A little more than two years after Reliance Properties snapped up the former home of Canada Revenue Agency at 1166 West Pender Street, we are getting a first look at a new office tower concept proposed for the site.
Los Angeles-based Neil M. Denari Architects, Inc. has designed a 35-storey tower for the site, with 365,000 square feet of office space. The existing 15-storey office tower would be demolished.
The replacement tower is a very beautiful building, but I still think it should be built somewhere else. It would be a huge waste if the current building is torn down. Why can't this city just add new towers to the current stock instead of constantly demolishing good usable buildings with lots of life left in them? Again, restrictive rezoning policies are to blame.
Plunk this former CRA tower in the middle of suburb cities like Delta or Langley and it would be one of the most valuable assets there. Here in Vancouver we simply throw them out.
The new tower is going to be beautiful for sure. I like that they added a bit more office space with this one since it first got revealed.
It is a shame that a smaller, yet handsome tower has to come down in order to build the new one. However, it's probably coming down for a good reason. It's only Class-B office space which would make it uncompetitive with all the new office buildings that are coming up soon. While it could easily be refurbished, I figure it's probably easier to attract a tenant with a complete redevelopment into Class-A office space.
The new tower is going to be beautiful for sure. I like that they added a bit more office space with this one since it first got revealed.
It is a shame that a smaller, yet handsome tower has to come down in order to build the new one. However, it's probably coming down for a good reason. It's only Class-B office space which would make it uncompetitive with all the new office buildings that are coming up soon. While it could easily be refurbished, I figure it's probably easier to attract a tenant with a complete redevelopment into Class-A office space.
It does seem like a surprisingly nice building for it to be considered at end of life.
I do suppose, as you say though, other details figure into this.
As the former home of Revenue Canada, could be that it's an opportune time to redevelop if the whole building is vacant.
Also, with a previous single tenant, there probably aren't any existing leasehold improvements to make it easy for smaller tenants to move in, so the landlord would probably have to provide lease incentives through leasehold improvement allowances.
At least it's being replaced with an office tower and not condos or mixed use.
... but interesting to think about the future of other mid-rise office buildings.
Location: The People's Glorious Republic of ... Sigh...
Posts: 8,220
Quote:
Originally Posted by officedweller
As the former home of Revenue Canada, could be that it's an opportune time to redevelop if the whole building is vacant.
Also, with a previous single tenant, there probably aren't any existing leasehold improvements to make it easy for smaller tenants to move in, so the landlord would probably have to provide lease incentives through leasehold improvement allowances.
At least it's being replaced with an office tower and not condos or mixed use.
... but interesting to think about the future of other mid-rise office buildings.
I hear that Revcan ran their improvements into the ground. There's nothing to salvage, or at least nothing that anybody would want to repurpose.
__________________
If it seems I'm ignoring what you may have written in response to something I have written, it's very likely that you're on my Ignore List. Please do not take it personally.
... but interesting to think about the future of other mid-rise office buildings.
Indeed - just within the Reliance portfolio there are other examples like 1190 Melville, a 1960 C Class office, under 50,000 sq. ft., and also 1199 West Pender, which had a reno in 2002, but was built in 1955 and is only 75,000 sq. ft.
Having been in the building a few times I can attest that Rev Canada did indeed use the building to the point of no return so demo and rebuild with a newer building makes sense in this case. Glad the plans and design look good and that they are adding more office space in general.
The location looks as if it should be somewhat protected from / outside of viewcones.
Edit, answered my own question.
This site is permitted up to 550ft on one half, and 500ft on the other.
At 387ft. this proposal is a disappointment.
So bizarre how other projects try their best to maximize the view cone limits (1133 Melville even reluctantly having its height reduced), yet other projects on sites that do allow higher buildings don’t take advantage on this...
Unless there is another factor at play? Limited by park shadowing??
Seems like a waste to me to tear down a structure that size and replace it with a tower that doesn’t fully utilize the 500ft. height limit on the site.
Design wise preferred the more preliminary renders as well.
Some of the documents on the application page are pointing at some other project BTW.
But from another document:
Quote:
The Higher Building Policy requires Rezoning
Applicants to carefully consider shadow impacts
on public realm including key streets, parks
and plaza as well as neighbouring buildings. A
comprehensive shadow analysis has been included
in this application with a focus on impact on public
realm in the Harbour Green Park and plaza shown
in adjacent images. Harbour Green Park extends
along the Northerly edge of the city from just past
Jervis Street to Thurlow. This park is made up of a
green space fronting the waterfront pedestrian / bike
route with a central hardscaped zone which extends
to the street edge of West Cordova
The project is 364.2’ measured from base point
to top of mechanical level; 387.5’ to the top of
architectural appurtenance. The upper floors of the
project have been sculpted to keep shadow out of
the park between the Spring and Fall equinox.
Ridiculous, are there not already towers directly lining the southern edges of those parks??
One can define essentially any street or corner in the city as important for the public realm, and therefore in need to be protected from big bad scary towers.
So, out of all the locations selected for higher buildings after years of consultation and spending money, are any left unaffected by these new shadowing guidelines?
We literally had only two or three sites (possibly one) selected for 700’, are those now also slashed?
Out of all the office towers proposed in recent years this one is the most disappointing IMO.
Other towers are also stunted, but they at least have more pleasing and interesting designs.
Also more so than the other stunted towers this location (giving the size of the demolition and being near 1133 Melville) should be taller.
Prev
1166 West Pender | 121.6m | 32fl | 360,868 sqft | Proposed
Linear Mode
