SkyscraperPage Forum - 601 W. Hastings | 108.8m | 25Fl

Prev12 3 4 5 11 18 Next

Viewing Page 1 of 18

Show 50 post(s) from this thread on one page

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)

- Downtown & City of Vancouver (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=163)

- - 601 W. Hastings | 108.8m | 25Fl | Completed (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=207567)

jlousa

Sep 20, 2013 6:33 PM

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

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

Quote:

The City of Vancouver has received an application to amend the existing CD-1for 601 West Hastings Street to allow for a 25-storey office building with:

•A total floor area of 21,154 m2 (227,700 sq. ft.);
•337 m2 (3,627 sq. ft.) of ground level retail space;
•a 358 m2 (sq. feet) public plaza;
•a proposed floor space ratio (FSR) of 24.34;
•a proposed height of 108.8 m (357 ft.); and
•102 parking spaces and 78 bicycle parking spaces in 5 levels of underground parking

s211	Sep 20, 2013 8:18 PM

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.

phesto

Sep 20, 2013 8:39 PM

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).

trofirhen

Sep 20, 2013 8:44 PM

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.

jlousa

Sep 20, 2013 9:02 PM

*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.

queetz@home

Sep 20, 2013 10:02 PM

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:

red-paladin

Sep 21, 2013 4:23 AM

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.

trofirhen

Sep 21, 2013 7:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by red-paladin (Post 6274796)

......................
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.

EdinVan

Sep 21, 2013 8:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by phesto (Post 6274407)

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

phesto

Sep 21, 2013 3:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EdinVan (Post 6274871)

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.

djh	Sep 21, 2013 5:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlousa (Post 6274443)

*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.

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.

spm2013

Sep 21, 2013 6:02 PM

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

red-paladin

Sep 21, 2013 6:54 PM

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

mezzanine

Sep 21, 2013 9:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by phesto (Post 6274407)

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:

AverageJoe

Sep 22, 2013 2:54 PM

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.

s211	Sep 22, 2013 3:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trofirhen (Post 6274858)

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.

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.

officedweller

Jan 6, 2014 11:19 PM

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/

Prometheus

Jan 6, 2014 11:37 PM

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.

a very long weekend

Jan 7, 2014 1:55 AM

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

Klazu

Feb 11, 2014 4:10 AM

Filling the gap on day.

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