application is up on the COV website:


"1488 Robson Street - DP-2016-00376

Musson Cattell Mackey Partnership has applied to the City of Vancouver for permission to develop this site with a 28 and 30 storey mixed-use building. The proposal includes the following:

• 280 dwelling units (57 social housing units /223 market units);
• retail use on the ground floor and office use on the second and third floors;
• 393,850 sq. ft. of floor area;
• building height of 300 ft.; and
• four levels of underground parking accessed from the lane.

Under the site’s existing C-6 zoning, the application is “conditional” so it may be permitted; however, it requires the decision of the Development Permit Board.

This application has been scheduled for the Development Permit Board on December 12, 2016, at 3:00 p.m. in the Town Hall Meeting Room (1st Floor, City Hall, 453 West 12th Avenue).

To assist you, a brief explanation of the Development Permit Board process is posted on our website at: http://vancouver.ca/home-property-development/development-permit-board.aspx. You or your representative may attend the meeting and, upon request, will be accorded the opportunity to address the Board.

A Community open house is scheduled from 5:00-8:00pm on Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at The Listel Hotel - The Impressionist Gallery, 1300 Robson Street with the applicant team and City staff available to answer any questions.

We welcome your written comments (letter or e-mail) on this development application. Comments should be received on, or before November 4, 2016, to be considered in the staff review. However, written comments will be considered up until the date of decision."

http://development.vancouver.ca/1488robson/documents/1488Robson-postcard.pdf

http://development.vancouver.ca/1488robson/documents/designrationale.pdf

http://development.vancouver.ca/1488robson/documents/projectdata.pdf

http://development.vancouver.ca/1488robson/documents/siteplan.pdf

http://development.vancouver.ca/1488robson/documents/contextplan.pdf

http://development.vancouver.ca/1488robson/documents/streetscape.pdf

http://development.vancouver.ca/1488robson/documents/shadowanaylysis.pdf

http://development.vancouver.ca/1488robson/documents/elevations.pdf

http://development.vancouver.ca/1488robson/documents/landscape.pdf

[bc2mb]

http://urbanyvr.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Empire-Landmark-Condos-Robson-Street-3-696x887.jpg

http://urbanyvr.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Empire-Landmark-Condos-Robson-Street-2.jpg

http://urbanyvr.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Empire-Landmark-Condos-Robson-Street-3.jpg

http://urbanyvr.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Empire-Landmark-Condos-Robson-Street-5-1024x574.jpg

More details/renderings here: http://urbanyvr.com/empire-landmark-hotel-demolition

[Vin]

Would they remove the wood and copper trimmings once this project is approved, like what Telus Garden did just to save on some costs?

[rofina]

Would they remove the wood and copper trimmings once this project is approved, like what Telus Garden did just to save on some costs?

Lets hope not.

These actually look pretty good, and definitely more useful than Landmark.

IMHO - its projects like these that should be fast tracked, this is a total no brainer for the location.

Size appropriate, vastly more useful, decent looking. Just let them build already.

[bb1510]

Will we see an implosion here?

[Metro-One]

Lets hope not.

These actually look pretty good, and definitely more useful than Landmark.

IMHO - its projects like these that should be fast tracked, this is a total no brainer for the location.

Size appropriate, vastly more useful, decent looking. Just let them build already.

I really can't understand this attitude.

I feel like I could copy and paste this exact same sentiment from people in the 1960's / 70's when they were tearing down, at that time, similar aged structures and replacing them with newer and better ones!

Yes, these towers, just like many built in the 1960s / 70s on the graves of older buildings (that we now yearn for), are not bad. The thing is, we have soooooooo many other lots of much lower density currently occupied with forgettable 3 / 4 story structures in the same area that this project can go on instead. There is no need to tear down a tower that has been a landmark in the city for decades.

Several pics were just posted on the skyline page just the other day, and in all of them this tower was one of the interesting peaks, especially the night photos whth its lighting features.

Seriously people, have at least a little self awareness about how much your mentality echos exactly what happened 40 / 50 years ago.

Also, looking forward to losing even more unique retail space to more bland starbucks and dental offices that will be sure to occupy this new project's podium.

[retro_orange]

The Century Plaza hotel on Burrard or the Sandman at the stadium should go before we consider demolishing this.

[connect2source]

I really can't understand this attitude.

I feel like I could copy and paste this exact same sentiment from people in the 1960's / 70's when they were tearing down, at that time, similar aged structures and replacing them with newer and better ones!

Yes, these towers, just like many built in the 1960s / 70s on the graves of older buildings (that we now yearn for), are not bad. The thing is, we have soooooooo many other lots of much lower density currently occupied with forgettable 3 / 4 story structures in the same area that this project can go on instead. There is no need to tear down a tower that has been a landmark in the city for decades.

Several pics were just posted on the skyline page just the other day, and in all of them this tower was one of the interesting peaks, especially the night photos whth its lighting features.

Seriously people, have at least a little self awareness about how much your mentality echos exactly what happened 40 / 50 years ago.

Also, looking forward to losing even more unique retail space to more bland starbucks and dental offices that will be sure to occupy this new project's podium.

Could not agree more. Was in Spain when I heard the news of this and was saddened and since returning have been looking at it from different angles and I've come to realize it's an intrinsic part of our heritage.

For many years it was very much a 'landmark', being the tallest in the West End by far! As a kid, a trip to the top and a meal in Cloud 9 was epic! The view were amazing, far better than Harbour Centre and the experience of making a complete circle in a hour was memorable. When it was a Sheraton, it was kept in immaculate condition but the owners of the Empire have done what Sears did to the Eaton's building, let it decay and become rather unsightly, hence creating a loss of respect for the tower. The 2000 updates now look more dated than the tower sections. I find the tower's small footprint and brutalist elements very pleasing and a nice break from a city of seafoam spradrel and soulless glazing.

In a few years we'll come to regret this demolition as few in-charge seem to recognize what is and what will become heritage until it's too late.

Is nothing safe at this point? What's next, The Blue Horizon, The Coast Plaza? Brutalism is now becoming highly regarded once again. The 1970's was Vancouver's brutalist decade lead by Erickson.

https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2016/sep/28/grey-pride-brutalist-architecture-back-in-style

We stand to lose a huge symbol of brutalism and the early 1970's tower boom. Sad that is can't remain or be repurposed in it's existing form.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Brutalist structures need a colossal maintenance budget to look like anything beside concrete prisons, which goes completely against Vancouver's desire to build sustainably.

The Century, Sandman, Blue Horizon and Coast Plaza are generic and unassuming buildings to begin with (and have their concrete balanced out with glass) so they should be safe. The Empire, on the other hand, sticks out like a giant Brutalist vibrator wand - it doesn't even have any murals on the sides like the Continental did. It's a goner.

My only regret is that it's getting replaced with yet more cookie-cutter Jenga stacks.

[whatnext]

Lets hope not.

These actually look pretty good, and definitely more useful than Landmark.

IMHO - its projects like these that should be fast tracked, this is a total no brainer for the location.

Size appropriate, vastly more useful, decent looking. Just let them build already.

How are more empty condos more useful than a hotel which helps support hundreds of tourism jobs?

[Klazu]

Cross-posting from Downtown Vancouver Udpates thread. Most of the discussion from there could have been moved in here, as this is a major project if approved.

I am not against those towers and would be happy to see them built without the current tower being demolished. :(

I realized that I don't have too many photos of this building, but here are few I had for context.

