Downtown Vancouver Updates II

[jollyburger]

Surprised they have so many parking levels for this building. Pit will be as deep as the ones for Burrard Place

[GenWhy?]

80s in a good way?

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

seems short. must be a view cone or something? looks undersized for the location.

[madog222]

Yeah, there are one or two view cones over that site.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

seems short. must be a view cone or something? looks undersized for the location.

Originally Posted by madog222

Yeah, there are one or two view cones over that site.

Here's the breakdown!


https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/902-davi...wer-proposal-condos-view-cones-shadowing

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Here's the breakdown!

Dang! We could have gotten a nice big box!

I actually love this design. Will be interesting to watch their pre-sales. Reliance has long-term holdings so the land costs should not be an issue.

[gaviscon]

What a boring start to the year of proposals... like last year

[teriyaki]

The design looks like something pulled from a faux San Francisco skyline, and I kind of like it. Its unique I'll give it that.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by teriyaki

The design looks like something pulled from a faux San Francisco skyline, and I kind of like it. Its unique I'll give it that.

The architect is from LA rather than San Francisco, and says the building "is modeled therefore on a single snowy peak, all near white, and shaped by natural, urban, and formal ambitions into a robust, peaked mass".

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Here's the breakdown!


https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/902-davi...wer-proposal-condos-view-cones-shadowing

very interesting. thanks. but yikes. idk why anyone cares about sun on some random downtown intersection. its not even a good intersection. or a park. or anything.

i like the overall design/shape of the tower. would be perfect to see this building, with another 20+ floors added onto it.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

very interesting. thanks. but yikes. idk why anyone cares about sun on some random downtown intersection. its not even a good intersection. or a park. or anything.

i like the overall design/shape of the tower. would be perfect to see this building, with another 20+ floors added onto it.

Agreed, this tower is way too short to get viewcucked like this. And everyone argues about why we can't build more housing in Vancouver.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Agreed, this tower is way too short to get viewcucked like this. And everyone argues about why we can't build more housing in Vancouver.

I assume View Cone CI restricts it to 30-storeys tall?

This project looks to have started in 2015, and I assume previous version were non-compliant.

[SpongeG]

Planned 55-Storey Tower In Vancouver West End Placed Under Receivership
​The project, 1045 Haro Street, was being developed by Haro-Thurlow Street Project Limited Partnership, who now owes $82.2M.
Howard Chai
January 16, 2024

https://storeys.com/1045-haro-thurlow-partnership-receivership/

[urbanight93]

Wow that is a juicy article.

The developer overpaid for the site in 2018 ($173M), betting big on being able to wiggle their way around City requirements and the viewcones. The site's current value is estimated somewhere between $81.5M and $90M today.

Seems like a reckless investment made during a time property values were only thought to be increasing.

I hope the City's view cone review can help the case for the redevelopment of this site because it's a complete waste in its current form given the location.

[whatnext]

Just a note that 1045 Haro does have its own thread here:

https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=245108

[Metro-One]

Aesthetically its actually a great location for a new tallest tower on the downtown peninsula. But we know that wont happen.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

i dont know why any developer would think they can push through the viewcones. thats been such an immovable rule since the late 80s, that anyone who thinks that, is dumb.

it could change moving forward, but it hasnt yet.

i have mixed feelings on them. i do like to be able to see the mountains, and i would be sad if all of a sudden you couldnt. but at the same time the mountains are not nearly as prominent as they used to be back in the 1960s. so i dont know if theyre even preserving much anymore. plus the fact they do negatively impact development potential.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

i dont know why any developer would think they can push through the viewcones. thats been such an immovable rule since the late 80s, that anyone who thinks that, is dumb.

it could change moving forward, but it hasnt yet.

i have mixed feelings on them. i do like to be able to see the mountains, and i would be sad if all of a sudden you couldnt. but at the same time the mountains are not nearly as prominent as they used to be back in the 1960s. so i dont know if theyre even preserving much anymore. plus the fact they do negatively impact development potential.

Well the Higher Buildings Policy changed the immovable rules once.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Well the Higher Buildings Policy changed the immovable rules once.

did it? i thought that was still subject to the viewcones? i thought that just changed the non-viewcone limits.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

i dont know why any developer would think they can push through the viewcones.

Foreign buyer inexperience with local laws?
(Not sure about Intrawest's involvement)