1045 Haro Street | 80m | 26, 25 fl | Proposed
 

INTRODUCTION
https://www.1045harostreet.com/

The proposal contemplates two buildings, one 15-storey (206 feet) and one 55-storey (plus a mechanical penthouse) (580 feet), with a total of 516 new homes (450 units of strata residential and 66 rental units), 42,000 SF of retail space, a 49-space daycare, a new public plaza, and pedestrian connections through the site.




SITE PLAN
https://i.imgur.com/tlRl4Pl.png

So far the massing looks good. Much a fan of the smaller separate tower here rather than increasingly-common oversized podiums of late.

^That rendering looks like it was printed on paper with a fold in it. Looks like the kink in the middle and the razor-thin profile will defy structural laws of engineering.

I want to see renders from different angles. There's nothing else on the website

Shangri-la, the Charleston, and the new social housing tower proposal at Richard/Drake are all equally razor-thin from the same angle.

At any rate, after the Bjarke Ingels and Kengo Kuma towers, really anything is possible in this city.

Oh wow. That looks cool as hell. I can see now why there wee concerns about shadowing Robson Street. :haha:

interesting and impressive... I cant wait to tune into the open house tonight. Hope to see some of you there! (virtually)

Hard to imagine that just to the left of this photo there is going to be a massive cluster of just as tall towers...

Oh....well that is a surprise.

Watched the presentation for this project...the tower also goes through the Heather Bay view cone and will require a full exemption. They mentioned they haven't talked to City staff about that yet (!)

This is the same view cone that influenced the shape/siting of Living-Shangrila and Trump.

Love it! How do I give it my full support?

Comments can be expressed either by emailing [email protected] or by filling in the comment sheet located at the bottom of the project's website.

https://www.1045harostreet.com/

The deadline is December 20th, 2020, as they revealed at the open house they intend to submit an application in January.

hmmmm ... avant-garde ... or am I wrong
 

In the render, the tall tower seems to have an ovehanging "kink" or "crick" to it. Am I wrong? Looks a tad unorthodox. ....

I really want to like this, but judging from the single rendering, I'm not a huge fan. It looks messy for what should be a sleek tower. The endoskeleton look of the building does it no favours; the balconies, the weird stairway crown, the odd vertical lines/spandrel running down the tower. It's exposing its blemishes rather than covering them up. This tower needs reflective glass to work.

Thanks!

Hard to tell what's happening at the base - it looks like a diagonal mews to the alley / Thurlow. Not sure how those angled facades will funnel the wind down to the sidewalk.

I expected the tower to be closer to the Sutton Place side to cluster the tall buildings, but that could have increased overall shadowing or intusion into the Heather view cone.

You can see that the south side is actually rendered as a mish-mash of spandrel panels (including the stepped spandrel crown mentioned by Giallo).

Yes - tower placement is in response to the Heather view cone ('D' below):

https://i.imgur.com/kFII5xh.png
https://guidelines.vancouver.ca/V003...355.1557532829

A few more images per the Daily Hive

https://i.ibb.co/wR9r6sg/1045-Haro-S...ancouver-1.jpg

https://i.ibb.co/q51jF0M/1045-Haro-S...ancouver-7.jpg

https://i.ibb.co/kJJxkQs/1045-Haro-S...ancouver-9.jpg

https://i.ibb.co/NxBFXkx/1045-Haro-S...ncouver-10.jpg

https://i.ibb.co/LCwJPFs/1045-Haro-S...ancouver-8.jpg

https://i.ibb.co/3Nd5mbq/1045-Haro-S...ancouver-5.jpg

Thanks for posting!
If it does breach the Heather view cone, the alternative would be to have a slab block that wholly sits under the view cone
(they could probably get 20 storeys) and then the only issue would be casting a very wide shadow on Robson St.