The tower is definitely in need of renovation, but the overal shape and the height are really nice. It's a really skinny tower and could benefit from having more towers around it, but I don't want it to be replaced by some mediocre shit as the proposal is. Especially when right next door is a completely empty lot! :sly:

http://vuosiamaailmalla.fi/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/landmark_hotel_hi-res2b.jpg

http://vuosiamaailmalla.fi/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/landmark_hotel_hi-res1.jpg

As seen from 45th floor of One Wall Centre with fog rolling in.

http://vuosiamaailmalla.fi/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/landmark_hotel2.jpg

http://vuosiamaailmalla.fi/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/landmark_hotel3.jpg

http://vuosiamaailmalla.fi/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/landmark_hotel1.jpg

[connect2source]

Having stayed there once many years ago, my guess would be that one major hurdle in re-purposing would be the very low ceilings. I remember them seeming very low, in the 7' range.

That said, I reiterate from my points above, it's a landmark brutalist tower very representative and reflective of the Erickson influenced brutalist slip-cast concrete trend in the early 70's in Vancouver and should be retained and as Metro-One mentioned, there are blocks of surrounding low-rise structures that would be far better suited to re-development.

[Migrant_Coconut]

... and as Metro-One mentioned, there are blocks of surrounding low-rise structures that would be far better suited to re-development.

I suspect that politics are involved. Replacing a tower with new ones (as opposed to keeping the old one and building even more) probably creates less blowback from the NIMBYs.

[rofina]

I really can't understand this attitude.

I feel like I could copy and paste this exact same sentiment from people in the 1960's / 70's when they were tearing down, at that time, similar aged structures and replacing them with newer and better ones!

Yes, these towers, just like many built in the 1960s / 70s on the graves of older buildings (that we now yearn for), are not bad. The thing is, we have soooooooo many other lots of much lower density currently occupied with forgettable 3 / 4 story structures in the same area that this project can go on instead. There is no need to tear down a tower that has been a landmark in the city for decades.

Several pics were just posted on the skyline page just the other day, and in all of them this tower was one of the interesting peaks, especially the night photos whth its lighting features.

Seriously people, have at least a little self awareness about how much your mentality echos exactly what happened 40 / 50 years ago.

Also, looking forward to losing even more unique retail space to more bland starbucks and dental offices that will be sure to occupy this new project's podium.

5 years ago I would be writing your post.

This is why I immensely enjoy my Euro trips. The character/presence you get out of well restored, well preserved, re-purposed buildings is second to none.

Unfortunately, living and growing up in Vancouver, I realize the priorities in this city need to be vastly different than those of other cities.

Our problems are unique, our status is unique, our challenges are unique.

I will certainly agree that it would be nice to retain the tower and possibly repurpose into condo, or mix use.

However, I'm sure the numbers were ran and its either unfeasible because of structure, or otherwise.

So what would you propose? How can a property like this continue in a city like ours?

If it no longer makes business sense to run a Hotel, whats the future of this property other than redevelopment?

[slurrey]

I'd love to see it become a rental tower or social housing. Give it a new shiny coat of paint and either leave the restaurant on top as is or make it a public observation deck?

[Klazu]

I'd love to see it become a rental tower or social housing. Give it a new shiny coat of paint and either leave the restaurant on top as is or make it a public observation deck?

This is what I am thinking too. Low ceilings don't matter in rental or especially social housing. There could be and amazing number of small bachelor pads in the tower and the restaurant at top could remain!

[trofirhen]

Boy, won't it be a downer when the dismantling process really starts, and there are photoseries showing it happening? And all for two bland condo towers. Get the antidepressants ready.

[red-paladin]

In my case I wrote to city hall. I would encourage the rest of you to do so as well.

[Pinion]

Bummer. Used to be one of the only things that broke up the tabletop view from the north shore. e.g.

http://i.imgur.com/V346l5Ol.jpg
@gwenfarley11

[scryer]

I wish it was being replaced with one tall tower :( . God knows we have the market for it.

I bet that if a taller or a tower just as tall as the Landmark was proposed, we would all be having a different discussion.

[retro_orange]

I'm curious what the seismic rating of the tower is. Is it poured in place or made from precast panels?

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

they should build 2 towers on the site just like what is proposed, but make them 80-floors and 70-floors. then go ahead, tear down the Landmark.

[EdinVan]

In my case I wrote to city hall. I would encourage the rest of you to do so as well.

There's no point in writing; this has already approved. As in most cases, the consultation is just a charade to give the impression that the city cares about what the public thinks.

[Metro-One]

I wish it was being replaced with one tall tower :( . God knows we have the market for it.

I bet that if a taller or a tower just as tall as the Landmark was proposed, we would all be having a different discussion.

It would not change mine at all. Because it would not change the fact that there are countless lots of low rises perfectly suitable for such towers as well.

Again, this is a landmark tower that if left will surely be seen as a heritage structure in the future.

[trofirhen]

I'm curious what the seismic rating of the tower is. Is it poured in place or made from precast panels?
My dad was an engineer, and I think he said the seismic rating had to be around 7.2 for most newer buildings (when I was a young kid, of course).

[connect2source]

I'm curious what the seismic rating of the tower is. Is it poured in place or made from precast panels?

I'm pretty sure it's poured ( slip-cast ) concrete, I recall seeing some photos during the construction phase and I recall the wooden cast.

[Graham_Yvr]

There's no point in writing; this has already approved. As in most cases, the consultation is just a charade to give the impression that the city cares about what the public thinks.

How do you know it's been approved? It hasn't gone before city council yet. :shrug:

[retro_orange]

My dad was an engineer, and I think he said the seismic rating had to be around 7.2 for most newer buildings (when I was a young kid, of course).

I'm pretty sure it's poured ( slip-cast ) concrete, I recall seeing some photos during the construction phase and I recall the wooden cast.

Good to know!

[retro_orange]

How do you know it's been approved? It hasn't gone before city council yet. :shrug:

It doesn't require rezoning because of the west end community plan. Though i do believe it still has to go before the UDP? (not that it matters)

[jlousa]

That is correct there is no rezoning here it's straight to the development permit board. It's going to be tough to disallow something that falls under current zoning.

[logan5]

It's surprising to see such a large structure coming down. If this one is coming down, there are likely to be a lot of redevelopment in the West End. Much more than first thought.

As for this building, it's no big loss in my books. This not the Birks Building. There will be no regrets 30 years from now.

[BobLoblawsLawBlog]

Why the hell is this building being demolished when there is an empty lot right across the street to build on? I don't get it? How can Vancouver be "the greenest city" and demolish buildings left and right? I never thought that such tall towers would come down here. This just reminds me of all the buildings demolished in New York in the 60s like Penn Station and the Singer Building, which some thought were ugly simply because they were old (only about 50) and in a bad state. And now those buildings' demolitions are seen as "regrets", this one will be too.

[jlousa]

Write to council, even if it doesn't do anything you'll feel better knowing you made an effort.

[Vanville]

I've had a nice view of the Empire Landmark for many years. It may not be pretty but it is a landmark. I think the bright neon signage that the current owner/operator placed on the roof is a bit tacky. I liked the simple ring of lights it had before. I was quite surprised to learn that it may be demolished. Came across this tower being built in Kozhikode (Calicut) India & immediately thought of the Empire Landmark. It might be a more appropriate design to replace the Landmark if one was to replicate it today. Of course this is not what the current owner has in mind. Not quite sure what to think of the current replacement other than "yawn".

Photo: Magnum Opus project in Calicut from www.galaxy-builders.com website.

https://s12.postimg.org/603009e99/magnum_Opus_night_view_big.jpg

[Migrant_Coconut]

^ Yeah, that'd work too.

