1045 Haro Street | 177m | 55 fl | Proposed

[Metro-One]

Actually according to that graphic the shadow from that tower would shadow the north side of Robson street only 2% more throughout the year than it is currently shadowed, and all of that during the winter... Now that is the farce given how few sunny days we have in the winter...

If only Vancouver was this anal about cleaning up the alleys and keeping parks safe and inviting for all residents.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by Klazu

That would be hilarious if they wouldn't be 100% seriously at it.

I don't understand how the shadowing rules work. A building this tall (and many others) are sure to shadow Robson a lot. Is it based on an exact time on an exact date or how does it work?

It's supposed to only be wrt shading of the north sidewalk.
I would think that the sun shining from directly south would cast a shadow - but they seem to think not in summer according to their chart (sun is higher overhead in summer?)

[scryer]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Actually according to that graphic the shadow from that tower would shadow the north side of Robson street only 2% more throughout the year than it is currently shadowed, and all of that during the winter... Now that is the farce given how few sunny days we have in the winter...

If only Vancouver was this anal about cleaning up the alleys and keeping parks safe and inviting for all residents.

Lol, they'll nail themselves to the East Van cross first for some arbitrary view cones before they ever lift a finger to do something meaningful for the city.

All nay-saying aside, this would be comical to watch if it weren't so painfully true.

[phesto]

Originally Posted by Klazu

That would be hilarious if they wouldn't be 100% seriously at it.

I don't understand how the shadowing rules work. A building this tall (and many others) are sure to shadow Robson a lot. Is it based on an exact time on an exact date or how does it work?

The City's policy says "...for rezoning proposals which fall within Area ‘E’, shadow impacts on the 1000 block of Robson Street will be evaluated between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. P.D.T. at the spring and fall equinoxes, rather than between 10:00a.m. and 4:00 p.m. New shadows should not extend beyond the curb of the sidewalk on the north side of Robson Street during these hours."

I'm assuming the photo of the architect and the measuring tape is sort of tongue-in-cheek (either that, or these guys have no idea what they're doing). The City would require a full shadow analysis using the computer model of the building.

[phesto]

There are numerous red flags with this proposal, but the choice of architect is one that really stands out as odd.

https://patkau.ca/

Evidently they have no experience designing residential towers, or navigating a rezoning process in the City of Vancouver. It sort of fits with the developer group CM Partners/Forseed who apparently have no development experience here.

I suspect that if Intracorp was the managing partner in the project, they would have hired someone more reputable (as they have done with their other projects).

This one will be fun to watch!

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Yay, let's celebrate the loss of more afforable home ownership options downtown. But we're gaining so much more, a glassy, glossy wealth-stasher for the global elite with a few rental crumbs for the (well-paid) working plebes thrown in.

Come on man, affordable downtown home ownership?!

[idunno]

Originally Posted by phesto

There are numerous red flags with this proposal, but the choice of architect is one that really stands out as odd.

https://patkau.ca/

Evidently they have no experience designing residential towers, or navigating a rezoning process in the City of Vancouver. It sort of fits with the developer group CM Partners/Forseed who apparently have no development experience here.

I suspect that if Intracorp was the managing partner in the project, they would have hired someone more reputable (as they have done with their other projects).

This one will be fun to watch!

I agree. Does anyone else think that the dramatic 'unveiling' yesterday and the bare-bones website is a bit juvenile, given the actual lack of detailed drawings/studies and obvious disregard for policy?

It's like they're trying to get public support before really having a chat with the City. If it works, I'll be floored.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by phesto

There are numerous red flags with this proposal, but the choice of architect is one that really stands out as odd.

https://patkau.ca/

Evidently they have no experience designing residential towers, or navigating a rezoning process in the City of Vancouver. It sort of fits with the developer group CM Partners/Forseed who apparently have no development experience here.

I suspect that if Intracorp was the managing partner in the project, they would have hired someone more reputable (as they have done with their other projects).

This one will be fun to watch!

