Downtown Vancouver Updates

[amac]

Why are people so sad about the death of the RC? What does anyone here have to gain by its existence? I say good riddance. How about an office building there instead?

[osirisboy]

Originally Posted by amac

Why are people so sad about the death of the RC? What does anyone here have to gain by its existence? I say good riddance. How about an office building there instead?

[AlexYVR]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

Your comments about RC are so measured, thoughtful, and explanatory.

[sacrifice333]

Originally Posted by amac

Why are people so sad about the death of the RC? What does anyone here have to gain by its existence? I say good riddance. How about an office building there instead?

Although not necessarily ground-breaking architecture on a world-scale RC was pretty awesome on a Vancouver-scale.

It was also what many would say would be Arthur Erickson's legacy building AND some would say have a Ritz Carlton (of that measure) in Vancouver indicates the 'arrival' of the city.

There's no way the tower shouldn't have been developed if not for apparent ineptitude of the developer.

[vanman]

^ I don't see why people still think RC is dead. I understand it's on shaky ground but it hasn't been officially cancelled and buyers have not been returned their deposits so I still see the glass as half full.

[vansky]

Originally Posted by sacrifice333

Although not necessarily ground-breaking architecture on a world-scale RC was pretty awesome on a Vancouver-scale.

It was also what many would say would be Arthur Erickson's legacy building AND some would say have a Ritz Carlton (of that measure) in Vancouver indicates the 'arrival' of the city.

There's no way the tower shouldn't have been developed if not for apparent ineptitude of the developer.

with rc, fairmont and georgia, the skyline actually looks like a "giant", future for this city looks amazingly bright and clear. All we need is more dirt and crime, higher real estate price, then this truely will be the one world class city.

[stoneyjohnson]

This is Solterra's first highrise towers. Development company behind them.
Apparently baught that green parkade land for 3 million a few years back, which are now dolce and vita. Also owning the Moda hotel property accross the street to the south. Elevated parkade levels connect the two buildings on 2, 3 and 4. Expected all elevated parkade space will be cobble stone driveways and parking stalls.

[osirisboy]

Originally Posted by AlexYVR

Your comments about RC are so measured, thoughtful, and explanatory.

thank you.

It just surprises me a lot when someone doesnt understand why people might be upset that this building might not get built.

[vansky]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

thank you.

It just surprises me a lot when someone doesnt understand why people might be upset that this building might not get built.

this is a high class, nice looking building that would add a little to the skyline.
too bad, it wasn't taller. as for most people who are not concerned about the skyline, who cares if it gets built or not, since how many will ever get to live in it, certainly not me.

[officedweller]

I think RC would add to the skyline quite nicely.
It's one of the only sites in downtown that can go to 600ft because the site is not under a view cone. If a shorter tower is eventually built on the site due to the state of the economy, it'll have been a lost opportunity for the site and any building built would last at least 50 years, longer if it's a strata titled (condo) building (since you would need agreement of the owners to demolish and redevelop).
As for not caring about [whether a building is built / the looks of a building] because you won't live in it or use it - that would apply to many of the hotels in town, many of the office buildings and many many condo and apartment towers. It's still part of the built environment around you, even if you don't "use" it on a daily basis. i.e. I've only ever been inside the Orpheum a handful of times - should I care?

[raggedy13]

Here's a pic from flickr (apparently taken yesterday) of the Erickson going up. The skyline is just screaming for some colour in this photo:


by mcjess79

[Daver]

Originally Posted by Powell

V6A is now postponed/canceled due to poor sales:

http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local...081023/20081023/?hub=BritishColumbiaHome

Another one bites the dust!

Gee!... let me think! the Economy will be harder on you guys than us, sorry to say. I think Van is doing something pretty good!...We'll get our hammer too very soon! Tho, our developments are being fastracked! Currently still full construction

[subdude]

Robson Square update from yesterday:

[officedweller]

From the Province:

Taller blocks on horizon
Views may be lost in push for more space

Christina Montgomery, The Province
Published: Thursday, October 30, 2008

Vancouver's cherished views of mountains and water are in danger of being blocked by taller buildings.

Officially protected by the city's "view corridor" policy, the open sights of the surrounding landscape are now coming up for debate as Vancouver grapples with its need for more space in downtown buildings.

The city needs more public amenities such as parks in the rapidly growing downtown area -- and the main way it gets them is by making developers pay for them in exchange for "air space" to build into.

Vancouver is also in need of more "job space" -- any building where people work.

This week, council agreed to let buildings in Downtown South, a strip along Granville between Burrard and False Creek North, be built higher than 100 metres, which was the prior restriction.

Council also decided to review view corridors and all downtown height limits -- and to "recommend changes, if appropriate, to achieve additional development."

The review could result in some areas of the city -- the south side of False Creek, for example -- losing their views of the mountains.

NPA Coun. Peter Ladner, who supported the idea of giving up views for amenities, suggested that if the new buildings were attractive enough, they might be a good trade-off for mountain vistas.

This trade-off may be necessary -- and the issue is pressing, according to a staff report.

It notes that the city has had many of its heritage buildings restored through a program known as "heritage density bonusing."

Developers pay the considerable cost of renovating the buildings in exchange for a density bonus -- a precise amount of space they are allowed to add to another building elsewhere, or sell to another developer who wants it.

But with its restrictive zoning and height regulations, the city has now run out of downtown sites where the bonuses can be used -- and taller buildings would be the answer to this problem.

[email protected]

© The Vancouver Province 2008

[Coldrsx]

"The skyline is just screaming for some colour in this photo:"

no kidding... and is perhaps my biggest criticism of yaletown/new buildings...

[flight_from_kamakura]

on balance, it seems to me to be a good idea to bring the heights up to 400 feet in vancouver south, it's really not all that high.

personally, however, i think the city would do as well by relaxing the height restrictions in some key areas outside of the downtown core, particularly around broadway/commercial, along clark from the water to broadway, and down in the quadrilateral between the water and 12th & granville and burrard. hopefully, the council moves on those too.

[SpongeG]

i don't get who they are concerned about losing mountain views?

[Coldrsx]

^city hall ....

[djh]

Speculation:
Isn't it possible that the 'redesign' for Ritz-Carlton has been triggered by the knowledge or possibility of the height restrictions being relaxed on that site? The developer must already have a good dialogue with the city, and maybe they weighed-up the cost of halting the project and making adjustments to allow more height - maybe adding a number of floors of office space. The city would have one of its needs met - more office space, the developer would have almost guaranteed revenue due to the huge demand for rentable office space, the existing purchasers get their project delayed slightly but not cancelled, and we all get a taller tower.

Possible?

[LeftCoaster]

Not really, the way the tower is designed with the twisting the entire thing would have to be redesigned if the height was changed... not really feasable at this point in the project. Not impossible but highly improabable. Not to mention the civic hurdles.

Originally Posted by SpongeG

i don't get who they are concerned about losing mountain views?

I've gotta say I am all for keeping the mountain views. Let the plots without view cones go up to a thousand damn feet for all I care but those view cones are special. I cant even begin to imagine how many times I have been driving a visitor in from YVR and cresting the last hill on Granville or Oak seeing their expression as the city and mountains are laid out before them. There are very few other cities on earth, if any, where you can replicate that view. It is something special and we shouldn’t take it for granted and loose that gift just to throw a couple skyscrapers up that are 200ft taller than what would originally be there.
/end rant