[whatnext]

Cross-posting from Downtown Vancouver Udpates thread. Most of the discussion from there could have been moved in here, as this is a major project if approved.

I am not against those towers and would be happy to see them built without the current tower being demolished. :(

As usual Klaus you do a great job of capturing the building. Is it brilliant? No, but it's a great example of the Brutalist style being softened for a hotel tower. It's clean and much better looking than its contemporary West End highrises seen in the photos. One could even argue its slender form over a podium set the pattern for the point tower pattern of Vancouverism.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Photo: Magnum Opus project in Calicut from www.galaxy-builders.com website.

https://s12.postimg.org/603009e99/magnum_Opus_night_view_big.jpg

wow that is nice, that would work nice as a replacement. why don't we ever get projects like this? it can't all be because of city hall, can it?

[YYCguys]

I agree with Vanville re: the Calicut project. Hope the current Landmark design can morph into this awesome design!

[excel]

Not sure I fully understand the scope of this proposal. Is the demolition of this tower not going to be very expensive and time consuming to justify itself?

[Vin]

I've had a nice view of the Empire Landmark for many years. It may not be pretty but it is a landmark. I think the bright neon signage that the current owner/operator placed on the roof is a bit tacky. I liked the simple ring of lights it had before. I was quite surprised to learn that it may be demolished. Came across this tower being built in Kozhikode (Calicut) India & immediately thought of the Empire Landmark. It might be a more appropriate design to replace the Landmark if one was to replicate it today. Of course this is not what the current owner has in mind. Not quite sure what to think of the current replacement other than "yawn".

Photo: Magnum Opus project in Calicut from www.galaxy-builders.com website.

https://s12.postimg.org/603009e99/magnum_Opus_night_view_big.jpg

While other cities build nice stuff, we tear ours down and replace them with crap.

[Feathered Friend]

Hi all, I attended the open house last night, and it seemed like support for the project was 50 / 50. Most people were concerned about how their parking / traffic situation would be effected by the site having more parking. Others were concerned with how the demolition will happen. Lastly, there were even a few people that were offended that more dumpsters would be added for the building....
After talking to the architects, I have some info that will answer some of the unknowns. That said, it definitively won't appease anyone unhappy with the plan.
I also took pictures of the models and info boards, but will need to make time to upload them.

The proposal has a far higher FSR than the current Empire. The FSR with this proposal is maxed out under the West Side plan, even with the addition of a heritage transfer.
Obviously, had they gone with one tower they could have built taller, but as we know more height = more cost.

The Social housing aspect will have a separate common garden amenity, a separate lobby, and even a separate trash area. This is because the city demands the social component be under their full control, and ergo fully separated.
I asked whether the proposed material will make it to the final build, or if we may see the hated seafoam claim another victim. I was told that the city has started to crack down on developers changing materials mid process, so what we see is what we should get. I also heard something similar at 1500 West Georgia's open house, so maybe that's a sign that the response was more than just PR.

There's no firm idea on whether the demolition will be an implosion or a dismantlement. A dismantling would be done by cloaking the building in scaffolding and tarps, and then they would slowly take the building apart. It was hinted that the city's policy and area conditions will force the later, which of course will take more time. The time frame is that the proposal will go to council by December, with hopes to start demolition by June.

[djh]

Thanks for your synopsis of the open house, Feathered Friend!

[dleung]

Thanks, I was tired of seeing that silly 90's render from India on the last page

[Vanville]

Empire Landmark with snowy North Shore backdrop (my photo taken Dec.6)

https://s30.postimg.org/8vlypxb9d/IMG_5482.jpg

[ranvancan]

Why do you think Vancouver developers are so quick to plan or propose residential buildings of typical Vancouver blandiness to replace older existing buildings? These only add space to house more of the negative, nimby typical resistance of a 'taller' or more provocative sexy building with a few fancy lighting schemes that any modern or burgeoning city should have. My POV is that these people stay outta downtown and probably more importantly, stay outta Mount Pleasant and look at our beautiful mountains from the valley. This building could be renovated, modernized, lighted with proper floods or LEDs and just the 'old' outdated revolving restaurant be replaced with another modern twist, if you will and definitely add an observation deck for the rest of us to take advantage of the unusual high space we have there already.
Sheesh, take it down and make two lower residentials????? Backward, not forward thinking. Gotta keep this "Landmark" where it is. I've been to over 90 countries and the very first thing I do is head straight to the tallest towers and look at the city from the highest perspective. And Vancouver is QUICKLY falling further behind even 'little' cities that are adding height and girth.:koko::koko:
Attached here is one of hundreds of pictures I took from Mount Pleasant side and I certainly do NOT think that a few more groundbreaking tall buildings, +300m would hurt the beautiful views, they would only enhance it.......imo.
https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t31.0-8/15493714_1186027731518564_7502736289618887503_o.jpg?oh=7921380c0f81c5a2e83cb2f1510e05c5&oe=58B0AE67

[ranvancan]

http://https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t31.0-8/15493714_1186027731518564_7502736289618887503_o.jpg?oh=7921380c0f81c5a2e83cb2f1510e05c5&oe=58B0AE67

[EdinVan]

Why do you think Vancouver developers are so quick to plan or propose residential buildings of typical Vancouver blandiness to replace older existing buildings? These only add space to house more of the negative, nimby typical resistance of a 'taller' or more provocative sexy building with a few fancy lighting schemes that any modern or burgeoning city should have. My POV is that these people stay outta downtown and probably more importantly, stay outta Mount Pleasant and look at our beautiful mountains from the valley. This building could be renovated, modernized, lighted with proper floods or LEDs and just the 'old' outdated revolving restaurant be replaced with another modern twist, if you will and definitely add an observation deck for the rest of us to take advantage of the unusual high space we have there already.
Sheesh, take it down and make two lower residentials????? Backward, not forward thinking. Gotta keep this "Landmark" where it is. I've been to over 90 countries and the very first thing I do is head straight to the tallest towers and look at the city from the highest perspective. And Vancouver is QUICKLY falling further behind even 'little' cities that are adding height and girth.:koko::koko:
Attached here is one of hundreds of pictures I took from Mount Pleasant side and I certainly do NOT think that a few more groundbreaking tall buildings, +300m would hurt the beautiful views, they would only enhance it.......imo.
https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t31.0-8/15493714_1186027731518564_7502736289618887503_o.jpg?oh=7921380c0f81c5a2e83cb2f1510e05c5&oe=58B0AE67

It's very disappointing, indeed. This building and its lighting feature have been a fixture of the skyline for decades. The new towers are not only unbelievably bland, but they're out-of-place on such a prominent street and they don't appear to have any remarkable lighting features. It's very sad to see the building go.

[trofirhen]

Hey, yes, I just realized how much I like that building, how "pioneeringly tall" it was for the 70s, its lines, everything. Don't touch it. Get your sweaty hands off it, whoever developer you are

[connect2source]

Hey, yes, I just realized how much I like that building, how "pioneeringly tall" it was for the 70s, its lines, everything. Don't touch it. Get your sweaty hands off it, whoever developer you are

Can't agree more!! It was called the Sheraton Landmark for a reason, it was bold, tall, brutalist and exciting! Cloud 9 was a huge draw, never before could one dine in a revolving restaurant 42 storeys above Vancouver. I remember who exciting it was as a 10 year old!

For those of us who were kids in the 70s, this building was truly landmark and a game changer and I feel those in charge now have no appreciation for the memories some of us hold dear.

I'll be very sad to see this go, it's more than losing a bold part of our 1970's skylines, it's a testament to how developers and greed stand to demolish anything for a price.

