The Bay Parkade Redevelopment | 315, 271, 239m | 80, 69, 68fl | Proposed

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by AlessioSBT

Ok clearly I'm not explaining myself correctly here.
There's no conspiracy, there are literally REGULATIONS saying that you CANNOT build smaller elevators for buildings (NOT internal elevators, NOT service elevators, BUILDING elevators, the ones you have in a strata building).

Maybe a visual will work better:


This is literally the law, not a conspiracy, not an idea or an opinion.

Again:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Or1_qVdekYM&t=674s

That video is somewhat misleading (as his videos can be). You seem to have missed the part that said that in Europe outside North America the smallest dimensions for an elevator are 1.1m x 1.4m (which allows a wheelchair user to wheel in, and then forces them to exit facing the same way. Here the regulations require a wheelchair to be able to turn round inside the elevator car. So our regulations are different, and if you were in a wheelchair, you might think ours are better.

And you may have missed the point about the 'monopoly' that only four companies control the market. According to the data in the video they actually supplied 67% of new elevators in North America in 2020 (by value), and 57% in Europe. That's hardly a massive difference - it just represents the realities of the manufacturing. There are many other companies that offer repair and maintenance contracts, just like you don't have to take your car to be repaired at the dealership you bought it from.

None of this discussion has the slightest relevance to the Bay Parkade redevelopment, which, if it ever happens, will have elevators built to code at the time they get their permit. And they won't be small.

[AlessioSBT]

Originally Posted by Changing City

That video is somewhat misleading (as his videos can be). You seem to have missed the part that said that in Europe outside North America the smallest dimensions for an elevator are 1.1m x 1.4m (which allows a wheelchair user to wheel in, and then forces them to exit facing the same way. Here the regulations require a wheelchair to be able to turn round inside the elevator car. So our regulations are different, and if you were in a wheelchair, you might think ours are better.

And you may have missed the point about the 'monopoly' that only four companies control the market. According to the data in the video they actually supplied 67% of new elevators in North America in 2020 (by value), and 57% in Europe. That's hardly a massive difference - it just represents the realities of the manufacturing. There are many other companies that offer repair and maintenance contracts, just like you don't have to take your car to be repaired at the dealership you bought it from.

None of this discussion has the slightest relevance to the Bay Parkade redevelopment, which, if it ever happens, will have elevators built to code at the time they get their permit. And they won't be small.

I didn't miss anything.
I said that in Europe is cheaper to make them because the regulations are worldwide AND allow to build different elevators in smaller buildings (which result most of the times in smaller elevators). I never said better or worse.

This is 100% the reality, it's literally what OUR SAME GOVERNMENT SAID, it's confirm by EVERY SINGLE SOURCE.

Again: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bc-municipality-european-elevators-1.7561726

A 2024 report from the Center for Building in North America, which Phelps Bondaroff's motion cites, found elevator prices in Canada and the U.S. are three times higher than in comparable buildings in Europe.

"In [these] low- and mid-rise buildings, it isn't a choice between oversized, overbuilt American elevators versus smaller, cost-effective ones," Phelps Bondaroff said. "It's a choice between European elevators or no elevator at all."

"European elevators aren't just cheaper to install, they are also more affordable to maintain over time," he said in a statement.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by AlessioSBT

I didn't miss anything.
I said that in Europe is cheaper to make them because the regulations are worldwide AND allow to build smaller elevators in smaller buildings.

This is 100% the real, it's literally what OUR SAME GOVERNMENT SAID, it's confirm by EVERY SINGLE SOURCE.

Again: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bc-municipality-european-elevators-1.7561726

You introduced 1m x 1m elevators, you referenced 10x the cost for elevator repair, and now you're shouting. I'm sure everything you said is up to 100% accurate, but it doesn't have anything to do with the hotel and condos that might replace the Bay Parkade.

[AlessioSBT]

Originally Posted by Changing City

You introduced 1m x 1m elevators, you referenced 10x the cost for elevator repair, and now you're shouting. I'm sure everything you said is up to 100% accurate, but it doesn't have anything to do with the hotel and condos that might replace the Bay Parkade.

