The Butterfly | 178.6m | 57Fl | Completed

[LeftCoaster]

Well that was unexpected.

Most of these seem minor enough that I'm surprised it wasn't supported with recommendations.

I also don't know how they can request the development 'provide sufficient spacing so the podium does not compete with the church' but then go on to say 'the scallops for the ‘organ pipes’ were out of scale '. If you make the cut outs smaller the tower will crowd the church more.

[officedweller]

Sounds like the concerns are all about the plaza and midrise/amenity building.

"The rental building was not intended as an afterthought, but rather a back drop."

i.e. intended to read as separate - and not part of the high end project.

WRT the scale of the scallop - if the scallop is finished with mirrored glass, wouldn't it reflect an image of the steeple/spire?
One solution would be to shift the scallops, so the smaller scallop faces the church and a taller scallop faces Nelson St.

Originally Posted by Feathered Friend

[Metro-One]

The scallops are what make this project.

If you reduce them in scale you take away much of this tower's flare...

What an odd 180 decision.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

The scallops are what make this project.

If you reduce them in scale you take away much of this tower's flare...

What an odd 180 decision.

Totally right on, (as is very often the case) Metro!! The scallops give this tower its panache and originality. Oh well, it just reinforces the old proverb that there is no dispute in taste ...

[Vin]

Simplify the design?

It's like asking Monet to reduce the amount of colours in his painting to 50% of the original shades. Then the size of the frame has to be reduced to 75% of its original dimensions. Finally the painting needs to blend into the surrounding walls without competing with them. That's how Vancouver showcases its "masterpiece".

We can't have nice things in this city.
Aim is always to achieve mediocrity and blandness.

[rofina]

Blessed be the developers willing to build here.

Thankfully the market is so irrationally high they can continue to build at a profit - otherwise I cant imagine an incentive to continue doing business in Vancouver.

[Feathered Friend]

I know it's cool to hate on the UDP, especially for those in the industry who have all, at one point, felt the sting of it's criticism. However, one thing I've learned is that, in the end, almost all of these professionals recognize that the advice is really provided by people who are experts in their field. These are people who desire not only pretty, unique, and tall buildings, but also ones that relate well to the public environment.

Sometimes ego is at play, sometimes the panelists hands are tied by city policy, quite often they catch things that some have just missed. One thing I have learned is that the minutes, while very well done by a professional, sometimes can't reflect the back and forth exchange of ideas that sometimes reveal far more than the conclusion does.

That said, I don't always understand their rational or agree with it

[Vin]

Originally Posted by rofina

Blessed be the developers willing to build here.

Thankfully the market is so irrationally high they can continue to build at a profit - otherwise I cant imagine an incentive to continue doing business in Vancouver.

That's why we don't have much going on here.

Every time something goes back to the drawing board, a lot more money and time get wasted. Also the revisions hardly, if ever, improve the product. I think Vancouver residents can attest to that. One exception is Vancouver House, and we all love the architect's vision, which isn't moleted by CoV and UDP. I seriously can't see how people can keep defending the nonsensical decisions and comments laid out by the approving authorities in this city.

[rofina]

Originally Posted by Feathered Friend

I know it's cool to hate on the UDP, especially for those in the industry who have all, at one point, felt the sting of it's criticism. However, one thing I've learned is that, in the end, almost all of these professionals recognize that the advice is really provided by people who are experts in their field. These are people who desire not only pretty, unique, and tall buildings, but also ones that relate well to the public environment.

Sometimes ego is at play, sometimes the panelists hands are tied by city policy, quite often they catch things that some have just missed. One thing I have learned is that the minutes, while very well done by a professional, sometimes can't reflect the back and forth exchange of ideas that sometimes reveal far more than the conclusion does.

That said, I don't always understand their rational or agree with it

I definitely understand that part - its a whole discussion boiled down to a few harsh sounding key points.

My criticism is more to do with how onerous this entire process is.

Starting at rezoning - this fell under the West End OCP. A community plan that too years, and millions to develop.

The rezoning of this building should have taken somewhere around 11 seconds.

I also think the UDP should absolutely be limited to commenting on functionality of structure and not its look.

Art is subjective, so is architecture. I understand a City's need to protect parks, setbacks, walkways, heritage, etc, etc.

But I am vehemently opposed to a panel of "judges" deciding if they like certain specific characteristics of a proposal.

Let the market decide - if people think the model look like crap. They wont buy it. It wont be built. And developer will have to rethink.

Why do we need a panel of bureaucrats telling builders what they find appealing? Is it 12 people designing the visuals of our City, or is it the market participants voting with their dollars?

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Feathered Friend

I know it's cool to hate on the UDP, especially for those in the industry who have all, at one point, felt the sting of it's criticism. However, one thing I've learned is that, in the end, almost all of these professionals recognize that the advice is really provided by people who are experts in their field. These are people who desire not only pretty, unique, and tall buildings, but also ones that relate well to the public environment.

Sometimes ego is at play, sometimes the panelists hands are tied by city policy, quite often they catch things that some have just missed. One thing I have learned is that the minutes, while very well done by a professional, sometimes can't reflect the back and forth exchange of ideas that sometimes reveal far more than the conclusion does.

That said, I don't always understand their rational or agree with it

True, I guess the system is set up to err on the side of caution. Thanks again for going to all these and getting the photos, it's the next best thing to being there!