[logan5]

Are they going to implode this thing or is it too tall for that?

[Vanville]

Sign, sign everywhere a sign. Pic by me today:

https://s28.postimg.org/m7oohecu5/IMG_6090.jpg

[Feathered Friend]

Slight Changes in response to the previous UDP vote.

Applicant’s Introductory Comments: The applicant team started by noting their focus on clean
lines and reformed detail in order to fit into the existing context.

Since the previous panel the balconies have been moved and the floorplate has been made smaller. This caused a reduction in width of 10% as seen from Robson Street which results in a smaller, more slender appearing tower.
The podium have been split into two elements with one element on the higher part of Robson Street and one on the lower part. The intent is to have them step down with the slope of Robson Street.
A proposed setback is intended to create a public plaza.
There is a more unified architectural expression. Material expression includes stone, concrete, charcoal metal framing and copper elements are used across the scheme.
Reduction in the height of the podium has reduced the horizontal emphasis on the towers.
The towers have been rotated back onto the City grid, and the podium has been significantly reduced in height to provide a more urban fit.
In the new proposal the sawtooth element has been removed from the lane-side in favour of an expression of each housing unit to add a rhythm to the lane elevation.
The entire setback of the façade has been increased to a 5 ft. setback.
The public plaza is created by the surround units and has a 50 ft. opening onto Robson Street which allows for a break in the street wall.
The openings between the plants and seating have been
opened and made more playful.
Everything has direct street access and sticks to the Robson Street scale.


The applicant team then took questions from the panel.

Panel’s Consensus on Key Aspects Needing Improvement:
The buildings are too monotonous for Robson Street – they should be less urban and could have much more ‘punch’;
Consideration should be given to providing more differentiation between the towers;
The units at the back are too close to the active lanes and will suffer from noise impacts;
The play space separation is unnecessary and these spaces should either be combined or more
distinctly separated; More should be done to improve sustainability;
Move the planters and create a continuous canopy to improve the pedestrian realm.


Related Commentary:
The panel started by noting that the project seems to have addressed all the previous comments, but that the tower itself could be much more exciting considering the height of it.
Having segmented weather protection does not respect the importance of the pedestrian experience.
Planters should be moved outside of the rain cover to allow for increased access to that cover by people
The horizontality of the proposed project makes the façade seem as monotonous as the previous proposal was.
The towers need to meet the ground somehow, and the response along Robson Street seems like the wrong response.
Consideration should be given to having different materials, more articulation, and less segmentation of the canopies.
The top of the buildings are not well resolved and the copper material is too timid.
It also does not seem appropriate to have two identical towers on this block.
Pay more attention to creating diversity between the towers and to strengthening the lobbies through lighting or signage.
There is some great variety in amenity spaces, but it seems like the spaces are unsafe and more attention should be paid to crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED).
While the art elements in the amenity space are nice, it would be better if the art were real and integrated with the landscape rather than decorative.
There is too much rubber surfacing and more natural materials should be considered instead.
As well, having two barely-separated play areas seems cruel, and considering that one is linked with regular housing and one with social housing this sends a terrible message. Either integrate the two
play areas into one big space, or provide much better separation between them.
Much more consideration should be given to sustainability in the buildings.
The units at the back are not livable considering the acoustic impacts of the active lane. This needs to be fixed through better mitigation or re-orientation of these units.


So, after all that criticism, they go and vote to approve the project 4-3.
While I'm totally in favor of the increased density, the previous renderings make the project seem like a boring addition to the city. I understand the challenges of the space, but I wish they would have gone in a different style. But, maybe I'm just jaded because I'll miss the views from the Cloud 9 Restaurant. :(

http://vancouver.ca/your-government/urban-design-panel.aspx

[osirisboy]

I'm confused with their comment about the podium. significantly reducing the height of the podium to provide a more urban fit"? Wasn't it originally only 3 floors to begin with? And how does having a 3 floor podium not provide an urban fit?

Also they wanted the towers to be narrower. Ugh. why? So smaller floor plates and and a dinky podium. Good job

[Vin]

It has to fit the "village" status of the area.

We are going to lose more and more space where the public can go relax and enjoy themselves in this city, especially places which offer great views. Ironically, one of the reasons why we are losing them is also because of the so-called "view protection": one less reason to hop over to Robson street now. I think the City is subconsciously killing off this iconic street, and eventually turning it into yet another quiet residential zone.

Why can't the City insist that the site should maintain its hotel business even with the addition of residential tower(s) with the current rezoning? They should also insist that a new tower continue to have a rotating restaurant/lounge/viewing deck as a form of donation to the public, just like how they insist on social housing and other social/art contributions, and by allowing the owners to build tall to ensure maximum sales revenue. I call this sound private-public cooperation, with the general public in mind, and not what we have now: forever at each other's throats when it comes to development proposals.

[rofina]

I'm confused with their comment about the podium. significantly reducing the height of the podium to provide a more urban fit"? Wasn't it originally only 3 floors to begin with? And how does having a 3 floor podium not provide an urban fit?

Also they wanted the towers to be narrower. Ugh. why? So smaller floor plates and and a dinky podium. Good job

I don't understand that at all, either.

This obsession with slender towers needs to go - is it part of official city policy to drive cost per sq/ft up?

I have to hand it to the architects willing to work in the CoV. Reading those comments made me cringe.

To summarize the UDP;

"Kind of boring, kind of too similar, kind of not urban enough, but kind of too urban, maybe a bit too wide, doesn't fit in, but great fit with area, great amenity, but we don't like it, so go ahead and build it."

[rofina]

It has to fit the "village" status of the area.

We are going to lose more and more space where the public can go relax and enjoy themselves in this city, especially places which offer great views. Ironically, one of the reasons why we are losing them is also because of the so-called "view protection": one less reason to hop over to Robson street now. I think the City is subconsciously killing off this iconic street, and eventually turning it into yet another quiet residential zone.

Thats because Downtown is turning into a suburb for the elite.

Its ridiculous - just like last years discussion about Granville street, does it need to remain a party corridor?

Seriously?

Why don't we just shut everything down and only have condos and starbucks on every corner, with some ultra high end retail here and there.

Congratulations Vancouver, very inclusive, very green.

This gets me riled up.

[osirisboy]

Obviously the owners have done their homework but I still can't get how this proposal makes economical sense. Maybe there are huge problems with the existing building that would need massive repair costs that we don't know about? Seems like it would make more sense to renovate existing tower and propose something on the east end of the block, where there is that sesperate 3 storey building

And for a city that is obsessed with being green I find it bizarre that they don't seem to have a problem with the waste involved in demolishing existing building.

[cornholio]

Obviously the owners have done their homework but I still can't get how this proposal makes economical sense. Maybe there are huge problems with the existing building that would need massive repair costs that we don't know about? Seems like it would make more sense to renovate existing tower and propose something on the east end of the block, where there is that sesperate 3 storey building

And for a city that is obsessed with being green I find it bizarre that they don't seem to have a problem with the waste involved in demolishing existing building.

Looks like it will be top heavy and built in the 70's without thought about dampening in earthquakes. Might be seismic risk related stuff. Just a idea...

Found a quote:
“It’s actually a very slender floor plate,” said Luxton.

“It’s tall, but there’s not that much square footage. And seismically (1970s buildings) are not anywhere near what they need to be. So you look at upgrading these buildings and it costs a fortune — it’s easier to tear them down.”

[Urbanmetro]

I love Vancouver and think it is an amazing city and has great potential to be one of the great metropolis in all the Americas. What is baffling​ me is how the city is an ostrich, and naive. Vancouver wants the perks of a metropolis but none of the negatives. City officials want the perks of keeping the city village like with none of the negative consequences.