They showed a visual of the view cone intrusion in their presentation. Relative to the minor intrusions that have been permitted (ie. a few feet on some proposals), this one is quite significant and effectively the entire top half of the tower. Tough to see how they will be getting planning staff to support it (but would have massive implications if they do).

Which leans towards a shorter slab building and shadowing Robson St.
That would be consistent with other projects that loom over adjacent streets, like The Post.

Preemptive reminder that we have a viewcone complaint thread here.

The Heather Bay viewcone:

https://vancouver.ca/images/cov/content/view-cone-d.jpg

Masts add "context" to the viewcone

https://vancouver.ca/home-property-d...cted-view.aspx

Yay, let's celebrate the loss of more afforable home ownership options downtown. But we're gaining so much more, a glassy, glossy wealth-stasher for the global elite with a few rental crumbs for the (well-paid) working plebes thrown in.

who are the architects?

Since this project is directly challenging a view cone and shadowing policies I think it will be impossible not to include them in this project’s discussion.

Ultimately, I think they'll end up with a slab - hopefully better designed than this tower.
Without redevelopment of the Sutton PLace Hotel, I don't think a plaza / pedestrian connection would be very successful since it is hidden from Burrard Street.

That ship sailed long ago. The strata sold out for $165m in 2018.

who are the architects?

Awesome, even more of a typical story: random group of homeowners wins the Vision Vancouver rezoning lottery! Developer pays ridiculous amount assuring even more homes for the wealthy.

Fair enough. Just keeping in mind that such inclusion tends to... overshadow the actual project.

That's where certainty over height restrictions (rather than conflicting policies) would better guide assessments and land prices.

Appears to be Patkau Architects

:2cents: Yes, yes and yes. Upon looking at more renders, the tower is indeed a "geek" all awkward and mladroit lines. Change it, please, before it becopes an alien presence on the skyline.

I want to like it, but the kink in the tower is just a little much and not really in a good way. Like others pointed out, I'd need to see more renderings from different angles for a true opinion. I like the height and how sleek it is though. If it was straightened out it would be nice.

The main concern I have is that for a sleek tower, the details count and I suspect that the glass will not live up to the design - simply because a shear glass wall like that facing south will be hit with all sorts of LEED requirements to block solar gain (think The Charleson or The Mark).

Other towers incorporate the sunshading through fanciful designs with sun shading louvres, perforated panels, wraparound balconies, etc.

Even the dark glass south facade of Grosvenor's Pacific has a lot of spandrel panel to reduce solar gain.

https://patkau.ca/projects/
UrbanYVR article today

In December 2009 I was making a choice of a purchase (mortgage), a one bedroom at 1045 Haro ($275,000) or my current resident Anchor Point.
Haro street with 160 units sold for $164,750,000, my estimate at around $1800 a sq/ft...It could have been a good deal for me.

Not bad but needs a little work. Would love to see a building with an exoskeleton and maybe a different color glass other than the typical color most towers use here in our fair city. That Kink won't last but maybe punch a hole thru the building to keep the views and heck turn it into some sort of open space or something. Love the shorter tower portion but maybe make it more like a mini version of the larger town next door or just make it look totally different.... I'm sure it will go thru many more revisions in the future. That location is a great spot though and I am certainly looking forward to seeing this develop.

Is this absurd or what?

https://i.imgur.com/NfMDivV.png
https://32a69543-815b-406f-99d0-1d7d...85bfbcd9e9.pdf

BTW - They show the view cone corridor from the wrong angle.
The upper floors of the Trump Tower "lean back" out of the view cone.
So on the proper view cone corridor, the upper floors of Trump Tower should line up with the diagonal facade of Shangri-La.
The upper floors of Trump Tower should be hidden behind Shangri-La.
The viewer should be farther to the east (right) than as depicted.

https://i.imgur.com/ZHcwGWm.png

I like the "We are preserving the view of the Lions" slide :)

Those boat masts need to be reduced by 67% in order to see the Lions from that exact location. City council is slacking. Get on it, COV!

