Broadway Corridor Updates

[jollyburger]

Is this conversion to an entirely hotel project new or old or?

In 2021, Bosa Properties purchased a 55-year-old, seven-storey hotel and attached one-storey pub, located in the downtown-adjacent tech and creative hub of Mount Pleasant, at 888 West Broadway.

The firm originally submitted a proposal to convert the site into a two-tower hotel and office complex because at the time, Bosa was experiencing pandemic-related occupancy devastation at its other seven-year-old hotel, Element Vancouver Metrotown, and the work-from-home trend had yet to afflict the firm’s office buildings. (The 35-year-old company manages 5.5 million square feet of commercial space and has delivered 10,000 houses.)

Last month, Bosa submitted new plans, swapping out the office space for a full hotel complex of nearly 500 rooms and adding five more storeys.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business...hotel-shortage-piques-investor-interest/

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Is this conversion to an entirely hotel project new or old or?

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business...hotel-shortage-piques-investor-interest/

It's new. The story misses the fact that there was a large hotel proposal in 2018 for the site befor Bosa bought it. It had a much more interesting design than the rather pedestrian Henriquez design shown in the Globe & Mail story. It was by Arno Matis, with two different design iterations. Then the potential developer sold on to Bosa, who switched to an office and hotel scheme, which is now reverting to something closer to the 2018 scheme.

2018 version



2019 version



Both on the Changing City blog

[Feathered Friend]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Is this conversion to an entirely hotel project new or old or?



https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business...hotel-shortage-piques-investor-interest/

Oh for the love of.... That's what, the fourth revision for this poor application?

It replaces the Park Inn and Suites, but it will be a significant increase in floor space, even if it's taken five years, two different architecture firms, and a change in ownership to get there.

[madog222]

-snip-

[jollyburger]

And it's not in Mount Pleasant I believe?

From the 2019 referral report

The proposed overall building heights conform to a combination of view cone height
limits and helicopter flight path requirements for helicopters accessing the VGH emergency
heliport. These maximum heights range from elevations of 78.3 m (257 ft.) (View Cone 3.1
height limit) for the easterly portion of the development and 71.6 m (234.9 ft.) (helicopter path
permissible elevation) for the westerly portion (see Figure 3). The final heights of the
development may require minor adjustments with further transportation and survey analysis of
the helicopter routes.

https://council.vancouver.ca/20191210/documents/rr4.pdf

[Feathered Friend]

Google Earth


Google Earth


https://plposweb.vancouver.ca/Public/Default.aspx?PossePresentation=Guest&PosseObjectId=212546627

After losing its western edge to a neighbouring Broadway Plan proposal, this rental building has taken another hit, as it’s been cut back from 18 to 14 floors. That’s led to the loss of 39 market, and 10 below-market rental homes without any public consultation.

https://x.com/City_Duo/status/1710099235352576359?s=20

[madog222]

549 E 10th going either way leaves one of the two sites below 150' frontage but this way the small site is closer to 150. Of course it would have been better to include 515 E 10th with the western site and tear down that ugly '80s house.

At the end of the day we're only loosing 0.5 fsr or around 12-15 homes.

Also, the developer has done a real great job of researching the Broadway Subway line especially considering they are basing their entire portfolio on it.

https://havn-dev.com/projects

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Feathered Friend

https://plposweb.vancouver.ca/Public/Default.aspx?PossePresentation=Guest&PosseObjectId=212546627


https://x.com/City_Duo/status/1710099235352576359?s=20

With any luck it'll be cut down even more if the neighbour gets their rezoning enacted 1st.

[phesto]

Originally Posted by Feathered Friend

Oh for the love of.... That's what, the fourth revision for this poor application?

It replaces the Park Inn and Suites, but it will be a significant increase in floor space, even if it's taken five years, two different architecture firms, and a change in ownership to get there.

As a rule of thumb, if a project has an Arno Matis design, it will likely require switching architects before it actually gets built.