I think that Patkau are extremely reputable architects, with numerous well-earned awards for some stunning buildings. (The Audain Art Museum in Whistler is one local example). The 'spiky' style is something they've visited before in a house, and the absence of a major Vancouver project has always seemed odd, for a local architect selected to design buildings like the National Library of Quebec in Montreal. You're correct that they aren't experienced in high density residential buildings - or at least, if they've designed them, they haven't been developed.

I'd be interested to see an exercise that responded to the existing site policy constraints, (in the way that the presentation on the office tower proposal at 550 Cambie illustrated). The existing strata is only 3 FSR, so there's clearly density capacity beyond that. A scheme that fitted under the viewcone wouldn't cast a shadow on Robson, and construction costs would obviously be lower per square foot than the complex engineering required for a relatively small floorplate angled tower. There's no reason why the angled aesthetic wouldn't work in something with less height - the lowrise buildings on Vancouver House show how that works at a lower density. The design by the same architects of a wood-framed tower at the University of Toronto shows it might be possible to have an innovative structural design as well. It's possible the developers could build something that still pencils out a reasonable return on the $165m land investment.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by phesto

There are numerous red flags with this proposal, but the choice of architect is one that really stands out as odd.

https://patkau.ca/

Evidently they have no experience designing residential towers, or navigating a rezoning process in the City of Vancouver. It sort of fits with the developer group CM Partners/Forseed who apparently have no development experience here.

I suspect that if Intracorp was the managing partner in the project, they would have hired someone more reputable (as they have done with their other projects).

This one will be fun to watch!

I think Intracorp still has Pooni on this.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by phesto

There are numerous red flags with this proposal, but the choice of architect is one that really stands out as odd.

https://patkau.ca/

Evidently they have no experience designing residential towers, or navigating a rezoning process in the City of Vancouver. It sort of fits with the developer group CM Partners/Forseed who apparently have no development experience here.

I suspect that if Intracorp was the managing partner in the project, they would have hired someone more reputable (as they have done with their other projects).

This one will be fun to watch!

Why would CM/Forseed need development experience if they have Intracorp? Maybe they are just funding?

CM Partners was involved with Grouse Mountain ownership before they sold out this year. Part of CMIG International Group in Singapore/China (?) that seems like they almost defaulted last year.

https://cmpartners.ca/portfolio

ForSeed got their logo for $400 in 2017:



http://www.witmart.com/logo-design/j...Ltd_34289.html

[phesto]

Originally Posted by Changing City

I think that Patkau are extremely reputable architects, with numerous well-earned awards for some stunning buildings. (The Audain Art Museum in Whistler is one local example). The 'spiky' style is something they've visited before in a house, and the absence of a major Vancouver project has always seemed odd, for a local architect selected to design buildings like the National Library of Quebec in Montreal. You're correct that they aren't experienced in high density residential buildings - or at least, if they've designed them, they haven't been developed.

I'd be interested to see an exercise that responded to the existing site policy constraints, (in the way that the presentation on the office tower proposal at 550 Cambie illustrated). The existing strata is only 3 FSR, so there's clearly density capacity beyond that. A scheme that fitted under the viewcone wouldn't cast a shadow on Robson, and construction costs would obviously be lower per square foot than the complex engineering required for a relatively small floorplate angled tower. There's no reason why the angled aesthetic wouldn't work in something with less height - the lowrise buildings on Vancouver House show how that works at a lower density. The design by the same architects of a wood-framed tower at the University of Toronto shows it might be possible to have an innovative structural design as well. It's possible the developers could build something that still pencils out a reasonable return on the $165m land investment.

Reputable wasn't the right word to describe Patkau, you're right. I simply meant that for a high-profile project that carries a lot of rezoning challenges and risks, it would've been prudent to pair them up with a firm like IBI Group, that has experience with these types of projects and knows the relevant planners and policies.

Maybe Patkau is just the design architect and they will bring on another firm; but it would've been wise to do this already - their presentation looks a bit shaky.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Come on man, affordable downtown home ownership?!

Before Vision Vancouver unleashed the developer hounds of hell on those blocks, the original building was one of the few affordable ones just blocks from the downtown core. But apparently "greenest city" means sending thousands of tonnes of concrete and building materials to the landfill in order to provide expensive units that people working downtown won't actually live in.