The whole west end can and should be dense if we want to keep on a green yet economic path. Robson can't stay as it currently is, or it will destroy the fabric of the city. Paris, London, Berlin, all these cities are moving forward, not keeping to the past.

This site should have to keep a hotel element for sure, plus the resident component. This is Vancouver's high street, the fifth Avenue and the city wants to dumb the project down even more?
I hope Davie village and the rest of the peninsula get much more dense and tall. The down town will eventually outgrow the view corridors whether city officials like it or not. In twenty year..... My two cents

[jollyburger]

I love Vancouver and think it is an amazing city and has great potential to be one of the great metropolis in all the Americas. What is baffling​ me is how the city is an ostrich, and naive. Vancouver wants the perks of a metropolis but none of the negatives. City officials want the perks of keeping the city village like with none of the negative consequences.

The whole west end can and should be dense if we want to keep on a green yet economic path. Robson can't stay as it currently is, or it will destroy the fabric of the city. Paris, London, Berlin, all these cities are moving forward, not keeping to the past.

This site should have to keep a hotel element for sure, plus the resident component. This is Vancouver's high street, the fifth Avenue and the city wants to dumb the project down even more?
I hope Davie village and the rest of the peninsula get much more dense and tall. The down town will eventually outgrow the view corridors whether city officials like it or not. In twenty year..... My two cents

It's okay, they'll build out in Burnaby and Surrey. :D

[Feathered Friend]

http://i.imgur.com/s9u3K4Ch.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/RaWkutTh.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/pPtCoLAh.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/9hlaB0Ph.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/fmd91drh.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/C9xUy78h.jpg

I went down to the UDP meeting on Wednesday and snapped photos of these boards. As recently as a couple weeks ago, I was told that there still hasn't been a choice to how the existing building will be demo'ed. I hope for an implosion, as it's been too long since Woodwards. More importantly, it would allow the new housing stock to come online faster.

[retro_orange]

I am hoping someone has the foresight to dismantle the mechanism for the revolving restaurant so it could be reassembled and reused on a new taller hotel in the city :)

If in good condition, I'm sure someone would buy it. I wonder if it's possible to make the floor wider on a new structure.

(... hopefully I have piqued the interest of someone in a higher echelon reading this) Have a private revolving penthouse at least? ;)

[jlousa]

There is no appetite for revolving restaurants they are a dead fad from a bygone era. No local visits the ones we have now on any regular basis. Heck the Hotel Van couldn't even keep it's "Roof" space opened.

[Vin]

There is definitely appetite, but people expect better food and services, and general ambience. The owners of the Empire Landmark Hotel basically gave up on their hotel ages ago, and that's why it feels sad when you walk inside. Age doesn't help either. If a revolving restaurant or lounge is at the burrard/georgia/granville area, I'm sure it would be buzzing with traffic. All businesses need synergy from their surroundings to succeed. However, restrictions in this city for development has made the part of Robson where Empire Landmark hotel sits today become isolated from this synergy. The City wants to keep it a village and they have succeeded. .

[jlousa]

Yes that must be why "the roof" failed too. :rolleyes: Nothing is stopping a developer from building a rooftop restaurant, well except for economics. Those pesky economic factors getting in the way of everything that is keeping Vancouver a village in some peoples mind.:haha:

[trofirhen]

There is definitely appetite, but people expect better food and services, and general ambience. The owners of the Empire Landmark Hotel basically gave up on their hotel ages ago, and that's why it feels sad when you walk inside. Age doesn't help either. If a revolving restaurant or lounge is at the burrard/georgia/granville area, I'm sure it would be buzzing with traffic. All businesses need synergy from their surroundings to succeed. However, restrictions in this city for development has made the part of Robson where Empire Landmark hotel sits today become isolated from this synergy. The City wants to keep it a village and they have succeeded. .

I don't understand this fear of Vancouver becoming a "big city" type of city. In Europe, Stockholm and Amsterdam feel 'quaint' with cyclists, etc, but those are world cities nonetheless.
I don't get the mentality here. They don't seem to care much about dress or fashion either. Just look at Geoff Meggs. Where does he buy his clothes; have his hair styled? :cool:

[logan5]

http://i.imgur.com/9hlaB0Ph.jpg

It's nice to see that they are going to have each retail space with their own canopy. Makes a huge difference imo.

Oh wait. Or are they just putting the same "individual" canopy on each suite? Which it looks as if they are, looking at the board closer. Dang,. More blank street wall.

[Klazu]

Heck the Hotel Van couldn't even keep it's "Roof" space opened.

Ah, so that's what happened to it. I was curious about it when it opened, then forgot about it and was recently wondering about it, but didn't find any info. Too bad that it failed. I wonder what's in the space now?

[Graham_Yvr]

Ah, so that's what happened to it. I was curious about it when it opened, then forgot about it and was recently wondering about it, but didn't find any info. Too bad that it failed. I wonder what's in the space now?

It's a banquet space. Basically used for weddings and such now. It was completely renovated before the lobby renovation was done, and served as the restaurant/lounge until Notch 8 was complete. Now carries on its life as bookable space. They did a very nice job updating it. The decor is very neutral to allow event planners to decorate as their event needs.

[Vin]

Yes that must be why "the roof" failed too. :rolleyes: Nothing is stopping a developer from building a rooftop restaurant, well except for economics. Those pesky economic factors getting in the way of everything that is keeping Vancouver a village in some peoples mind.:haha:

Don't think anyone knows about "The Roof". Marketing was horrible. I don't even see anything directing people to the Roof for sumptuous food on the main lobby. Never ever seen anyone snapping photos of how the Roof restaurant looked too. Where are the view pictures from up there? Also, does anyone know of any unforgettable cuisine/cocktail drinks that people tried and were raving about? Nada, and hence its failure.

However, Hotel Vancouver did have awesome food and beverage services back when Griffins was still around. The Sunday Brunch was always packed with people, and even the dessert buffet from back in the days were popular. Too bad they converted the space to a boutique, with St John's as the retailer renting the space now.

[Vin]

[/B]
I don't understand this fear of Vancouver becoming a "big city" type of city. In Europe, Stockholm and Amsterdam feel 'quaint' with cyclists, etc, but those are world cities nonetheless.
I don't get the mentality here. They don't seem to care much about dress or fashion either. Just look at Geoff Meggs. Where does he buy his clothes; have his hair styled? :cool:

Agreed. For example London's The Shard under Shangrila's management has 3 or 4 separate lounges/clubs and restaurants on the 40th floor or above: awesome view and great vibes. The places are teeming with patrons, and offering great views of the City of London.

Here we are tearing down innovative businesses of yesteryears, but because unsound city policies have made it hard for them to survive, many of them are becoming tired-looking, losing patrons and bleeding money. Yet we have people here still thinking that these policies work and are defending them. Sad.

The City should have insisted the Empire Landmark hotel owners maintain one tower as a partial hotel with a rotating restaurant on top to carry on the legacy of the existing building, but built taller with a market condo element. The other shorter tower could have some rental units and subsidized housing.

The vacant space across the street should be allowed to be developed into a major retail/food centre with another hotel/condo on top. These two anchors of Robson street would definitely rejuvenate the area, and not let it slip into another quiet boring bedroom community.


The Shard sky lounges and restaurants:

From SSC:
The Shard

Панорамные рестораны

Aqua Shard

Расположен на 31 этаже. В этом ресторане даже туалеты имеют высотный вид на город.

