Location: The People's Glorious Republic of ... Sigh...
Posts: 8,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by Klazu
Fingerprints. Fingerprints everywhere!
Why does it look like there is no glass between the shower and the toilet seat? Also, those are some highly impractical washroom sinks with almost no table space.
The building looks fantastic, but the interiors look rather impractical. Of course, it won't be a problem if one won't live in the suite...
Westbank isn't exactly known for smart, practical layouts, or well-considered interior finishes either.
__________________
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.
Sad how the initial reaction to this building, based on the exterior, was so enthusiastically accepted and welcomed. Even here, though, the degradation of opinion on the design is noticeable.
Eh, I'm a firm whatever on the interior. Frankly, its an aspect of the project that most of us, including myself, will never see. I still believe the public realm aspects are wonderful, and there's that great $100 mil (almost) in CAC's and DCL's.
The renderings indicated that the applicant/city staff have incorporated the UDP's recommendations into the design. If you want to read the changes the project has undergone, including it's response to the UDP, you can do so here: http://vancouver.ca/files/cov/969-burrard-street.pdf
This project faces the Development Permit Board on Monday. Normally it would sail through, however this time I'm getting the impression that there's a bit of nervousness, as this is the first meeting since the 105 Keefer rejection. Add in the neighbouring Pantina building's hatred over lost views, and no one wants to see the argument of not fitting into the neighbourhood win the day again.
So, for those who don't want to see the project blindsided or, alternatively, want to send the Chiefs of Planning and Engineering, and the Deputy City manager a message that we want more of these beautiful tall buildings, I suggest writing in a letter or coming on down to the meeting. If you do, you'll get to bump into my feathered self.
i think there is enough space in that bathroom. there is the shelf under the mirror, then the space on the side of the mirror. and it does look like the mirror would open up; assuming it does, that is plenty of space.
besides, these will probably be 40% vacant anyways, plus normally you can customize some aspects as what they are showing is probably the 100% most expensive which most people wouldn't get.
i think there is enough space in that bathroom. there is the shelf under the mirror, then the space on the side of the mirror. and it does look like the mirror would open up; assuming it does, that is plenty of space.
besides, these will probably be 40% vacant anyways, plus normally you can customize some aspects as what they are showing is probably the 100% most expensive which most people wouldn't get.
lol I don't understand this 40% vacant thing (first of all, how do you know? Based on current condos being vacant? Can I please see the source for the 40% number?). If 40% of the building will only be there part time, that means 60% will have to deal with the shitty shelf situation in the bathroom.
Location: The People's Glorious Republic of ... Sigh...
Posts: 8,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feathered Friend
there's that great $100 mil (almost) in CAC's and DCL's.
Yeah, "great" that the city continues to BS and claim that its CACs and DCLs don't contribute to the affordability problem in this city.
__________________
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.
Well at least there side storage next to the sinks and mirrors and it seems like the pedestal sinks are actually cabinets that open up, so much better than the powder rooms of trump
This tower is now called The Butterfly by Westbank. I'll be attending the big Realtor Keynote Event this evening at the Fairmont Pacific Rim, should be interesting. Time to change the thread title.
^I doubt that they would start at $2,000 per SF, but maybe an overall average over $2,000.
There's approx. 400,000 SF of sellable condo area. While the gross sales probably won't reach $1 Billion, it won't be far off. Which is a staggering amount.
If it sells out quickly Westbank will be laughing at the CAC amount.
^I doubt that they would start at $2,000 per SF, but maybe an overall average over $2,000.
There's approx. 400,000 SF of sellable condo area. While the gross sales probably won't reach $1 Billion, it won't be far off. Which is a staggering amount.
If it sells out quickly Westbank will be laughing at the CAC amount.
I wouldn't be too surprised if average is around 2000. Aren't lesser buildings around west end targeting $1600?
Doesn't seem outrageous this would command a premium.
The doomsayers here were right!! This model reflects the changes suggested by the UDP and it is disastrous!!!
Oh wait... the changes were simply to the streetscape, and for the better, oh well. At the Development Permit Board Meeting there were roughly 5 speakers in favor, including one from the Patina building. There was only one speaker against that mentioned something about the building being ungodly because it was so tall and next to a church.
The advisory board members each highlighted a different opinion. One suggested that if this version was sent back to UDP it would be pointless, as the UDP would approve it. A second member said that while they were nervous about the scallops, they now feel it aids the heritage of the church by drawing people in. The last view expressed was that there was not enough parking dedicated for church use.
The opinions of the panels members were:
Panel Member 1 felt the design was ambitious and iconic. He supported the scallops, and felt the architecture was interesting. He expressed disappointment that the social housing lost a floor (and 5 units) because of the tower set back policy.
Panel Member 2 Kept it short. His feeling was that the staff conditions for approval made sense, especially those relating to the scallops and the plaza.
Panel Member 3 Responded to the criticism of the one individual by noting that the height and placement was already approved by council. He expressed that he likes projects like this which harness the market conditions to provide social benefits. Again, he agreed with staff recommendations, and stressed the need for the plaza to not segregate the occupants of the buildings.
The building was obviously approved. Get your shovels ready everyone!
Also, it seems like they combined the 4 penthouses from the rezoning documents into 2 over 5000 sq ft. Seems like living floor will be the top floor and bedrooms below given the higher top floor and skylights from the pool floor.
6 half floor subpenthouses over 3 floors. Penthouses and subpenthouses seem to have enclosed breezeways based on the model with a piano on every floor.
My guesses are slightly above $5000 a square foot for the penthouses; I don't see them breaking the 30m pricepoint.
Also, pricing will be less than Alberni by Kengo Kuma
My only comment is that the big arch looks like it is eating the church (just add teeth).
Angle it a bit more towards the street and that notion is removed (but could be a clearance/setback issue wrt the church)
Thanks for the pictures Feathered_Friend. Glad this was approved. It isn't the nicest looking tower, but it will add variation to a rather homogeneous skyline.
Prev
wow, how things change fast
Linear Mode