That would be hilarious if they wouldn't be 100% seriously at it.

I don't understand how the shadowing rules work. A building this tall (and many others) are sure to shadow Robson a lot. Is it based on an exact time on an exact date or how does it work?

Can lobbyists like do their job to abolish view cones. This is getting ridiculous.

Actually according to that graphic the shadow from that tower would shadow the north side of Robson street only 2% more throughout the year than it is currently shadowed, and all of that during the winter... Now that is the farce given how few sunny days we have in the winter...

If only Vancouver was this anal about cleaning up the alleys and keeping parks safe and inviting for all residents.

It's supposed to only be wrt shading of the north sidewalk.
I would think that the sun shining from directly south would cast a shadow - but they seem to think not in summer according to their chart (sun is higher overhead in summer?)

Lol, they'll nail themselves to the East Van cross first for some arbitrary view cones before they ever lift a finger to do something meaningful for the city.

All nay-saying aside, this would be comical to watch if it weren't so painfully true.

The City's policy says "...for rezoning proposals which fall within Area ‘E’, shadow impacts on the 1000 block of Robson Street will be evaluated between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. P.D.T. at the spring and fall equinoxes, rather than between 10:00a.m. and 4:00 p.m. New shadows should not extend beyond the curb of the sidewalk on the north side of Robson Street during these hours."

I'm assuming the photo of the architect and the measuring tape is sort of tongue-in-cheek (either that, or these guys have no idea what they're doing). The City would require a full shadow analysis using the computer model of the building.

There are numerous red flags with this proposal, but the choice of architect is one that really stands out as odd.

https://patkau.ca/

Evidently they have no experience designing residential towers, or navigating a rezoning process in the City of Vancouver. It sort of fits with the developer group CM Partners/Forseed who apparently have no development experience here.

I suspect that if Intracorp was the managing partner in the project, they would have hired someone more reputable (as they have done with their other projects).

This one will be fun to watch!

Come on man, affordable downtown home ownership?! :shrug:

I agree. Does anyone else think that the dramatic 'unveiling' yesterday and the bare-bones website is a bit juvenile, given the actual lack of detailed drawings/studies and obvious disregard for policy?

It's like they're trying to get public support before really having a chat with the City. If it works, I'll be floored.

I think that Patkau are extremely reputable architects, with numerous well-earned awards for some stunning buildings. (The Audain Art Museum in Whistler is one local example). The 'spiky' style is something they've visited before in a house, and the absence of a major Vancouver project has always seemed odd, for a local architect selected to design buildings like the National Library of Quebec in Montreal. You're correct that they aren't experienced in high density residential buildings - or at least, if they've designed them, they haven't been developed.

I'd be interested to see an exercise that responded to the existing site policy constraints, (in the way that the presentation on the office tower proposal at 550 Cambie illustrated). The existing strata is only 3 FSR, so there's clearly density capacity beyond that. A scheme that fitted under the viewcone wouldn't cast a shadow on Robson, and construction costs would obviously be lower per square foot than the complex engineering required for a relatively small floorplate angled tower. There's no reason why the angled aesthetic wouldn't work in something with less height - the lowrise buildings on Vancouver House show how that works at a lower density. The design by the same architects of a wood-framed tower at the University of Toronto shows it might be possible to have an innovative structural design as well. It's possible the developers could build something that still pencils out a reasonable return on the $165m land investment.

I think Intracorp still has Pooni on this.

Why would CM/Forseed need development experience if they have Intracorp? Maybe they are just funding?

CM Partners was involved with Grouse Mountain ownership before they sold out this year. Part of CMIG International Group in Singapore/China (?) that seems like they almost defaulted last year.

https://cmpartners.ca/portfolio

ForSeed got their logo for $400 in 2017:

http://img.witmart.com/job/2017-05/0...40efa1f4ae.jpg

http://www.witmart.com/logo-design/j...Ltd_34289.html