1780 E Broadway | 144m, 125m, 122m | 44fl, 38fl, 37fl | Proposed

[madog222]

That wouldn't have anything to do with this site and I don't see any indication something is happening with the CIBC site besides them moving out.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by madog222

I think it would be around 50 FSR for their requested 6600 units.

sure, not literally double then. but really, the only site ontop of the station without view cones and an 8.0FSR is fine? we really just want to settle for that? 8.0 isnt even that much at literally the apex of the SkyTrain lines. thats not even doubnle what burnaby is proposing at 7000 lougheed highway. and thats on a highway... on 1 station... in the middle of nowhere...

such a shame to waste this site, in this location, and with no view cones. but i guess i am the crazy one.

it will be interesting to see if anyone here has comments about view cones with future sites around this one being restricted. i see that coming in the future.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Perfect is the enemy of good. At this point, it's a fair bet that all planners/developers/YIMBYs involved simply want to get a building permit and shovels in the ground rather than sit through another 1-3 years' worth of Karens to hold out for (checks notes)... roughly four more floors per tower.

Likewise, Cambie Station will likely be the busiest part of the Broadway line, and also the shortest overall - that's fine too.

[Spr0ckets]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Perfect is the enemy of good. At this point, it's a fair bet that all planners/developers/YIMBYs involved simply want to get a building permit and shovels in the ground rather than sit through another 1-3 years' worth of Karens to hold out for (checks notes)... roughly four more floors per tower.

Likewise, Cambie Station will likely be the busiest part of the Broadway line, and also the shortest overall - that's fine too.

Well that's Viewcone Central™.
Being as it's located just north of City Hall and all.

We can't be having any towers blocking our precious views to City Hall from Stanley park or Crab Park or wherever, .....or likewise blocking views from City Hall to the mountains.

What would our Elected overlords ever do if they couldn't see the mountains.
Why, it would be chaos and anarchy!!
The fall of civilization as we know it!!!

Perish the thought!

/s

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

...such a shame to waste this site, in this location, and with no view cones. but i guess i am the crazy one.

it will be interesting to see if anyone here has comments about view cones with future sites around this one being restricted. i see that coming in the future.

It's my understanding that the only restriction around here is the Grandview-Woodland Plan itself, which saw a slight deviation from it's Plan at 1649 East Broadway for a MIRHHP project.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Perfect is the enemy of good. At this point, it's a fair bet that all planners/developers/YIMBYs involved simply want to get a building permit and shovels in the ground rather than sit through another 1-3 years' worth of Karens to hold out for (checks notes)... roughly four more floors per tower.

Likewise, Cambie Station will likely be the busiest part of the Broadway line, and also the shortest overall - that's fine too.

i just dont understand some people on this forum. i mean we have people calling for mass upzoning of the entire city, death to the SFH, we are in a housing crisis, etc. and here we have a site, at a major SkyTrain interchange, close to downtown, on the 2nd biggest employment corridor after downtown. and the FSR isnt even double digits. its backwards. its ridiculous. Bainbridge village in burnaby getting a FSR of 5.1 almost. its literally in the middle of nowhere. surrounded by literally nothing. and its meant to be a village, not a town centre. and its FSR is only smaller by 2.8.

this is exactly where we should be doing high density. i mean give it at least double digit FSR. and ontop of that, looking at the view cones it seems this is the only site immediately next to the station without viewcones.

apparently im the crazy troll for thinking we just keep wasting so much potential for no reason. pointing out the fact an FSR of 7.9 isnt good in this location. this is literally the 3rd busiest SkyTrain station on the network. by 2028 itll literally be a 1 seat ride to Arbutus, Waterfront, Coqitlam, Surrey, Langley. i mean holy crap talk about a central location.

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

It's my understanding that the only restriction around here is the Grandview-Woodland Plan itself, which saw a slight deviation from it's Plan at 1649 East Broadway for a MIRHHP project.

seems to be view cones over a bunch of sites around this area, this development being one of the few without one.

https://opendata.vancouver.ca/explore/dataset/view-cones/map/?location=15,49.26262,-123.06764

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

- snip -

This IS mass upzoning: ~8 FSR, while not the Broadway Corridor's 9-10, is still denser than pretty much 95% of the city. It would be nice to have more, but let's not miss the forest for the trees - what this does is open all the properties around the Safeway up for rezoning, and that'll accomplish a lot more for density than a single plot of three high-rises will.

It's the Brentwood/Metrotown argument again. Sure, you've got a bunch of tall towers, but that means nothing as long they're surrounded by an ocean of detached homes. Work on the detached homes.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

This IS mass upzoning: ~8 FSR, while not the Broadway Corridor's 9-10, is still denser than pretty much 95% of the city. It would be nice to have more, but let's not miss the forest for the trees - what this does is open all the properties around the Safeway up for rezoning, and that'll accomplish a lot more for density than a single plot of three high-rises will.