[TwoFace]

I bet the Fire Hall will be excluded from all promotional material

[Spr0ckets]

Originally Posted by phesto

Reputable wasn't the right word to describe Patkau, you're right. I simply meant that for a high-profile project that carries a lot of rezoning challenges and risks, it would've been prudent to pair them up with a firm like IBI Group, that has experience with these types of projects and knows the relevant planners and policies.

Maybe Patkau is just the design architect and they will bring on another firm; but it would've been wise to do this already - their presentation looks a bit shaky.

That's not generally how it works with projects of this kind and scope.

That's what you would do (pairing architect firms like that) if, for example, the design architect firm were a foreign firm and they HAD TO pair up with local firm as the architect of record
Or alternatively if the design firm was an out-of-province firm that wasn't fully apprised of the local circumstances.


But you're talking about two Vancouver-based firms and both relatively high-profile ones at that.
(yes, Patkau's experience in high density residential is much less compared to IBI, but in terms of accolades and design reputation recognition, they are a far more reputable and recognized firm than IBI from a credibility standpoint - certainly more than you're giving them credit here for.

An alternative scenario is in the case large-scale or multi-phase projects, but in those kinds of situations the scope of work of the firms being paired up will be completely different (like for example, one firm might be mandated to handle the master planning of the entire project while the other serves as the design architect within the overall master plan.
Or in the case where one firm handles one aspect of the project like retail or office or civic, while the other handles residential, in a mixed use project for example.

For a single tower project like this, it would be very unusual indeed to do what you're suggesting.
It would also needlessly raise costs for the developer to have two architects on the project like that.

I think if you go with a firm like Patkau, then it's a clear sign that you're intention is to have a signature design or landmark building and not just another "cookie-cutter" type tower - which, sorry to say, IBI have vastly more experience with.

It hardly matters that much anyway because by the time it gets past the design permit stage it's bound to get value-engineered to within an inch of its steel rebar reinforcements and might not end up looking anything like its looking now.

[Klazu]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Before Vision Vancouver unleashed the developer hounds of hell on those blocks, the original building was one of the few affordable ones just blocks from the downtown core. But apparently "greenest city" means sending thousands of tonnes of concrete and building materials to the landfill in order to provide expensive units that people working downtown won't actually live in.

There is nothing to miss about existing buildings in this area. Old moldy buildings with cramped apartments are getting replaced by beautiful towers. I am also happy that only few of these projects come without forced non-market housing.

[CivicBlues]

Could care less if this gets built but I'll throw a fit if Guu Thurlow is shut down and not relocated. They still have amazing set lunches for around ~$10

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by CivicBlues

Could care less if this gets built but I'll throw a fit if Guu Thurlow is shut down and not relocated. They still have amazing set lunches for around ~$10

This is the only part that makes me sad.

Guy on Thurlow actually feels like a true Japanese izakaya. It’s cramped, dark, lots of wood and worn. Fantastic. Gyoza King on Robson was also like this, but of course it is gone now.

The bright sterile “Japanese” establishments are far too western in feel and lack atmosphere.

[Cypherus]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Before Vision Vancouver unleashed the developer hounds of hell on those blocks, the original building was one of the few affordable ones just blocks from the downtown core. But apparently "greenest city" means sending thousands of tonnes of concrete and building materials to the landfill in order to provide expensive units that people working downtown won't actually live in.

A city can grow and still retain the title of "greenest city" under sustainable development principles. Vancouver is surrounded by the most greenest natural landscape and has won accolades and praise for incorporating parkland and transit with high density urban landscapes. The idea that this one tower suddenly changes all that, is unreasonable. Vancouver has also not been affordable since 2010 which put it on the global map, so arguments/complaints about new developments usurping old construction and not catering to the lower/middle class are really bankrupt at this point.

[Feathered Friend]

https://www.1045harostreet.com/

Almost a decade after it was approved, Vancouver city council has unanimously decided the West End Community Plan might need an update to allow for more height, housing, & buildings like this one. Those looking for some shade on Robson St. could be in luck too

https://twitter.com/City_Duo/status/...NtujNxRSpA_trQ

[officedweller]

Intracorp and Patkau?
This got more interesting...