HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Downtown & City of Vancouver


Closed Thread

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #4821  
Old Posted Nov 14, 2009, 8:09 AM
EdinVan EdinVan is offline
EdInVan
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sodom and Gomorrah
Posts: 785
Quote:
Originally Posted by delboy View Post
I tend to agree - but what about that Maxines Hideaway building - i quite like it, tons of character. Is that going as well?
I sense a bit of a double standard here. If a person is in favour of redevelopment, then it sounds a bit odd to be entertaining exceptions because they find a particular building has character. What about the people who think the church has character? How come they're condemned for wanting to preserve something THEY think has character?
     
     
  #4822  
Old Posted Nov 14, 2009, 8:28 AM
geoff's two cents geoff's two cents is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 504
Quote:
Originally Posted by EdinVan View Post
I sense a bit of a double standard here. If a person is in favour of redevelopment, then it sounds a bit odd to be entertaining exceptions because they find a particular building has character. What about the people who think the church has character? How come they're condemned for wanting to preserve something THEY think has character?
I'm of two minds on redeveloping the Maxine's building, but most would likely agree that it has a more "timeless" quality to it than that 70s-era church (that I cannot picture being used for anything other than a church) - that might be what is meant here by "character."
     
     
  #4823  
Old Posted Nov 14, 2009, 10:04 AM
Locked In's Avatar
Locked In Locked In is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,977
Queen E update, some remarks about Capitol and speculation about the 'Coal Harbour' Arts Centre:

Quote:
Vancouver is all ears for renovated Queen Elizabeth Theatre

By John Mackie, Vancouver SunNovember 13, 2009

VANCOUVER — The Queen Elizabeth Theatre was regarded as a textbook example of theatre design when it opened in 1959. In fact, it was actually in a textbook on theatre design.

But the bloom was soon off the rose.

The exterior was cool, in a Mad Men-modern way, but the sound inside the 2,929-seat hall seemed kind of dead and lifeless. Soon the late-50s theatre style — a low ceiling in a deep, wide auditorium — went out of vogue, replaced by a new wave of theatres like the National Arts Centre in Ottawa.

“It was narrower, higher, [and] shallower,” relates Rae Ackerman, the director of Vancouver Civic Theatres. “It’s all about acoustics.”

Ackerman first approached Vancouver council with the idea of renovating the Queen E to improve the sound back in 1994. But it took more than a decade to get approval, and several years of closing the theatre in the summer to do the work.

Almost $60 million later, the work is finally finished. Tonight the Queen Elizabeth Theatre reopens with a Warren Miller ski film, Warren Miller’s Dynasty.

It’s probably not the type of cultural event civic leaders envisioned back in July 1959, when internationally renowned conductors like Herbert von Karajan, Sir Ernest MacMillan and Nicholas Goldschmidt came to town to conduct the Vancouver Symphony. But hey, Warren Miller movies put bums in seats. The Miller movie is also booked for Sunday.

In any event, Ackerman thinks theatre-goers will be pleased with the upgrades.

The most dramatic visual change is in the main-floor lobby, which used to have a relatively low ceiling. The two floors above it have been blown out, opening up the space to the full height of the building. What had seemed kind of cramped and dated now soars three storeys high. The open feel is enhanced because the Queen E’s glass exterior walls are now exposed all the way up.

The lobby also sports chic new chandeliers made out of white seashells, improved bar and washroom facilities and marble and walnut columns. You’d never know that behind the marble and walnut columns is a “shear wall” that runs from the basement parkade all the way up to the roof, providing seismic protection in case of an earthquake.

There are some visible changes inside the auditorium, as well. All new seats, with wood backs and bases rather than metal. (The capacity has been slightly reduced, to 2,760.) Polished cement floors, rather than carpet. Banks of wooden “reflective panels” alongside the loges on either side of the auditorium.

The masses probably won’t notice, but the ceiling is also higher, and the mezzanine isn’t as deep. But Ackerman thinks they will notice one change: the sound is way better.

“The biggest thing everybody will notice is the acoustics,” Ackerman said. “The natural acoustics in here are now going to be equivalent to the new opera house in Toronto.”

