601 W. Hastings | 108.8m | 25Fl | Completed
 

Here is Morguards proposal for a new office tower at the NW corner of Hastings and Seymour.

•Planning Context & Rezoning Rationale
http://former.vancouver.ca/commsvcs/...grationale.pdf

•Existing Condition
http://former.vancouver.ca/commsvcs/...gcondition.pdf

•Building Form & Design Rationale
http://former.vancouver.ca/commsvcs/...nrationale.pdf

•Context Elevations
http://former.vancouver.ca/commsvcs/...elevations.pdf

•Views Impact Analysis
http://former.vancouver.ca/commsvcs/...ctanalysis.pdf

•Shadow Studies
http://former.vancouver.ca/commsvcs/...dowstudies.pdf

•Renderings
http://former.vancouver.ca/commsvcs/...renderings.pdf

•Site Plan & Development Statistics
http://former.vancouver.ca/commsvcs/...statistics.pdf

•Context Plan
http://former.vancouver.ca/commsvcs/...ontextplan.pdf

•Floor & Roof Plans
http://former.vancouver.ca/commsvcs/...floorplans.pdf

•Building Elevations
http://former.vancouver.ca/commsvcs/...elevations.pdf

•Building Sections
http://former.vancouver.ca/commsvcs/...ngsections.pdf

•Landscape & Lighting Plans
http://former.vancouver.ca/commsvcs/...pelighting.pdf


•LEED Scorecard
http://former.vancouver.ca/commsvcs/...dscorecard.pdf



Really like the design on this one, and think that by including a new replacement plaza will go a long way in getting approval. Also like that they are going with a Hasting address and not Seymour.

That thing is tragic, crammed as it is on the site, and being built on what was an AMENITY required for the development of the tower next door, IIRC. Nice to see that seems to have been conveniently forgotten.

An amenity? Lol. The dome/plaza area is quite possibly one of the most dysfunctional and underutilized spaces in Downtown Vancouver. It may have been appropriate in the early 80's, but it is useless now.

The current 333 Seymour building, when including the dome site, is just under a 6.0 FSR...hardly appropriate for such a central location. I have no problem with a combined 15 FSR here. (though I'm not particularly a huge fan of this design).

Post edited: I was mistaken when I said the building looked "insipid." Upon second look, it has some nice curved angles (an oxymoron if ever there was), and the landscaping around it does look well designed and interestingly planted, and as someone pointed out, that "public amenity" dome structure that has been there for years is rather a vast empty space, devoid of life, one must admit.

I think my main problem with this building is that it further adds to the "tabletop" skyline Vancouver is so often criticized for. Then again, this IS the eastern edge of downtown, so a higher building would look "out of whack" here, especially as the skyline profile is theoretically supposed to culminate around Georgia and Burrard, in height.

At first I didn't find this building especially inspiring, but it does fit into the 'hood, and I admit that that is a key consideration.
And those curves, as well as the carved base are quite sleek upon second look.

But being where it is, it can't really go higher. Too bad. I'd love some more real height in the CBD.

*l* another insightful post. :rolleyes:

Anyways I agree that it's a shame to see something previously earmarked as a public amenity now being reneged on. I think that while the new proposal fulfulls current city goals, a special CAC should be applied in order to compensate for the loss. It's also a little dishonest how the one board shows portside park falling within a 10min walk, it fails to account it's impossible as you'd need to walk to Main st and then back or cut thru Waterfront station but even then it'd be much longer then 10min. Perhaps the special CAC could pay for the long outstanding Carral St overpass as well as upgrading the park.

The thing with this so called "amenity" is it exposes the bare walled blunder of that small office building next door for all to see. Firewalls are so annoying and ugly, I don't know how downtown Vancouver has some, its not like its super dense like Asian cities where such feature is more prominent (and necessary).

With this new office building, not only will more jobs be located downtown, it will finally cover up that ugly firewall. I can't wait for it to be built! :tup:

I think it's a great proposal.
I agree that it's not a great precedent to build over amenities, but that domed park was never executed very well. As there is still going to be public space at grade it's not much of a loss. Would be nice if they could relocate the actual dome and reuse it somewhere else as it's a shame to lose it.

I find it amazing that so many 'infill skyscrapers' are being proposed downtown on lots that 10 years ago, no one would have believed would have been rebuilt / used.

To me, what you state is rather exciting. It's a barometer that companies are still moving here (and Vancouver, I think most people might agree, DOES need a bigger economy) ... but it also lends that truly "big city" feeling to downtown, of which infill (quality infill, that is) is very much a part, in addition to pure height.

That's untrue; it is used quite a bit by office workers during lunch hours.

I work one block away; most days it's deserted.