Кухня: Современная британская, с ингредиентами "все получено на Британских островах".

Стоимость: Большинство горячих блюд от £ 16 до £ 33. По будним дням ланч из 2-х блюд вам обойдется £24, из 3-х -£28

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ofddHIVKzFc/UfZVm5TXNFI/AAAAAAAAAmE/Utwe9veO8Ko/s1600/_DSC4227.jpg

http://lifestyleetc.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/aqua-shard_Jestico+Whiles_Paul-Winch-Furness1-1024x681.jpg

http://emphasisphotography.blogspot.com/2013/07/aqua-bar-and-restaurant-shard-london.html

http://lifestyleetc.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/aqua-shard_Jestico-+-Whiles_Photography-Richard-Southall-1024x682.jpg
http://lifestyleetc.co.uk/2013/10/07/the-world-according-to-james-dilley/



Oblix

Находится на 32 этаже.

Кухня: американская в стиле гриль-бара.

В ресторане можно попробовать себя в роли сомелье, продегустировав разные вина, что бы выбрать особенно подходящее под ваш ужин. Рыба, гребешки, все виды мяса... изящество, способное покорить любого гурмана...

Стоимость: около £ 50-60 на человека плюс напитки.

http://the-shard.com/media/92734/oblix02.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-znaYvl5S9-Y/UfZSZyug6iI/AAAAAAAAAkM/9hbvLDiskMk/s1600/_DSC3514.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-yGtIjMYqAXM/UfZSdd5C3iI/AAAAAAAAAkU/I7HXVGmcfd8/s1600/_DSC3064.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-K0bqylelD4Y/UfZSidlnGEI/AAAAAAAAAkc/XlQ0GMItFYk/s1600/_DSC3117.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-yynZz1tEweI/UfZSmfxU-GI/AAAAAAAAAkk/QTaU0p5qYDE/s1600/_DSC3150.jpg

http://emphasisphotography.blogspot.com/2013/07/oblix-restaurant-shard-london.html



Hutong

Кухня: северо-китайская

Расположенный на 33 этаже Осколка, ресторан Hutong имеет специальное освещение, практически исключающее блики окон, что позволяет любоваться панорамами Лондона в течение всего дня и ночи.

Стоимость: горячие блюда - £ 10-30, утка по-пекински с персональной разделкой около вашего стола £ 58.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-xKeeGUnNOXk/UfZT-m5c20I/AAAAAAAAAk8/lXTEw8vmuLk/s1600/_DSC3261.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-AB6ndyqDcpw/UfZUGjf33dI/AAAAAAAAAlE/qyuZH0IgRvk/s1600/_DSC3335.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-YPeIjG95t9Q/UfZUSs-d-AI/AAAAAAAAAlU/Jx79TovwNu8/s1600/_DSC3372.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-cnIijrIUMyI/UfZUZ9ARSmI/AAAAAAAAAlc/N8X0hOcqLX0/s1600/_DSC3416.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-y6KR5f9mMOI/UfZUjZsX5hI/AAAAAAAAAlk/JGMHHpW20Po/s1600/_DSC3361.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-_cDq8-YJi_o/UfZUq1FmWTI/AAAAAAAAAls/odOJSeU01dA/s1600/_DSC3297.jpg

http://emphasisphotography.blogspot.com/2013/07/hutong-restaurant-shard-london.html

[EastVanMark]

[/B]
I don't understand this fear of Vancouver becoming a "big city" type of city. In Europe, Stockholm and Amsterdam feel 'quaint' with cyclists, etc, but those are world cities nonetheless.
I don't get the mentality here. They don't seem to care much about dress or fashion either. Just look at Geoff Meggs. Where does he buy his clothes; have his hair styled? :cool:

Its just been the Vancouver way in its recent history. We USED to be REALLY progressive city but in more recent times we have a civic administration that is obsessed with keeping things quiet, small, plain, & slow, all the while engaging in various social engineering projects, rather than letting us reach our truest potential.

For a recent example of this look attitude, no further than how we are the largest city in North America without Uber.

The city has punted the issue and has stalled, & delayed this thing to death.

For a more older classic example, look no further than the "viewcone" debacle or our puzzling hate for bright signage (although I will admit things FINALLY appear to be SLOWLY be changing on that front)

[connect2source]

Empire Landmark slowly being covered in marketing for Landmark on Robson.

"Where Opulence and Beauty Coverage" lol

Photos by : Me

http://i1302.photobucket.com/albums/ag130/Dean_Ellison/IMG_3106_zpssvtkjikw.jpg

http://i1302.photobucket.com/albums/ag130/Dean_Ellison/IMG_3105_zpsgehjlc0v.jpg

[Pinion]

Why are they calling it Landmark when it will no longer be one?

[Tetsuo]

Why are they calling it Landmark when it will no longer be one?

:haha:

"Ties to the block's historic past"

Ron.

[Vin]

Boooooo!



Really? I think if they are replacing this tower, they need to be spectacular, and IMO they fall short.
No doubt. I'm still in shock that this is going ahead.

I'm so shocked I'm totally numb.

Landmark name makes so sense at all. Pretentious tag line "where opulence and beauty coverage" is vomit worthy.
"Landmark"? Ha. It's like they are mocking us.
Agreed. The tower there is an interesting example of its era of architecture. It's wasteful to demolish it for a development so painfully mundane. And for them to market it as "Landmark" is salt in the wound.

Yeah exactly, that Kengo building a block or so away is more deserving to be called a "Landmark" building.

http://westbankcorp.com/1550-alberni

[ranvancan]

I agree with Vin and all those he quoted that, too, are saddened about this. IMO, the fact that Vancouver will so easily let go of something that one day was cutting edge, iconic and "Landmark" material so much that they put the word in the name. Vancouver is soooo backward or non-forward thinking that they could not even have seen a way to re-invent this taller building (in the area) for the icon or landmark that it's name says. I mean, it frustrates us all to no end that we just could have added some modern lighting features or even flood lit from below and evenly crawling the tall mass. We should have left a good thing alone and re-invented it. The restaurant could have been re-invigorated with a new owner, the tower could have taken on a whole new look and meaning or status. Two new boring residentials will only invite more opposing residents to lobby against 'normal city growth'. I hate this, I hate what the message Vancouver is making, and I have lived in Vancouver and metro Vancouver for my whole 52 years of life...........and I am out! A $5m house up the road owned by an investment corp in order to hold it for ransom to a new developer and put it for sale at $11m has pushed me out from ever being able to buy in this messed up city. I AM CANADIAN, and I am out of here!!!!

[mezzanine]

IMO, won't be sad to see the landmark go. it interacts poorly at the street (a large section of it is literally a concrete wall) and makes the block devoid of activity. Of buildings from that era, I much prefer the blue horizon hotel. a similar slender tower but the street front is better handled and the tile makes it stand out.

for some it has nostalgic appeal, but not enough for me to feel strongly about it. i see less of the nostalgia and more of the anachronism. who goes to revolving restaurants anymore?

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

IMO, won't be sad to see the landmark go. it interacts poorly at the street (a large section of it is literally a concrete wall) and makes the block devoid of activity. Of buildings from that era, I much prefer the blue horizon hotel. a similar slender tower but the street front is better handled and the tile makes it stand out.

that can always be fixed though. i think the bigger issue isnt that it is being torn down per-say, but that what is replacing it is average at best and quite a bit shorter then what is being removed.