The Queen E upgrades are the finale to several years of renos at the three civic theatres owned and operated by the city of Vancouver: the Queen Elizabeth, the Orpheum, and the Playhouse. (The city also owns the Vancouver East Cultural Centre and the Firehall Theatre, but they’re run by non-profit societies.)

The Orpheum had sound problems too, but they were fixed with the addition of some sound baffles in 1996. This summer, the former movie and vaudeville palace also received new seats, 2,720 to be precise. The same ones as the Queen E, with birch backs and bottoms; wood reflects sound much better than metal.

“The first time the orchestra came in to rehearse this summer [people went] ‘Whoa! It sounds better,’” Ackerman said.

What happened to the old Orpheum seats? Many were pitched, but 1,100 went to theatres in Powell River and Wells, some wound up at the Vogue, and some went to a movie art director.

“They had to turn up with a truck and a crew on one of two days and take them,” Ackerman relates. “We got a dollar credit from the contractor for every seat he didn’t have to remove.”

The major change to the Playhouse came in 2006, when the 668-seat theatre was separated from the Queen E. This was done to stop amplified sound bleeding over from the bigger venue.

“This past year we had Marilyn Manson in here,” Ackerman recounted.

“It was reaaally loud, and in the Playhouse, you couldn’t hear anything from Marilyn Manson. It was 100-per-cent successful.”

Civic Theaters is also about to pick up a couple of new venues in the Capitol Residences project, on the former Capitol Six theatre site on Seymour street.

“There’s a 220-seat theatre that will also be a rehearsal hall big enough for the VSO,” Ackerman explained. “There will be a 110-seat recital hall, and three storeys of music practice rooms for the VSO music school.”

There is also a big empty room directly behind the Orpheum that will eventually be opened up to enlarge the Orpheum stage, but Ackerman says there is no funding in place yet for the $10-million cost.

The Capitol venues cost $20 million and were paid for by the developer, Wall Financial/McDonald Corp. Developer Bruno Wall says the city allowed the company to build a taller tower (43 storeys) in exchange for the cultural assets.

Wall says the Capitol Residences is a $180 million project, has 372 units and is sold out, with prices ranging from $300,000 to $2 million. It should be ready by fall 2010.

Ackerman also thinks there is still a chance that the long-delayed Coal Harbour arts complex may still be built.

The city still has $20 million it collected in development fees for the Coal Harbour Arts Complex, which had been slated for the site where the Vancouver Convention Centre East was built. Ackerman feels there is a real need for a live theatre that fills the void between the 1,100-seat Vogue and 2,700 seaters like the Queen E and Orpheum.

“A mid-size, 1,500 to 1,800-seat acoustically good hall would make a lot of sense,” he said.

“The only place in Vancouver right now that is of the right size is the bus depot site. That site would hold the Coal Harbour Arts Centre — two theatres, 1,900 and 450 [seats] — and the [Vancouver] Art Gallery, if the Art Gallery would agree to go to three stories instead of two.”

The problem is money. Ackerman says it would cost $200 million to replace the Queen Elizabeth Theatre today, which makes the $59 million spent on renos seem like a bargain.

Also problematic: The Art Gallery is supposed to move to northeast False Creek, not the old bus depot at Georgia and Hamilton. Premier Gordon Campbell announced so himself in May, 2008.

Still, Ackerman says anything is possible.

“Timing is what you’re talking about,” said Ackerman, who turned 65 this summer but plans to keep on working until 2011.

“Put it in perspective. It took me 15 years to get this job done. The average time in Canada from the time you say ‘I want a new arts facility’ to when the door opens is 20 years. So if you’re serious about the Coal Harbour Arts Centre, it’s now been 18 years. ... It should start construction next year.”

He chuckled.

“This is not karate, it’s tai chi. It’s the same moves, it’s just a lot slower.”