If an amenity is being removed for a commercial space, can't the city impose that an equivalent sq. footage is used for amenity in the new development?
A nice publically-accessible rooftop garden/observation point would be a good compromise in my opinion. And if the developer wanted to also put a cafe or restaurant up there (not a requirement of accessing the roof, mind you), it could be a real tourist and local attraction.

The city will get more tax revenue from a piece of land that was underused. Seems like a fair trade off to me.

There still will be a (small) park like space at grade. I agree though, high time we had more than 2 tower top restaurants.

Agreed. This plaza is an amenity as the old terry fox 'po-mo triumphal arch' was an amenity.

Even the park with the rotating park benches is a less foreboding public space than the space i fondly refer to as the 'disco shelter', or the "UFO dock". :cheers:

Our office is in 333 Seymour right next door. I'm excited for this development. Even on the nicest days that plaza is utilized only by a few smokers and a half-dozen or so people having lunch. The upper lobby entrance into 333 Seymour (from that plaza) is dark and foreboding and utilized by few.

I can't wait to see something nice there. An office so close to Waterfront Station is sure to be attractive to a lot of decent tenants.

No it's not. It's a barometer of real estate investors wanting downtown Vancouver. If they can't buy it, build it.

And the barometer tells me that there are far more investors wanting into the market than there are tenants. I can assure you the sentiment in the landlord market is that there are far fewer tenants looking for space than all the proposals out there now.

Historical before and now pic of the site by JMV on Flickr:

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5547/1...0b24a8a6_b.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jmv/with/11123632216/

Thanks for the old photo.

You can see a model for the proposed new building at the reception for B+H's new offices:

http://bharchitects.smugmug.com/BH-V...House-74-L.jpg
http://bharchitects.smugmug.com/BH-Vancouver-Open-House

http://bharchitects.smugmug.com/BH-V...House-17-L.jpg
http://bharchitects.smugmug.com/BH-Vancouver-Open-House

I wonder how likely there will be any movement on this project in the near future.

wow, that's bit of a gut punch. thx for posting the photo.

Filling the gap on day.

http://vuosiamaailmalla.fi/blog/wp-c...ur_center1.jpg

forgive me
 

Looking again more slowly and more carefully, I have to agree with some posts saying that the building is nice, but not high enough, contributing to the now-infamous "tabletop."
I feel a certain "Toronto" element in this building, and I have to admit liking it. Would anyone agree that, if built 600+ ft tall, on much the same scale, that this would fit somewhere in TO?
(Not meant as negative criticism)

Yes it does:

http://urbantoronto.ca/database/projects/156-front-west

http://urbantoronto.ca/database/projects/union-centre

Thank you for that, OD.

Hmm. It may be just the thing to mark West Hastings at that critical juncture.
I wonder where it is along the planning stage.

I was this week in Toronto and it was my first time there since 2009. My, has that city changed in five years! I absolutely love the scale and height they are building in, as do I love the variation in heigth they have. Their towers are not only taller, but so much more massive than ours. They certainly do look impressive both from the street level as well as from the top of the CN Tower (which is always a treat, as was the new aquarium). There is certainly some New York vibe in the Downtown core during the office hours.

But what they have gained in height, they lack badly in architecture. I found almost all the new glass towers hugely boring architecture wise and many looked just downright cheap. Both Aura and L Tower were huge disappointments and are poorly executed. Our Trump Tower looks much better than either of those two (and don't let me get started on their Trump Tower). Actually only Toronto's Shangri-La was really impressive to me and other new towers were only impressive because of their height. Apperance wise I think Vancouver is ahead of Toronto with many nice (and interesting!) projects.

But I do give Toronto accolade for having a massive metropolitan skyline underway and it looks more impressive as a metro area than Chicago, through which I once again connected to my next destination. Chicago is only a superb looking Downtown, whereas Toronto has towers literally everywhere.

I would certainly love to have some "Toronto height" also in few places in Vancouver (for example with this project), but I am much happier with Vancouver's overall implementation of towers. In Vancouver the tower surroundings are always nicely done and very approachable, whereas in Toronto all these massive office and condo towers are really uninviting and have dead zones around them. South Core seemed as dead as five years ago despite having thousands of new condos there. It is the Coal Harbour of Toronto, but with less attractive streetscape.

Sorry for all the Toronto comments, but my trip is still so fresh on my mind. :)

I cant quite tell how tall this will be compared to the Harbour Centre. I wonder if it will block any West views from Lookout/Top of Vancouver.

it'll never happen, but ....
 

