Downtown Vancouver Updates II

[idunno]

Exciting proposal! Especially for the nearly 1000 hotel rooms - we need that. Make it the first phase!

As others have said, will certainly remain very skeptical given it's Holborn.

[jollyburger]

Would a new owner or the HBC building be able to remove the covenant or would it still be needed regardless to service any future use of the building.

[phesto]

What a fantastic looking proposal.

Shame it's from one of Vancouver's most dysfunctional developers.

Sorry to be a skeptic, but even if the rezoning is approved by the City, current market conditions don't warrant this.

There is obviously huge demand for hotel, but they're not even proposing this as a first phase! They're already talking about a 15 year time horizon! If I'm the City I'd approve the rezoning but force them to build the hotel first, not the condo towers.

There's little downside for Holborn in doing this...they get a lot of buzz in the media and it looks like they're active. If they get approval it adds value to their property...they can sit on it for another decade or sell it.

They'll probably spend less than $1 Million on the design and rezoning...it's worth a shot for them.

I have a feeling we'll be looking at these renderings for many years to come.

[officedweller]

I'm not keen on the podium cladding (or the interface with the Randall Building), but the towers look great (subject to value engineering).
Looks like some form of cast-in-place concrete exoskeleton on the tallest tower. (Edit: Hive story says it'll be a steel diagrid)
That could be simplified to a simple diagrid, with the shorter towers dumbed down even more.

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

The project went for redrafting after Dunsmuir was condemned.

The Vancouver Sun story said they revised the project from 2 fat towers to 3 skinny towers.
So I wonder how tall the two fat towers were?

Henriquez Partners’ earlier version of the project, designed last year, planned to incorporate the heritage building at 500 Dunsmuir St., Henriquez said.

After Vancouver’s chief building official recommended the derelict building’s demolition last December, saying it had become a “danger to public safety,” it was demolished in January. That unexpected development prompted a redesign of the whole project, Henriquez said, changing it from two thicker towers to three thinner ones.

https://vancouversun.com/news/massive-development-proposed-for-downtown-vancouver

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Would a new owner or the HBC building be able to remove the covenant or would it still be needed regardless to service any future use of the building.

The beneficiary should be able to remove the covenant, but why would they if they benefit?

Reminds me of the covenant on the Raffles on Robson site to provide parking spaces for the benefit of the Catholic Charities Building across the street. The Raffles on Robson site was a parking lot for the Catholic Charities Building.
I wonder if that has survived with the redevelopment?

[giallo]

Originally Posted by phesto

I have a feeling we'll be looking at these renderings for many years to come.

It'll be this generation's Bing Thom shard tower.

[officedweller]

Here's a rendering of the 38 storey social housing tower at Abbott & Hastings.


https://www.biv.com/news/economy-law-pol...or-downtown-vancouver-henriquez-10629751

[gaviscon]

Are we allowed to throw a party tonight, or is it better to wait until the design is approved??

[WarrenC12]

This remains pie in the sky until shovels are in the ground IMO. Fool me once, etc.

[MIPS]

I'll be dead before that design gets built.

Originally Posted by logan5

Is Vancouver getting its swagger back?

Looks at the undeveloped Expo lands and the dilapidated Plaza of Nations.


I'd argue Vancouver hasn't had any swagger short of the moderate fun of the Olympics in 39 years.

[logan5]

Put the social housing somewhere else. We don’t need anymore in that area.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by logan5

Put the social housing somewhere else. We don’t need anymore in that area.

"Social housing" is a broad term. Some ~20% below market rental in there would be good IMO.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

"Social housing" is a broad term. Some ~20% below market rental in there would be good IMO.

According to the plans the Abbott site is intended to be 100% social housing, adding even more non-market housing to the poor district Downtown East Side. I'm not convinced that's the way to go either.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by chowhou

According to the plans the Abbott site is intended to be 100% social housing, adding even more non-market housing to the poor district Downtown East Side. I'm not convinced that's the way to go either.

Social housing does not equal welfare rates, hard to house, etc or even 100% deeply discounted rents. HILs rates are even quite "high" for social housing

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by chowhou

According to the plans the Abbott site is intended to be 100% social housing, adding even more non-market housing to the poor district Downtown East Side. I'm not convinced that's the way to go either.

I think you missed my point. Social housing doesn't automatically mean low barrier SRO style units.

[Denscity]

Holborn's website is stating that the tallest tower will be 1033 feet !!

[logan5]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I think you missed my point. Social housing doesn't automatically mean low barrier SRO style units.

How many social housing buildings have no shelter rate units? Serious question, I don't know.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by gaviscon

Are we allowed to throw a party tonight, or is it better to wait until the design is approved??

Send us the name of the seniors home you select to enter, we'll all meet there in a few decades to break out the cake and confetti.

[csbvan]

Doesn't the social building include a childcare component? I doubt it's shelter rate. There might be some, but doubt its predominantly shelter rate/SRO replacement housing.

[Vantage]

The design of the tallest tower in Holborn proposal looks like it'd make cleaning very difficult and/or expensive.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by officedweller

The beneficiary should be able to remove the covenant, but why would they if they benefit?

Reminds me of the covenant on the Raffles on Robson site to provide parking spaces for the benefit of the Catholic Charities Building across the street. The Raffles on Robson site was a parking lot for the Catholic Charities Building.
I wonder if that has survived with the redevelopment?

I mean if it limited the redevelopment potential of the HBC site then it wouldn't be considered. But I was just thinking if the city relaxed their parking requirements Holborn could maybe pay some money to the land owners to get rid of the covenant.

I couldn't find anything in the Block rezoning about the agreement.

While 272 parking spaces are required for the proposed development, 332 spaces are proposed: 282 to serve the proposed development and 50 spaces, through off-site parking agreement, to serve a site across the street at 150 Robson Street (Catholic Charities).

https://council.vancouver.ca/20041214/p5.htm