[email protected]
© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun
Source: http://www.vancouversun.com/travel/Vanco...een+Elizabeth+Theatre/2220039/story.html




Source: Vancouver Sun
     
     
  #4824  
Old Posted Nov 14, 2009, 4:43 PM
Delirium's Avatar
Delirium Delirium is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Earth
Posts: 3,227
thanks for posting! those chandeliers look cool.

two more public art installations went up recently;

1) "WE" by Jaume Plensa, from Barcelona. The letters that form the seated figure represent 8 different alphabets.

photo by HereinVancouver on flickr.com http://www.flickr.com/photos/danfairchildphotography/sets/72157622673524231/


photo by HereinVancouver on flickr.com http://www.flickr.com/photos/danfairchildphotography/sets/72157622673524231/


photo by HereinVancouver on flickr.com http://www.flickr.com/photos/danfairchildphotography/sets/72157622673524231/

2) Water #7 by Chinese artist Jun Ren is being exhibited in Vanier Park. it is 90ft long. the wrap should come off soon..

photo by HereinVancouver on flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/danfairchildphotography/sets/72157622640134189/


photo by HereinVancouver on flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/danfairchildphotography/sets/72157622640134189/

photo by HereinVancouver on flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/danfairchildphotography/sets/72157622640134189/
     
     
  #4825  
Old Posted Nov 14, 2009, 4:50 PM
LeftCoaster's Avatar
LeftCoaster LeftCoaster is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Toroncouver
Posts: 13,122
Wow, I absolutely love the first one!

the second one... not so much
     
     
  #4826  
Old Posted Nov 14, 2009, 5:09 PM
delboy delboy is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 653
Quote:
Originally Posted by EdinVan View Post
I sense a bit of a double standard here. If a person is in favour of redevelopment, then it sounds a bit odd to be entertaining exceptions because they find a particular building has character. What about the people who think the church has character? How come they're condemned for wanting to preserve something THEY think has character?
Fair enough - i don't actually know the church and assumed that it was built in the seventies it must be crap. Maxines is an historical building though and deserves to be preserved - we have such little history here.
     
     
  #4827  
Old Posted Nov 14, 2009, 5:39 PM
Hed Kandi's Avatar
Hed Kandi Hed Kandi is offline
+
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 8,575
..

Last edited by Hed Kandi; Oct 9, 2022 at 11:25 PM.
     
     
  #4828  
Old Posted Nov 14, 2009, 6:22 PM
junius junius is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 72
Love "We". Concerned about the other one. We will see.
     
     
  #4829  
Old Posted Nov 14, 2009, 7:14 PM
SFUVancouver's Avatar
SFUVancouver SFUVancouver is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 6,635
The Maxine's facade is being saved and restored as part of the planned redevelopment. The balance of the building will be demolished to make room for the tower.

In situations where the choices are total demo or facade retention, I'll pick the latter every time. The reality is that few old buildings can be retained and repurposed as it just is not economically feasible. Most of the true architectural losses in this city, the Brinks building and 2nd Hotel Vancouver in particular, happened before our current heritage protection system was introduced to safeguard against similar losses in the future.

I think the system we now have in Vancouver, which includes a heritage density bank, heritage density bonusing, and the hertiage bulding register all work together well to foster a highly functional heritage building preservation and restoration system.

Over the last ten to fifteen years the number of heritage building restorations has been staggering. Just off the top of my head:

(In no particular order)
Salt Building
Keefer Lofts
That one across the street from the Jack Chow Insurance bldg
Wing Sang Building
Woodwards Bdlg
Paris Block
Flack Block
YMCA on Burrard
Roundhouse Community Centre
A good chunk of Yaletown (easily a dozen)
A good chunk of Gastown (easily a dozen)
Scotiabank on Granville at Davie
Christchurch Cathedral
Stanley Theatre
VGH Nurse's residence
The two heritage buildings below Jameson House
Bowman Lofts
The one beside Bowman Lofts

I am sure there are many more, not to mention the hundreds of heritage houses that have been renovated and restored through the heritage home program.
__________________
VANCOUVER | Beautiful, Multicultural | Canada's Pacific Metropolis

Last edited by SFUVancouver; Nov 14, 2009 at 7:29 PM.
     