Dude you are the one that replied to my messages saying that they were wrong (and as you can see, they are not). I don't understand.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by AlessioSBT

Dude you are the one that replied to my messages saying that they were wrong (and as you can see, they are not). I don't understand.

That seems like a good place to leave the conversation then.

[Glow Fun City]

This is Skyscraperpage, elevators are serious business.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

"Can you build a 1x1m elevator here?" That was your message. One sentence. No mention of what type of building or why; I can think of several reasons why a 4-6 floor building owner wouldn't want a 1x1.
You've had several replies before this that state that, no, commercial buildings do have the option of a smaller elevator, they simply choose not to have one.

But here you go: 36" wide. If there was a giant conspiracy to lock the entire continent into buying the same overpriced, overengineered elevators from the same few companies maintained by the same few techs, why even bother to sell them in different sizes?

Uytae usually does a good job with his videos, but he's prone to mistakes. For example, he's overlooked how elevators use electricity; below a certain number of floors, it might not be worth the utility bill.

But then you’re discriminating against people with mobility issues if you have a multi family, multi floor building without elevators.

[madog222]

Rezoning approved by council with councilors Fry, Orr, and Maloney voting against.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Glow Fun City

This is Skyscraperpage, elevators are serious business.

It's actually the arguing itself that (certain) SkyscraperPage members (you know the ones) treat as serious business. It's not about being right, it's about winning or at least getting the last word in!

Originally Posted by madog222

Rezoning approved by council with councilors Fry, Orr, and Maloney voting against.

Fry and Orr I can of course understand, did anyone catch what Maloney's opposition was?

Western Canada's tallest tower, with a world-class observation deck attraction, gets green light from Vancouver City Council

Vancouver City Council has approved one of the most ambitious private sector-led building projects in the city’s history, allowing local developer Holborn Group’s landmark multi-tower redevelopment of the Hudson’s Bay parkade block in Downtown Vancouver to take its next steps.

The public hearing for this rezoning application began on Friday, July 24, when City Council completed its list of registered public speakers. The debate and decision on the project was made this morning, Monday, July 27, with City Council approving the application in a 7-3 vote.

It was approved along party lines, with the endorsements coming from the ABC governing majority’s elected officials, and the opposition coming from Green city councillor Pete Fry, COPE city councillor Sean Orr, and OneCity city councillor Lucy Maloney.

This project at 501-595 West Georgia St. will be anchored by Western Canada’s tallest tower, reaching a potential height of up to 1,034 ft. (315 metres) with 100 per cent hotel uses — containing 920 hotel rooms, a 70,000 sq. ft. conference centre with three ballrooms, and a world-class public observation deck attraction that provides Vancouver with an additional significant tourist attraction.

Next to the supertall skyscraper, two residential towers will reach 783 ft. (239 metres) with 68 storeys and 889 ft. (271 metres) with 79 storeys, and contain a combined total of 1,546 homes — 1,270 strata market ownership condominium homes and 276 secured purpose-built rental homes — along with over 40,000 sq. ft. of retail/restaurant space on the ground level.

If fully achieved as envisioned, the tallest tower will be the first technical “supertall” tower west of Toronto, and the other two towers will be Vancouver’s second and third tallest buildings and among Metro Vancouver’s highest.

The observation deck attraction will sit at a height of over 1,000 ft. (305 metres) atop the hotel tower, contained within a glass dome with three levels for enjoying the panoramic views, with a garden-like setting for the viewing areas, lounge, and a restaurant.

As a public benefit, the developer will fund and build a separate City-owned, 25-storey social housing tower at 388 Abbott St., immediately east of the Woodward’s complex on the edge of Gastown. As a condition of rezoning, this will be legally timed with the first phase of the Hudson’s Bay parkade block redevelopment. There will be 237 social housing units, a 37-space childcare facility, and about 5,000 sq. ft. of commercial/cultural space.

