601 W Cordova | 114m | 22fl | Proposed - Page 24

Vantage · #**461** Posted **Oct 20, 2021, 3:21 AM**

Just build it. People will whine about it no matter what.

Feathered Friend · #**462** Posted **Dec 5, 2025, 11:36 PM**

Quote:

The infamous “Icepick,” easily one of the most controversial redevelopments in Vancouver’s history, seems set to reappear 11 years after it was first proposed at Waterfront Station. The latest version is a few floors shorter, but retains the same local architects

https://x.com/City_Duo/status/1997086238919033030?s=20

The street address is different, but what else could it be?

madog222 · #**463** Posted **Dec 6, 2025, 12:00 AM**

That was definitely not on my 2025 bingo card!

Changing City · #**464** Posted **Dec 6, 2025, 12:49 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Feathered Friend

https://x.com/City_Duo/status/1997086238919033030?s=20

The street address is different, but what else could it be?

That's the address for the station building, and as it's one parcel, you must be correct. The fact that it's a DP, with no rezoning needed also makes sense for that lot. It'll be interesting to see how James Cheng has designed the building. Interesting that it's office, and not hotel.

officedweller · #**465** Posted **Dec 6, 2025, 5:13 AM**

Watch it come back as a brick building with arched windows to 'match' the station

jollyburger · #**466** Posted **Dec 6, 2025, 5:24 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by officedweller

Watch it come back as a brick building with arched windows to 'match' the station

It's going to be ugly. Just wait for it.

jollyburger · #**467** Posted **Jan 31, 2026, 1:29 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jollyburger

It's going to be ugly. Just wait for it.

OH MY GOD. You finally did it James Cheng. Officially a starchitect now.

Quote:

James KM Cheng Architects has applied to the City of Vancouver for a preliminary development permit application for alterations to the staging and storage area located in the below grades structure of the existing heritage building, and to develop a 22-storey building, consisting of:

Retail use at grade and General Office use from levels 2 to 22
A proposed FSR of 7.05
A proposed Floor Area of 580,617 sq.ft. (53,941 m²)
A proposed Height of 416 ft. (127 m)
A public plaza

https://www.shapeyourcity.ca/601-w-cordova-st

PS. Eat that Downtown Waterfront Working Group

gaviscon · #**468** Posted **Jan 31, 2026, 1:32 AM**

This would have looked futuristic in 1970.

LowerLonsdaleMike · #**469** Posted **Jan 31, 2026, 1:43 AM**

This is a HUGE letdown. Such an eyesore. I really want this property to get redeveloped but this latest proposal is an epic failure.

Metro-One · #**470** Posted **Jan 31, 2026, 1:46 AM**

The previous proposal was wonderful, this is ugly.

LowerLonsdaleMike · #**471** Posted **Jan 31, 2026, 1:50 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metro-One

The previous proposal was wonderful, this is ugly.

I agree. The previous couldve been tweaked a bit to make it more stunning, but really this new one is a mess. I've already submitted my opposition to it on shapeyourcity.

jollyburger · #**472** Posted **Jan 31, 2026, 2:23 AM**

Officially known as the Minecraft Tree Tower

officedweller · #**473** Posted **Jan 31, 2026, 2:48 AM**

Wow - that's ugly.
Plus the interior floorplates will be awful to configure.

Deliotte Summit version 2.0.

jollyburger · #**474** Posted **Jan 31, 2026, 3:17 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by officedweller

Wow - that's ugly.
Plus the interior floorplates will be awful to configure.

Deliotte Summit version 2.0.

I'm guessing it won't be as bad since all the boxes seem more rectangular versus Deloitte Summit that had those box shapes jutting out on each level.

https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=8686603&postcount=310

madog222 · #**475** Posted **Jan 31, 2026, 3:23 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by officedweller

Wow - that's ugly.
Plus the interior floorplates will be awful to configure.

Deliotte Summit version 2.0.

To be fair, the floorplates don’t look to be anywhere close to as ridiculous as 410 W Georgia.
These look to all be rectangular with a protruding box at the corners. Save for the first few floors, floorplate sq looks to be on par with the various boxes of The Stack.

jollyburger · #**476** Posted **Jan 31, 2026, 4:58 AM**

Nothing new in the Howard Chai article but he needs to correct this:

"There is currently just one project that is in the pre-construction marketing phase: 1166 West Pender by Reliance Properties and Hines."

That is going to be hotel/residential if we go by the building grades from last year (previously posted on SSP)

Quote:

amend CD-1 (833) for 1166 West Pender Street to permit the development of a 49-storey mixed-use building with hotel and residential uses under the recently approved Hotel Development Policy and amended Central Business District (CBD) and CBD Shoulder Rezoning Policy.

https://plposweb.vancouver.ca/Public/Default.aspx?PossePresentation=Guest&PosseObjectId=279492984

https://howardchai.substack.com/p/cadillac-fairview-555-601-west-cordova-vancouver-office

Changing City · #**477** Posted **Jan 31, 2026, 5:34 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Nothing new in the Howard Chai article but he needs to correct this:

"There is currently just one project that is in the pre-construction marketing phase: 1166 West Pender by Reliance Properties and Hines."

That is going to be hotel/residential if we go by the building grades from last year (previously posted on SSP)

That may be an alternative that's being considered, but Hines & Reliance seem to still be offering 1166 W Pender to potential tenants for the time being. They've said quite recently that they would go ahead once they have a pre-lease. Reliance have hotels already proposed at 807 Hornby, and the conversion of 1111 W Hastings. Hines have an office building approved in Mount Pleasant.

Spr0ckets · #**478** Posted **Jan 31, 2026, 1:42 PM**

What a godawful design.

The previous iteration may not have been that great, but this version is a massive downgrade and just pointlessly messy, overly busy and just terrible.

For what should be a gateway to the city with a truly landmark tower, this is an incredible letdown and utter disappointment.

jollyburger · #**479** Posted **Jan 31, 2026, 5:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spr0ckets

What a godawful design.

The previous iteration may not have been that great, but this version is a massive downgrade and just pointlessly messy, overly busy and just terrible.

For what should be a gateway to the city with a truly landmark tower, this is an incredible letdown and utter disappointment.

I assume the building costs are improved over the previous design

Spr0ckets · #**480** Posted **Feb 1, 2026, 12:17 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jollyburger

I assume the building costs are improved over the previous design

It wouldn't surprise me if this version is actually more expensive to build than the previous version thanks to all the structural gymnastics and extra seismic reinforcements they have to do to make it meet code and modern safety standards, in order support all that cantilevering.

And then when all is said and done and it's complete, it's probably going to leak like a sieve all over the place.