Quote:
Originally Posted by Changing City
It has been explained on here several times why it's being replaced, but those who don't like the idea of the 'landmark' being demolished effectively ignore the reason.
A 44 year-old, and older building is most likely to be "close to the end of its serviceable lifespan". That's because the new building code recognizing seismic issues came into effect in the early 1970s. ( more detail in this article). The Empire Landmark - Sheraton Landmark when it opened - obtained its Building Permit in 1971, and took over two years to complete, opening in 1974. So it was not built to those updated seismic codes - which since then have been strengthened even more. It might have been possible to upgrade the existing structure to meet code, but it's likely that it would have been prohibitively expensive, and not cost effective. A change of use permit triggers a requirement to bring the building up to meet current codes. An additional factor is the fact that the building has a lower density than the towers that will replace it. The replacement will be built to contemporary seismic and energy codes. |
It's been a while (since I lived in Vancouver) that I dealt with seismic codes (and then my scope of work had more to do with seismic restraints for equipment) but my understanding is that seismic codes do not differentiate between building use classes. I know a number of buildings have undergone seismic upgrades.. probably not cheap, but not impossible. I don't accept that a 45 year old 40-some story cast in place concrete high rise building is functionally at the end of it's lifespan.. even if it did require seismic upgrades, the replacement cost of that building alone in 2018 dollars is likely pushing well over $150 million.
It just boggles my mind that it's actually feasible to invest capital in demolishing that building, or that the building is at the point where there is no other option. It just seems like the market in general is running amuck
Threaded Mode