Before City Council began its debate, Joo Kim Tiah, the principal of Holborn Group and CEO of TA Global Bhd., made a final pitch for the project, saying the project with a supertall tower is intended to create something that will positively contribute to Vancouver’s identity and legacy.

“We live in the most beautiful city in the world and we want to help show off what Vancouver has to offer. We want to provide a project of architectural significance that complements its natural beauty,” said Tiah.

He emphasized the importance of the large event-friendly public plaza, and the glass sponge design inspiration for the trio of tall towers.

He also said his company made a deliberate decision that the tallest tower should not be a private residential tower reserved for luxury homes. Instead of penthouse condominium units, the observation deck attraction at the top of the 100 per cent hotel tower will provide free access to Vancouver residents, which is guaranteed under a legal condition of the rezoning. Out-of-town visitors will pay an admission.

“We made the decision from the start that the tallest tower would have to be publicly accessible commercial tower and observation deck and not a private residence with penthouses in the sky,” Tiah told City Council during the public hearing.

“This building will truly represent all that is local,” said Tiah.

The project’s separate Abbott Street social housing tower component was also a major focus of public speakers last Friday and City Council’s questions and debate this morning. City staff confirmed the two rezonings would have to be enacted together, and the first residential tower on the Georgia Street site would be tied to the delivery of the Abbott Street social housing building.

When asked, City staff confirmed that the Abbott Street social housing tower, replacing an existing surface vehicle parking lot, would have to receive occupancy before the first market residential tower on the main Hudson’s Bay parkade site receives occupancy.

However, City staff also confirmed the tower with the hotel and observation deck attraction could proceed first without triggering construction of the social housing building, although doing so would still deliver other public benefits, including the $20-million cash community amenity contribution, development cost levies, the public plaza, ground-level improvements, and the additional street-level and underground entrances into SkyTrain’s Granville Station.

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/holborn-...tower-bay-parkade-redevelopment-approved

[whatnext]

LOL, “world class observation deck”?!

I’m surprised Kenneth didn’t lobby for a Ferris wheel on top of it.

[madog222]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Fry and Orr I can of course understand, did anyone catch what Maloney's opposition was?

She said due to Holborn's history with Little Mountain and letting Dunsmuir House disintegrate. All three also disagreed with "pushing this through" before the Higher Buildings Policy review is completed.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by chowhou

It's actually the arguing itself that (certain) SkyscraperPage members (you know the ones) treat as serious business. It's not about being right, it's about winning or at least getting the last word in!

Fry and Orr I can of course understand, did anyone catch what Maloney's opposition was?

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/holborn-...tower-bay-parkade-redevelopment-approved

Maloney didn't want to approve it before the updated policy for building heights was approved. As well as "gifting" an applicant with a checkered past.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by madog222

She said due to Holborn's history with Little Mountain and letting Dunsmuir House disintegrate. All three also disagreed with "pushing this through" before the Higher Buildings Policy review is completed.

Which makes perfect sense. They all should have been as critical.

That reminds me anyone heard how well Holborn is doing with Little Mtn sales?

[giallo]

Happy to see it approved, but it's a loooooong road ahead before we see a single shovel in the ground.

[urbanight93]

Very happy to hear this approved. Common sense prevails!

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by giallo

Happy to see it approved, but it's a loooooong road ahead before we see a single shovel in the ground.

If ever - it's Holborn, after all.

[svlt]

Was always going to get approved, just a matter of whether Holborn has any will to build it.

[Migrant_Coconut]

If they do sit on it for another ten years, does the city or province have the power to expropriate the site?

[urbanight93]

I would prefer the free market dictating whether a building goes ahead than the government getting in the way of its potential implementation. If this entire exercise gets us a 250m tall hotel tower in a decade i still would consider this a success. Mind you the Post buildings across the street were capped at 87 m which is ridiculous for such a central location and that's what we were likely looking at if Council didn't approve going beyond.

[madog222]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

If they do sit on it for another ten years, does the city or province have the power to expropriate the site?

Well sure, of course the Expropriation Act still exists, but why would the City or Province want to buy the site?