[jollyburger]

Let the Broadway infill party commence. Chard/MCM

2520 Ontario St and 2-24 E Broadway rezoning application

The proposal is to permit a 14-storey mixed-use building, including:

152 secured rental units;
Retail space on the ground floor;
A floor space ratio (FSR) of 7.5;
A building height of 45.1 m (148 ft.);
74 vehicle parking spaces and 320 bicycle spaces; and
A publicly accessible bike share station.

https://www.shapeyourcity.ca/2520-ontario-st-and-2-24-e-broadway

The recent development history of the site at 8 E Broadway
commenced with a Development Permit application made by
Chard Development Ltd. in March 2022 for a 12-storey (45m)
mixed-use building comprised of commercial office space
with ground-floor retail. This application was in line with the
rezoning of the site from C-3A to CD-1, approved by Council
in October 2020. The rezoning permitted the construction of a
commercial office building with a maximum height of 45.1m
and density of 7.5 FSR.
In response to shifts in market demand, particularly a
decreased need for office space and a rising demand for
residential housing, the development plans have since
evolved. The current rezoning application now proposes a
change of use with the intent to develop residential rental
housing at the site instead. The envisioned building will be
100% purpose-built rental, effectively addressing the pressing
demand for such housing options in the area.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Remember when twelve floors was the end of the world? How times have changed.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Remember when twelve floors was the end of the world? How times have changed.

Same height tho. 147.67 ft. for office vs. 148 ft for rental

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Remember when twelve floors was the end of the world? How times have changed.

Never mind the 12-storey: that's ancient history. Now we are aiming for 50-60 storeys, and that is still the end of the world to many.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Only Surrey, Coquitlam and Burnaby - and Burnaby's about to run out of room.

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Same height tho. 147.67 ft. for office vs. 148 ft for rental

Fair. Much higher chance of breezing past the opposition, though.

[Feathered Friend]

Originally Posted by MistyMountain

Proposal for 24-storey office tour a block east of Granville and Broadway

The Urban Design Panel rejected this for a second time earlier this month, with a substantial amount of recommendations (as has become the normal). Comments included that it looked to manly, and aggressive for such a prominent location in Vancouver's skyline.

In slightly more positive news, the Translink/PCI building at Arbutus barely managed to make it through after an impassioned speech by Jon Stovel, and the city noting that the project would likely return for further review at the DP stage.

[vanman]

In Burnaby there's decades of room left to build just in existing town centres alone.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Feathered Friend

The Urban Design Panel rejected this for a second time earlier this month, with a substantial amount of recommendations (as has become the normal). Comments included that it looked to manly, and aggressive for such a prominent location in Vancouver's skyline.

UDP members include Bozo, Ronald, Krusty, and various other clowns.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Feathered Friend

The Urban Design Panel rejected this for a second time earlier this month, with a substantial amount of recommendations (as has become the normal). Comments included that it looked to manly, and aggressive for such a prominent location in Vancouver's skyline.

I mean when a rental building with below-market component 1 block east (IMO) looks better than a top-line office building, there is definitely room for improvement.

[Spr0ckets]

Originally Posted by Feathered Friend

The Urban Design Panel rejected this for a second time earlier this month, with a substantial amount of recommendations (as has become the normal). Comments included that it looked to manly, and aggressive for such a prominent location in Vancouver's skyline.

In slightly more positive news, the Translink/PCI building at Arbutus barely managed to make it through after an impassioned speech by Jon Stovel, and the city noting that the project would likely return for further review at the DP stage.

I'll admit I'm not a fan of this design (or rather re-design), but what exactly did they mean when they said it looked "too manly and aggressive"?

I mean, it's an office building. How much less masculine or "manly" can you make them look?

Wtith all the various development proposals around not just Downtown Vancouver, but all over the GVA and metro area converting their office components into (mainly) hotel or residential program, due to the brutal office leasing market in North America, does this really have any hope of passing through in its current form without a major or drastic shift in direction?
Especially for that location and that close to a future major transit hub.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Burnaby's about to run out of room.

do you mean Burnaby will run out of room for tall buildings? theres lots of Room at the town centres just on their own.

Originally Posted by Feathered Friend

The Urban Design Panel rejected this for a second time earlier this month. Comments included that it looked to manly, and aggressive for such a prominent location in Vancouver's skyline.

what does it being "too manly" even mean? is aggressive being used as another word for "not another square box?" i think the building is decent the way it is. nothing stunning, but nothing terrible.