[whatnext]

IMO, won't be sad to see the landmark go. it interacts poorly at the street (a large section of it is literally a concrete wall) and makes the block devoid of activity. Of buildings from that era, I much prefer the blue horizon hotel. a similar slender tower but the street front is better handled and the tile makes it stand out.

for some it has nostalgic appeal, but not enough for me to feel strongly about it. i see less of the nostalgia and more of the anachronism. who goes to revolving restaurants anymore?

The Seaforth Armoury interacts poorly with the street, it should have been blown up too. :rolleyes:

Outside of the architectural argument, there's the sad fact that hundreds of permanent jobs are disappearing with that building. And unlike so many others, they tend to be relatively decent paying jobs. For many new immigrants hotel work is the first step on building a sustainable life in Canada. Timmy Hos isn't going to give them that,

[mezzanine]

that can always be fixed though. i think the bigger issue isnt that it is being torn down per-say, but that what is replacing it is average at best and quite a bit shorter then what is being removed.

i wont be upset if it remains as it is, but i do think there is a lot of missed potential currently.

look at the blocks of robson by jervis, or immediately west of the landmark by nicola/cardero - the buildings certainly aren't tall and spectacular, but there is a lot of animation and a wide selection of good restaurants and cafes. locals and tourists go there, and not to the cloud 9.

if the current owners do put money into it, develop the street front into new CRUs (where would they put the parking entrance?), re-open their sidewalk cafe (which has been closed for the past few years now) it would be drastically different. if the way they can do that is thru redevelopment, with improvements as per zoning (more housing, more social housing, modern seismic code) then i wouldnt miss the empire landmark. the planned development seems "downtown south" average, but i wouldn't call it ugly.

[Migrant_Coconut]

i wont be upset if it remains as it is, but i do think there is a lot of missed potential currently.

look at the blocks of robson by jervis, or immediately west of the landmark by nicola/cardero - the buildings certainly aren't tall and spectacular, but there is a lot of animation and a wide selection of good restaurants and cafes. locals and tourists go there, and not to the cloud 9.

Integration with the skyline is just as important as with the street. Like it or not (the latter for me, being allergic to brutalism), the Empire is an iconic part of the Core... whereas the style of its "Vancouverism" replacement can be found anywhere in Coal Harbour or Yaletown. There's more than enough lively blocks like Nicola or Cardero, none of which will ever be remembered by name or put on a postcard.

Might as well demo Harbour Centre, being equally bland at ground level.

if the current owners do put money into it, develop the street front into new CRUs (where would they put the parking entrance?), re-open their sidewalk cafe (which has been closed for the past few years now) it would be drastically different. if the way they can do that is thru redevelopment, with improvements as per zoning (more housing, more social housing, modern seismic code) then i wouldnt miss the empire landmark. the planned development seems "downtown south" average, but i wouldn't call it ugly.

Which was exactly what the owners initially wanted: keep the tower, add a few midrise condos to the block, regenerate the street. That got shot down because it exceeded the floorspace limit - hence the outrage.

[Vin]

Sad fact is that there are hundreds of other run down ugly short buildings in the neighbourhood that deserve to be torn down and rebuilt, so why is Empire Landmark Hotel targeted? One should look at zoning policies too.

[mezzanine]

Integration with the skyline is just as important as with the street. Like it or not (the latter for me, being allergic to brutalism), the Empire is an iconic part of the Core... whereas the style of its "Vancouverism" replacement can be found anywhere in Coal Harbour or Yaletown. There's more than enough lively blocks like Nicola or Cardero, none of which will ever be remembered by name or put on a postcard.

Might as well demo Harbour Centre, being equally bland at ground level.



I'm not sure if i would call the empire landmark iconic for vancouver, versus canada place, harbour centre, or even other hotels like the fairmont hotel vancouver, the bayshore, or even trump and shangri-la.

Harbour centre is in the CBD, IMO context and integration would have a different standard than the landmark and the residential side of the west end. i don't mind harbour centre even though it's awful on cordova, seymour and richards sts. but that being said, if the owners of harbour centre want to redevelop it to a similar calibre (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=218143&page=8) of other commercial buildings (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=228241) in the CBD, I wouldn't mind it. the exchange building (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=194094&page=56) is one way i can see them incorporate the old spencer's facade.

[mezzanine]

on second thought, i might be more sad about a change to harbour centre versus the landmark... ;)

[Changing City]

Which was exactly what the owners initially wanted: keep the tower, add a few midrise condos to the block, regenerate the street. That got shot down because it exceeded the floorspace limit - hence the outrage.

Do you have a source for that statement? The Empire Landmarks's existing floorspace ratio is under 6, and the replacement is being built to the West End Plan permitted density of 7.7 FSR - so the new development will add about 75,000 sq ft more in total.

If it were possible to somehow add that to the existing structure, it would seem enough additional space to make a refurbishment and conversion worth considering.

It suggests other reasons for the decision to redevelop - two possibilities come to mind. The existing building's seismic status must be well below current code, and retrofitting could easily be very difficult and cost more than it's worth. And refurbished condos in a brutalist 43 year old tower probably wouldn't command the same values when marketed that the developers will no doubt be hoping to achieve with new buildings. The economics of redevelopment might well work better.

[a very long weekend]

^ yeah, but it's one of vancouver's most famous buildings. you can justify the redevelopment process, but it's not like it's just some building you're taking down. it's a true vancouver icon.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Do you have a source for that statement? The Empire Landmarks's existing floorspace ratio is under 6, and the replacement is being built to the West End Plan permitted density of 7.7 FSR - so the new development will add about 75,000 sq ft more in total.

If it were possible to somehow add that to the existing structure, it would seem enough additional space to make a refurbishment and conversion worth considering.

Feathered was at the open house:

After talking to the architects, I have some info that will answer some of the unknowns. That said, it definitively won't appease anyone unhappy with the plan.
I also took pictures of the models and info boards, but will need to make time to upload them.

The proposal has a far higher FSR than the current Empire. The FSR with this proposal is maxed out under the West Side plan, even with the addition of a heritage transfer.
Obviously, had they gone with one tower they could have built taller, but as we know more height = more cost.

[Changing City]

Feathered was at the open house:

Thanks for the reply. I saw that too, but I thought Feathered Friend was saying the same as my comment - the replacement towers have more density than the existing single tower, and have maxed out the density they can build under the new plan, under zoning.

It's not clear that the architects or developers considered anything else - but maybe they did - and we may not know why they chose to take it down, but here's a quote from a Vancouver Sun article (http://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/landmark-west-end-hotel-likely-to-be-demolished-to-make-way-for-condo-development)last year.

"Heritage expert Don Luxton isn’t surprised the Landmark may be redeveloped.

“We’re watching this happen all over the city,” he said.

“The new frontier for developers is stratas and 1970s buildings. They’re buying them up all over the place and looking to tear then down, because they’re often underbuilt for their zoning potential.”

The Empire Landmark may be tall, said Luxton, but it isn’t really all that big.

“It’s actually a very slender floor plate,” said Luxton.

“It’s tall, but there’s not that much square footage. And seismically (1970s buildings) are not anywhere near what they need to be. So you look at upgrading these buildings and it costs a fortune — it’s easier to tear them down.”

[Migrant_Coconut]

Thanks for the reply. I saw that too, but I thought Feathered Friend was saying the same as my comment - the replacement towers have more density than the existing single tower, and have maxed out the density they can build under the new plan, under zoning.

It's not clear that the architects or developers considered anything else - but maybe they did - and we may not know why they chose to take it down, but here's a quote from a Vancouver Sun article (http://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/landmark-west-end-hotel-likely-to-be-demolished-to-make-way-for-condo-development)last year.

No problem - don't have any reason to dodge the question, after all.