The revolving part of the Harbour Centre is OK, imo, but I wish they'd build a completely new Harbour Centre. The current version looks like
some Soviet-style monstrosity, complete with dirty concrete, square window panes, in a "vertical prison-style" hideously grim, utilitarian building.
I could imagine, a sleeker, somewhat taller building there, with a revolving top, but just get rid of that PostWar piece of scheiss.
Just a wish, a dream never to happen, I know ...... :rolleyes::(

Have to agree with you there - though I don't mind the look of the tower itself, the Seymour and Cordova frontages of Harbour Centre are seemingly designed to kill street life with blank concrete walls and claustrophobia-inducingly low concrete overhangs. Even the Hastings frontage is wasted by an empty, pointless atrium.

If reality matches the renderings, the combination of the existing Grant Thornton Place + 601 W. Hastings will create quite a distinguished streetscape for that block of Seymour. It's a shame that even post-reno Harbour Centre will have the opposite effect.

Klazu,
I am a Vancouverite who was living in Toronto. I agree with a lot of what you say, but have some comments. In terms of the way towers meet the street in Toronto vs Vancouver, there are both positives and negatives to each approach. I find TO more urban, and the fact that it seems dead has more to do with the people and the climate than the urban planning. On the other hand, Vancouver developments are beautiful, but all have (for me) a kind of resort town, Vegas feel. TO is much more Chicago or NYC. Again, it is more that there isn't enough street life yet in TO - and not enough trees on the downtown streets - not really the architecture per se.

As for Aura, yeah it isn't that nice. VanCity's Trump will trump TO's no doubt (it is pretty disappointing). But you really don't like L-Tower? It isn't even finished yet.

In terms of SouthCore, I don't think you should judge yet. Only 2 office towers and 2 residential towers are finished. The Delta hotel and the office tower next to it will be starting up in the next few months, while the 69 and 59 storey residential towers (ICE - awesome buildings IMHO), will be completing and occupying this year. Add two 72 storey towers and a 30 storey tower (Harbour Place) across the street and another 64 story one across the street from that and you will see South Core finally getting (almost)built out.

This project will be referred to public hearing next week, should reappear before council probably after the summer break.

http://former.vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/...cuments/p7.pdf

This project just popped up on the City's Development Permit page; just shows the elevations dated a couple of weeks ago. http://former.vancouver.ca/devapps/6...ings/index.htm

I wonder if they are going ahead with this project now?

Thanks for the heads up. Here's Google street view for anyone that wants to look around the site:

https://www.google.ca/maps/@49.28469...Em7pKyX1iA!2e0

I do remember someone on the forum saying some time ago (in another thread) that he or she heard some information (or rumour) that the developer was leaning towards proceeding on spec instead of waiting for the next cycle.

That was probably me, and that is still the rumour.

New renderings:

http://static.bharchitects.com/image...jpg?1440017613

http://static.bharchitects.com/image...jpg?1439931744

http://static.bharchitects.com/image....jpg?143993192

http://static.bharchitects.com/image...jpg?1439931644

Source: http://www.bharchitects.com/en/projects/426#4

:yes:

Wow! Sleek and sweet!

Nice!

Now they just need to tear down the PriceWaterhouse Building
and replace it with another tower with a tall lobby area to create a sightline to the CP Station
(maybe that's the eventual plan?)

The proforma for such a scheme would involve assumptions that can only be defined, shall we say, as being in the realm of unicorns.

And while we're at it, lets have Harbour Centre trim a wedge from their N.W. corner to reveal even more of the CPR station too.

What I notice is the slight cutting off of the corners that coincide exactly with the height of the neighbouring buildings (Princess and PriceWaterhouse). The floorplates of the new tower don't go right out to the corners until they are above the other towers. A nice touch I think, in deference to the neighbours. But if this new tower has been specifically designed to fit in like that then it implies that they expect the PriceWaterhouse building to be there for a long time.

I have a few pitifully noobish questions:

1) How soon could this conceivably start construction? (demolition?)

2) Is there a development proposed for the parkade on Cordova?

Thanks!

Nice enough building. Let's get on with it, shall we?

?? It's only 15 years old and gets among the highest rents in the city.

And sighlines to the station from where?

1: It will liely start construction in Q4 2015 or Q1 2016

2: Yes. 320 Granville St is proposed for that site. A ~25 storey office tower proposed by Greg Kerfoot (Who likely doesn't have the capital or team to build it) and will either partner or sell the site.

Maybe he meant the grant Thornton tower

Which one is that, please? Do you have the address? I can find it on Google that way (and the Web, of course). Thank you. :)

Yes, the Grant Thornton Tower. It was originally called the Price Waterhouse Building (before merger with Coopers Lybrand to form PriceWaterhouseCoopers).

^ Try google, it's surprisingly effective.

And ya that would make more sense, must have been what he meant.

And it has sort of an open domed "garden? Smallish; dark glass and stainless steel trimming, a bit sci-fi perhaps as a building?

The dome on the roof of the tower was supposed to light up as a beacon, but the City nixed that idea.
The building was very sci-fi.

This building looks amazing. Build it.