     
  #4830  
Old Posted Nov 15, 2009, 10:23 PM
jlousa's Avatar
jlousa jlousa is offline
Ferris Wheel Hater
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 8,371
Update on the Boulder Hotel/Pig and Whistle project. Looks like they will try again but this time as a market rental. While better then SROs and sorely needed across the city I would've preferred them to go with condos in this location, a decent number of them would end up on the rental market anyways. Can't tell by the application but hopefully Boneta is able to remain, although I doubt it.

Quote:
THAT Council approve an SRA Conversion Permit in accordance with the Single Room Accommodation By-law to allow the conversion of the 22 designated rooms at the Boulder Hotel (1-9 West Cordova Street) by the rehabilitation of the building and a building on an adjoining property to 38 rental housing units subject to:

o the development permit (DE410844) being issuable; and
o the owner entering into a Housing Agreement with the City, to the satisfaction of Director of Legal Services in consultation with the Managing Director of Social Development, that:
1. restricts the tenure of such housing to rental housing only for the longer of the life of the building in which it is situate
and 60 years; and
2. prohibits stratification of the residential portion of the property.
Quote:
Initial Development Permit Application

The applicant first approached City staff to discuss the heritage and SRA components of theBoulder Hotel in 2005. The SRA Permit application for the Boulder Hotel was submitted by the applicant in 2006. The details of the development application and heritage implications took time to finalize because of the complexities of the project which included:

o combining the site with the neighbouring “Pig & Whistle” site (combined address being 265 Carrall Street),
o revitalization of a City-designated heritage building (category “B”),
o the form of development, and
o parking challenges.

An SRA Permit, a Heritage Revitalization Agreement (HRA), and two façade grants totaling $100,000 for the Boulder Hotel were approved by Council on February 12, 2008 as part of a project to construct 23 stratified market condo units. The HRA by-law was enacted on SRA Conversion Permit for 265 Carrall Street (Boulder Hotel)

October 28, 2008 and the HRA is registered on title with transferable density of 61,825 square feet.

The condition of approval for the issuance of the SRA Permit included the owner making a payment to the replacement housing reserve fund. This payment was never made and subsequently the SRA Permit application lapsed. The applicant could not proceed with the project as planned because of the general market downturn and the impact on the development industry.

Modified Development Permit Application

At this time, the applicant wants to proceed with the development of 38 rental housing units as part of the STIR program, instead of 23 market condos as originally proposed. The STIR program responds to the shortage for rental housing by encouraging the development of market rental housing. The size of the proposed housing units ranges from 500 to 960 square
feet.

Real Estate Services have reviewed the new pro forma documentation for this modified development permit application and concluded that it produced similar results as the original pro forma. Staff are satisfied that the transferable heritage bonus density provided for in the HRA registered on title remains appropriate for this revised project.

DISCUSSION

The Boulder Hotel, located at 1-9 W. Cordova, is a 3-storey stone–faced commercial building located in the historic district of Gastown (HA-2) on the north west corner of West Cordova and Carrall Street, see Figure 1 below. The first two stories of this municipally designated building (category “B”) were constructed in 1890 with the third story being added prior to 1910. It served as a residential hotel with 22 sleeping units until it was closed in 1978. On the ground floor is an existing restaurant with a 180-seat liquor license. The applicant, King Tiger Investments Ltd., purchased the building in 2005.
The approved development application (DE410844) for this site includes:

o two properties - the former Pig & Whistle Pub and the Boulder Hotel,
o 61,825 square feet of heritage bonus density,
o two façade grants for a total of $100,000,
o 3 retail units at grade,
o 23 stratified market condos over the two sites (combined address of 265 Carrall St.), and
o underground parking.

The modified development proposal, under the STIR program, is similar to the former development proposal in terms of properties included, amount of heritage bonus density and façade grants. It differs in terms of:

o 4 retail units at grade,
o 38 rental housing units over the two sites, and
o no parking spaces.

The heritage conservation plan proposed and approved in 2008 for this heritage building remains the same. The initial heritage density transfer is still appropriate and no additional density or heritage density transfer is requested.