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Feathered Friend

As part of it's development application, this was back at Monday's UDP. I assume it passed, but we'll have to wait and see. I was excited to see the proposed materials, even if they were a pain to lift out from under the model table.

Honestly, let's revisit this tower and its design. Does anyone actually find it offensive in the slightest bit? I think it's perfection. Therefore I'm shocked that UDP would find fault in it and want it resubmitted.

Agree with rofina that UDP should not comment about the aesthetics, as I'm sure none in the panel can come up with anything better than this.

[whatnext]

Interesting article in the Sun about the huge increase in the church's property tax bill for their parking lot. I thought churches were exempt from property tax, is that only the actual church building?

Vancouver councillors expressed sympathy Thursday for a $275,000 property-tax increase that will make it harder for a West End church to run children’s camps and feed the hungry, then unanimously voted against the church’s appeal for a break on the bill.

Representatives of Vancouver’s First Baptist Church were at city hall seeking relief from a shocking 3,100 per cent, one-year tax jump for a parking lot behind the church at 969 Burrard St...

...Indeed, the assessed value of the First Baptist parking lot was $2.5 million in 2014, $2.7 million in 2015, then soared to $22.8 million last year.

Other West End properties with massive value increases were protected from huge tax increases, to some extent, by what’s called “land averaging.” That means for properties with year-over-year value increases above a certain threshold, taxes are assessed on a three-year average, softening the blow.

But First Baptist Church, apparently through no fault of its own, was deemed ineligible for land-averaging by the city, forcing it to pay the full $284,000 bill in June.

B.C. Assessment had incorrectly classified the church’s public pay-parking lot as residential for several years, and last year, the assessment authority corrected the error by reclassifying it as commercial. If a property’s classification changes, it’s ineligible for averaging...

http://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/...bsurdity-of-vancouver-system-expert-says

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Interesting article in the Sun about the huge increase in the church's property tax bill for their parking lot. I thought churches were exempt from property tax, is that only the actual church building?

It's only for the actual building and it's up to the city to go after them for surrounding land. If the building isn't used exclusively for worship than more cities are going for a tax grab even on the "church" itself.

http://www.kuhnco.net/index472d.html?act...oin_ID=226467&template=news_article.htm7

[Genauso]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

It's only for the actual building and it's up to the city to go after them for surrounding land. If the building isn't used exclusively for worship than more cities are going for a tax grab even on the "church" itself.

http://www.kuhnco.net/index472d.html?act...oin_ID=226467&template=news_article.htm7

That's correct. Buildings used primarily for religious purposes are exempt, renting parking or homes are not exempted in Vancouver.

The old Ford Theater, current Westside Church which is a new evangelical denomination, is in the grey area. Because it's a proper theater, it rents for a lot of money to concerts, speakers, and the Vancouver film festival for example. Montreal in the last year addressed this with a crackdown to collect taxes on the % of commercial / non-religious activity; rent it out 1/3 of the time, pay 1/3rd of the tax like anyone else.

Yoga classes, tutoring, alcoholics anonymous, etc. using tax-exempt properties in legion halls or churches are rentals exempt from property tax locally and income tax federally. The income is small, and strip mall owners or community centers aren't complaining -- everyone is happy to let them be.


If the church keeps the land in its name, it will not pay the provincial property transfer tax to develop an apartment building. It's a big reason why you see rentals specifically going up on church property. Same reason why some speculators prefer pre-sales, or register ownership to a shell company. I do think churches should pay capital gains tax on land they've held tax-free for decades, if it will no longer be used for religious purposes -- because you shouldn't give some benefit to an older church that a newer church wouldn't have access to.

[trofirhen]

Geez this is going to be a splendid building! I wonder if/when construction might start? (too bad its companion 'Nelson on the Park' disappeared into the vapours)

[officedweller]

The tower is half again taller than the YMCA condo.
Extrapolate that onto the 1133 Melville skyline analysis.

Originally Posted by Feathered Friend

Originally Posted by officedweller

http://rezoning.vancouver.ca/applications/1133melville/documents/12-1133MelvilleREVISEDviews.pdf


http://rezoning.vancouver.ca/applications/1133melville/documents/12-1133MelvilleREVISEDviews.pdf

[phesto]

^Yeah, Westbank/Bing Thom definitely downplayed this in their skyline analysis part of their application, but it should be quite a dramatic impact on the skyline.

The top of the appurtenance will be 713.85 ft from sea level, whereas Shangri-la roof is 749 ft above sea level. From a distance like Jericho, this tower along with Shangri-la and Trump will all appear about the same height.

[Feathered Friend]

My photos from Westbank's Fight for Beauty event (Also posted into the 1550 Alberni Thread).

[jlousa]

If you stop by Shaw tower come the weekend you'll see a sample of what the building exterior will look like, the panels weight 1100lbs, the curved glass is a very nice touch but stupidly expensive.

[mcminsen]

Originally Posted by Feathered Friend

My photos from Westbank's Fight for Beauty event (Also posted into the 1550 Alberni Thread).

Interesting image. Compare to this pic I took this summer from an angle further to the west on the Lions Gate Bridge. In the Westbank image I wonder what tower that is just to the left of the Landmark on Robson.



Aug.28 '17, my pic