Good point about the seismic upgrade cost-to-benefit ratio, but seeing as even places like the Balmoral (http://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/vancouver-to-hire-manager-to-oversee-earthquake-retrofit-plan-for-private-buildings) are upgraded or waiting for upgrades, it's likely that the architects at least thought about keeping the tower and adding another one.

[Feathered Friend]

Feathered was at the open house:

Thanks for the reply. I saw that too, but I thought Feathered Friend was saying the same as my comment - the replacement towers have more density than the existing single tower, and have maxed out the density they can build under the new plan, under zoning.

It's not clear that the architects or developers considered anything else - but maybe they did - and we may not know why they chose to take it down, but here's a quote from a Vancouver Sun article (http://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/landmark-west-end-hotel-likely-to-be-demolished-to-make-way-for-condo-development)last year.

"Heritage expert Don Luxton isn’t surprised the Landmark may be redeveloped.

“We’re watching this happen all over the city,” he said.

“The new frontier for developers is stratas and 1970s buildings. They’re buying them up all over the place and looking to tear then down, because they’re often underbuilt for their zoning potential.”

The Empire Landmark may be tall, said Luxton, but it isn’t really all that big.

“It’s actually a very slender floor plate,” said Luxton.

“It’s tall, but there’s not that much square footage. And seismically (1970s buildings) are not anywhere near what they need to be. So you look at upgrading these buildings and it costs a fortune — it’s easier to tear them down.”

Just to clear up the misunderstanding, Changing City's interpretation of my words is correct. I'm not sure if they could squeezed in any new towers next to the existing tower, as I believe the limited spacing would violate city policy, which requires 80 feet between towers. Off topic, that particular open house feels like it was ages ago... a sign of a busy year I suppose.

[Bcasey25raptor]

I posted this in the death of the 1970s of vancouver thread, I believe it also belongs here

"Vancouver seems obsessed with turning into a shithole bore of a city.

The city has fallen a lot even in just the 5 years I've lived here. I can't even begin to imagine how much it had already fallen prior to 2013.

I don't want to go and I likely won't, but my anger with this city and the current trajectory of it's housing market and destruction of everything that made this city once grand is pushing me away.

Tearing down of Landmark is the last straw for me and shows this city now literally only cares about easy money and appeasing a bunch of rich old slimy boomer property owners who oppose anything that stands in the way of their perfect little village by the sea vancouver they remember.

Sorry for the profanities but I'm sick and tired of this shit."

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

I posted this in the death of the 1970s of vancouver thread, I believe it also belongs here

"Vancouver seems obsessed with turning into a shithole bore of a city.

The city has fallen a lot even in just the 5 years I've lived here. I can't even begin to imagine how much it had already fallen prior to 2013.

I don't want to go and I likely won't, but my anger with this city and the current trajectory of it's housing market and destruction of everything that made this city once grand is pushing me away.

Tearing down of Landmark is the last straw for me and shows this city now literally only cares about easy money and appeasing a bunch of rich old slimy boomer property owners who oppose anything that stands in the way of their perfect little village by the sea vancouver they remember.

Sorry for the profanities but I'm sick and tired of this shit."

i would say its more offshore money then boomers. offshore money is what has created Vancouver into what it IS, the boomers created what it WAS.

[logan5]

I posted this in the death of the 1970s of vancouver thread, I believe it also belongs here

"Vancouver seems obsessed with turning into a shithole bore of a city.

The city has fallen a lot even in just the 5 years I've lived here. I can't even begin to imagine how much it had already fallen prior to 2013.

I don't want to go and I likely won't, but my anger with this city and the current trajectory of it's housing market and destruction of everything that made this city once grand is pushing me away.

Tearing down of Landmark is the last straw for me and shows this city now literally only cares about easy money and appeasing a bunch of rich old slimy boomer property owners who oppose anything that stands in the way of their perfect little village by the sea vancouver they remember.

Sorry for the profanities but I'm sick and tired of this shit."

Things aren't that bad. Chinatown is becoming a functional neighbourhood, Main Street has emerged in the last 10 years and is even getting better as businesses are opening along the DT section of Main. Now Fraser Street is becoming a neat little area. Same with Hastings sunrise. Imo, the city is getting better.

[whatnext]

Things aren't that bad. Chinatown is becoming a functional neighbourhood, Main Street has emerged in the last 10 years and is even getting better as businesses are opening along the DT section of Main. Now Fraser Street is becoming a neat little area. Same with Hastings sunrise. Imo, the city is getting better.

That ignores the dead zone on much of the West Side, which is the reason Main and Fraser became more vibrant as people were pushed out in favour of empty homes and part-time occupancy.

[EastVanMark]

Things aren't that bad. Chinatown is becoming a functional neighbourhood, Main Street has emerged in the last 10 years and is even getting better as businesses are opening along the DT section of Main. Now Fraser Street is becoming a neat little area. Same with Hastings sunrise. Imo, the city is getting better.

Not so bad? Chinatown is having is roots ripped from the ground and is being turned into a bland, redundant, gentrified nightmare.

On the other hand, agree about Main, Fraser Streets.

[Bcasey25raptor]

Not so bad? Chinatown is having is roots ripped from the ground and is being turned into a bland, redundant, gentrified nightmare.

On the other hand, agree about Main, Fraser Streets.

Chinatown has lost it's identity which is upsetting due to just how historically important it is to our city and it's history.

[Vin]

Things aren't that bad. Chinatown is becoming a functional neighbourhood, Main Street has emerged in the last 10 years and is even getting better as businesses are opening along the DT section of Main. Now Fraser Street is becoming a neat little area. Same with Hastings sunrise. Imo, the city is getting better.

I don't quite agree with you. Seeing how other cities are improving, we are certainly not getting any better. In fact, Main street and West Broadway are deteriorating with hardly any new developments. Definitely way under par with our potential to become a really great city.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Not so bad? Chinatown is having is roots ripped from the ground and is being turned into a bland, redundant, gentrified nightmare.

Chinatown has lost it's identity which is upsetting due to just how historically important it is to our city and it's history.

Its "roots" have been missing since the turn of the century - especially now that the Night Market is virtually dead.

Before gentrification, its "identity" was run-down apartments and grocery stores, dubious pawn shops and a couple of good restaurants; now it's somewhat cleaned up and frequented by people all over the city. Bad for the residents, sure, but good for everybody else.

[Migrant_Coconut]

I don't quite agree with you. Seeing how other cities are improving, we are certainly not getting any better. In fact, Main street and West Broadway are deteriorating with hardly any new developments. Definitely way under par with our potential to become a really great city.

Little to no new developments on Main or Broadway? Sure (https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/property-report/vancouvers-west-broadwayis-in-the-midst-of-a-land-rush/article31494096/?ref=http://www.theglobeandmail.com&) could (https://www.buzzbuzzhome.com/ca/the-grace) have (http://dailyhive.com/vancouver/1296-west-broadway-vancouver) fooled (http://zeokits.com/) me (http://www.vancouvermarket.ca/2017/02/06/broadway-alma-site-slated-for-rental-development/). One (http://www.broadwayandoak.com/) could (https://www.buzzbuzzhome.com/ca/main-street) easily (http://www.bcpresales.ca/new-developments/1880-main-street/) argue (https://urbanyvr.com/second-main-condos-east-2nd) that (http://elenoreonfifth.com/) there's (http://www.vancouvermarket.ca/tag/3594-main/) plenty (http://www.actonostry.ca/project/the-independent-apartment-vancouver/) of (http://vancouver.ca/home-property-development/little-mountain.aspx) development (http://renditiondevelopments.ca/property/main-and-41st/).