This project has undergone rigorous review by staff from Planning, Heritage, Engineering Services, Real Estate Services and Social Development. Over the past 18 months there have been several attempts to revive this project as a viable development. There are several public objectives that can be achieved including:

o rehabilitating the heritage building and fostering economic activity in the historic area,
o re-animating the site with the renovation of the Boulder Hotel,
o intensifying commercial uses at the ground level in the historic area,
o renewing non-functional residential uses,
o increasing the supply of market rental housing in DTES, and
o supporting the Carrall Street Greenway.
Source:
http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20091119/documents/penv2.pdf

Last edited by jlousa; Nov 15, 2009 at 10:34 PM.
     
     
  #4831  
Old Posted Nov 15, 2009, 10:54 PM
duener duener is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: YVR>LHR>YUL
Posts: 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlousa View Post
I would've preferred them to go with condos in this location, a decent number of them would end up on the rental market anyways.
I've wondered about the condos vs. rentals issue given that lately the city seems to be pushing the latter. It would be interesting for someone to figure out how many condos end up as rentals.

On the surface it seems like investors are buying high priced condos and renting them out at market rates, thereby increasing the rental stock. Rental rates haven't skyrocketed like property prices have in the last decade. So it seems to be the investors who are absorbing the difference regardless of policy decisions.
     
     
  #4832  
Old Posted Nov 16, 2009, 2:14 AM
Architype's Avatar
Architype Architype is offline
♒︎ verified human
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: 🍁 Canada
Posts: 13,969
Quote:
Originally Posted by duener View Post
I've wondered about the condos vs. rentals issue given that lately the city seems to be pushing the latter. It would be interesting for someone to figure out how many condos end up as rentals.

On the surface it seems like investors are buying high priced condos and renting them out at market rates, thereby increasing the rental stock. Rental rates haven't skyrocketed like property prices have in the last decade. So it seems to be the investors who are absorbing the difference regardless of policy decisions.
I can't vouch for the accuracy, but here is some info that might help give some idea about that and other questions. However, it falls short of providing a real answer, as no actual figure is given, but it states that "The majority of condos are not occupied by the property owner".

Quote:
The Empty Condo

There is a popular belief that many of the downtown condos are empty with offshore owners. A study by BTAworks, which you can read about here, finds that between 5.5 to 8 percent of the condos covered in their study were unoccupied. It also that many of the units not occupied by their owners were rented out.

In addition to an estimate on empty condos, the study found that:

* Condo ownership is a relatively new form of housing for Vancouver. Over 88 percent of condo units in Downtown Vancouver have been built since 1990.
* Less than 40 percent of downtown condos have more than one bedroom.
* The majority of condos are not occupied by the property owner.
* The majority of non-owner occupied condos are owned by BC residents, with a scattering of foreign owners, predominately from the western US states such as California, Washington, and Arizona.
* Owner-occupied units are typically worth $30,000 to $40,000 more than non-owner occupied units, and the more bedrooms the unit has, the more likely it is to be owner occupied.
* A family with one child in the City of Vancouver earning the median income of $75,000 a year would have great difficulty in finding and paying for a condo bigger than one bedroom, even if condo prices were to fall 25 percent below 2008 assessment levels.
Source:
http://www.tenants.bc.ca/main/?condostrata
http://www.btaworks.com/?p=148
     
     
  #4833  
Old Posted Nov 16, 2009, 2:18 AM
Rusty Gull's Avatar
Rusty Gull Rusty Gull is offline
Site 8 Lives
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Vancouver's North Shore
Posts: 1,285
^That study has been widely discredited, especially at the Jurock.com real estate forum. But apologists for the city's development policy sure loved it.
     
     
  #4834  
Old Posted Nov 16, 2009, 2:33 AM
Architype's Avatar
Architype Architype is offline
♒︎ verified human
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: 🍁 Canada
Posts: 13,969
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rusty Gull View Post
^That study has been widely discredited, especially at the Jurock.com real estate forum. But apologists for the city's development policy sure loved it.
Like I said, I couldn't be sure of it's legitimacy, but just came across it and found it to be interesting.

