[wrenegade]

I was at the Open House for pretty much the duration this evening and spoke at length with many of the project architects and principal Norm Hotson. I recognize that they are dealing with an extremely slender site (100' deep as opposed to the usual 120' in the area), hence the very thin tower. I also don't have a problem with the retail being tucked away. It will actually be the only building at this intersection with retail at all. I am not a fan of the architecture myself. It is far too pedestrian, and the lane side borders on criminal (although it doesn't look as bad in person). There has to be a better way to do it. Hotson acknowledged that it needs work and asked for ideas (does anyone here have any?)

I support the project in its current design, if it were 300', but feel it needs a lot of work to push through that boundary. And when I say I support it, I really only say that because it basically meets the neighbourhood guidelines. I would prefer the building to be substantially worked on regardless of its height. It is interesting to note that the city encouraged Wall to go above the 300' traditional height limit.

To the point of moving the tower further SW Richards, that isn't possible, there is a view cone (actually 2 I think) that bisects the site. It was my understanding that Onni had previously tied up the SW site but perhaps they have now dropped it. It is severely hampered by the view cones. There is a slight possibility of a triangular-shaped tower at the very corner but it would have a minuscule 2,500-3,000 sf floor plate (how you fit two elevators and two stairwells in there I have no idea).

I got the sense from many people that 400' was too tall. Many thought that the Mark and WestOne were perhaps anomalies, and now you can add 1400 Howe, Burrard Gateway and (almosts) the Bonds Group tower in the 1200 block of Howe in the 400' range in addition to this one. I didn't hear anyone think the building was attractive. Many (perhaps most?) supported at 300' building but wanted to know what the community would get in exchange. This site, although having a ~150' frontage on Richards is only ~100' deep and thus qualifies as a "small site" with a max height of 70' and 3.0 FSR instead of the neighbourhood norm of 5.0 FSR and 300'. I think too many people were harping on this, when I see it more of a technicality. As per usual the CAC number is not yet defined (and likely won't be public until it goes before council). The neighbourhood does seem to want another park, saying George Wainborn is far too busy. Most of the residents opposed were from the Grace across the street, which isn't surprising, but it was nice to see James Schouw out to help educate his buyers about aspects of the project and zoning in the area.