It's the Brentwood/Metrotown argument again. Sure, you've got a bunch of tall towers, but that means nothing as long they're surrounded by an ocean of detached homes. Work on the detached homes.

Exactly and even then the real argument is the Area Plan. You can't just throw out the Area Plan, you have to re-write it first. It could all be 10-14 stories like the MIRHPP building to the east but it can't because of the Plan.

[jollyburger]

Coverage of the revised proposal

https://globalnews.ca/news/10276718/broadway-commercial-project-revision/

He says the proponents are expecting a public open house before summer and a city council review of the project by fall.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/real-est...s-of-contentious-tower-proposal-next-to/

[Jimbo604]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Coverage of the revised proposal

https://globalnews.ca/news/10276718/broadway-commercial-project-revision/

[new proposal] at "35, 36 and 39 storeys in height, containing 882 market-rate rentals and 99 below-market rentals. The complex would also include 50,000 square feet of retail and work space, including a new Safeway, hundreds of parking stalls, and about 5,000 square feet dedicated to child care. It’s a stark contrast with its 2019 iteration. In that rezoning application, the builder proposed towers 24, 27 and 30-storeys high."

https://nosafewaymegatowers.ca/ were very unhappy about 2019 proposed number of storeys. They may be going into conniptions when they read about this update.

"He says the proponents are expecting a public open house before summer and a city council review of the project by fall."

We shall see, we shall see. Previous city commitments were postponed/cancelled so we're a bit wary now. I see an even wider choice between nimbyism and urbanism than the 2019 proposal so it will be interesting to see how council juggles these competing interests.

[jollyburger]

The City of Vancouver has received an application to rezone the subject site from C3-A (Commercial) District to CD-1 (Comprehensive Development) District. The proposal is to allow for a mixed-use development with three purpose built rental residential towers at 35, 36 and 39-storeys above a retail base. This proposal includes:

981 rental units with 99 units secured at below market rates;
A floor area of 77,312 sq. m (832,178.6 sq. ft.);
A floor space ratio (FSR) of 7.87;
A max. building height of 129.5 m (425 ft.);
Commercial retail space at grade, including a grocery store;
Office and commercial space within the podium levels;
A public plaza running parallel to the SkyTrain station;
Publicly accessible outdoor pace on top of the retail base; and
440 vehicle parking spaces and 2006 bicycle spaces.

https://www.shapeyourcity.ca/1780-e-broadway-rz

[csbvan]

I think it looks quite good in the renders. Beefy development, ground plane looks solid. Let's just get it done already.

[madog222]

The renders all match what was released with dailyhive last month.

Edit: Here's a new one.


Image from Perkins&Will https://www.shapeyourcity.ca/1780-e-broadway-rz

[jollyburger]

Yeah it's just the ShapeYourCity image that sort of is low-res

[Metro-One]

Hopefully having more eyes in the air will bring more insentive to clean up the massive amounts of trash always thrown around the Broadway / Commercial area, especially off the overpasses into the cut.

[Repthe250]

Why does every rendering now have greenery covering buildings top to bottom? This is Canada, not the tropics. It seems a little optimistic but does it ever come to fruition?

[giallo]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Hopefully having more eyes in the air will bring more insentive to clean up the massive amounts of trash always thrown around the Broadway / Commercial area, especially off the overpasses into the cut.

The amount of trash along the cut is insane. Like, I get it's probably not that easy to clean up, and it's hard to notice from street level, but it's an absolute embarrassment from the skytrain.

The project looks great. I'll be shocked if this one doesn't go through. It's a long, long, long overdue development in an area that has needed a massive amount of new housing for over two decades.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Repthe250

Why does every rendering now have greenery covering buildings top to bottom? This is Canada, not the tropics. It seems a little optimistic but does it ever come to fruition?

Sometimes. It depends a lot on sunlight in my experience, and how difficult the areas are to maintain. Stratas won't blow their budgets on small green spaces if they are expensive.

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

https://www.shapeyourcity.ca/1780-e-broadway-rz

Interesting the City keeps quoting height to roof, not to architectural top. In this case the stated height is 129.5m whereas the height to the elevator overrun is 136m.

Not a big deal but an interesting new standard the City seems to be employing.

As an aside the Building heights to top of the structure are:

Tower A: 39 storeys - 136m
Tower B: 36 storeys - 123m
Tower C: 35 storeys - 117m

[Repthe250]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Sometimes. It depends a lot on sunlight in my experience, and how difficult the areas are to maintain. Stratas won't blow their budgets on small green spaces if they are expensive.

Seems like the developers and the city try to sell these to us as urban farming utopias, the way they incorporate the greenery up and down the building, on the roof and each balcony in the renderings. Then it just stands as a slab of glass and concrete when it’s complete.