In which way is it thought to be inaccurate ?
     
     
  #4835  
Old Posted Nov 16, 2009, 5:48 AM
hrhsheba hrhsheba is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Architype View Post
Like I said, I couldn't be sure of it's legitimacy, but just came across it and found it to be interesting.

In which way is it thought to be inaccurate ?
This is in no way statistically accurate, just my own observation - I live very close to a condo tower downtown that was built 10 or 12 years ago. I walk by it at least four times a day and have a clear view of two sides of it from my windows. I have never (and I mean never) seen more than 25% of the windows lit in all the years that the building has been there. I have a friend that lives in that building and she owns the only occupied suite on her floor - the rest are completely empty and have been that way for the five years that she's lived there. I would find it hard to believe that this is entirely an anomaly.
     
     
  #4836  
Old Posted Nov 16, 2009, 6:34 AM
gillty gillty is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Hyogo, Japan / Vancouver
Posts: 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeeCee View Post
IMO as a suburbanite - anything on the peninsula is Downtown Vancouver. Anything else in Vancouver is just Vancouver.
As a resident of long time resident of East Vancouver and new resident of Burnaby, I'd go furthur.

the peninsula = Downtown

then you have "Vancouver"
East Van (including main), West Side (west of Main), and "UBC"

this is the first time i've heard of city hall being downtown
     
     
  #4837  
Old Posted Nov 16, 2009, 9:00 AM
jsbertram jsbertram is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,245
Quote:
Originally Posted by Delirium View Post
thanks for posting! those chandeliers look cool.

two more public art installations went up recently;

1) "WE" by Jaume Plensa, from Barcelona. The letters that form the seated figure represent 8 different alphabets.

...

2) Water #7 by Chinese artist Jun Ren is being exhibited in Vanier Park. it is 90ft long. the wrap should come off soon..

photo by HereinVancouver on flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/danfairchildphotography/sets/72157622640134189/
I'm wondering if the seagull dropped its comment already, or is waiting for the final reveal.
     
     
  #4838  
Old Posted Nov 16, 2009, 9:05 AM
BCPhil BCPhil is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Surrey
Posts: 2,578
Yeah, I would say City hall isn't downtown, but it's in the core.

I would say "Downtown Vancouver" is the peninsula. "The Core" is the urban part of Vancouver including Kits, South Granville, Fairview, Pleasant Hill, the DTES and downtown. It's sort of a bit backwards as you would think the core would be smaller, but the core is sort of old Vancouver.
     
     
  #4839  
Old Posted Nov 16, 2009, 3:38 PM
WarrenC12's Avatar
WarrenC12 WarrenC12 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: East OV!
Posts: 24,512
Quote:
Originally Posted by hrhsheba View Post
This is in no way statistically accurate, just my own observation - I live very close to a condo tower downtown that was built 10 or 12 years ago. I walk by it at least four times a day and have a clear view of two sides of it from my windows. I have never (and I mean never) seen more than 25% of the windows lit in all the years that the building has been there. I have a friend that lives in that building and she owns the only occupied suite on her floor - the rest are completely empty and have been that way for the five years that she's lived there. I would find it hard to believe that this is entirely an anomaly.
Don't take the lights out thing too seriously. I know at least one building that is near 100% full and it looks just like the rest of them, party lit up, etc.

Locals are the vast majority of owners in these condos. Not many people can afford to leave places vacant like that, essentially huge assets just sitting there. It's a big waste of money.
     
     
  #4840  
Old Posted Nov 16, 2009, 6:11 PM
djh djh is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,976
Another way of looking at the debate on if a high-end condo is occupied or not is this: Wealthy people are unlikely to be sitting at home watching telly at 8pm like the masses. They're possibly at various functions, recreational activities, on their yachts, at high-end restaurants, the opera, theatre, etc. They may just use their condos to sleep and change, or as a base for when they are going from point A to point B. So, when you walk by in the evening, the odds are you won't see their lights on.
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Closed Thread

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Downtown & City of Vancouver
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 7:20 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.