The Ultimate Vancouver Rumour Thread!

[VancouverguyDowntown]

I've become curious about a significant height increase for the site at 755 Burrard Street. I know its current height limit is 300' and has a density limitation of 7.0 with 6.0 office space, but at the same time it could be amalgamated with the adjacent Aldeasa/Brooks Bros. building to create a good-sized development site. If a developer proposed a significantly-office-space project (possibly with residential at the very top), I wonder if the city would give in and give a 700'+ allowance?

755 Burrard was originally supposed to be a 'temporary' development, to be torn down for a larger building. Then Japanese shopping habits changed and the real estate market changed. One never knows, I suppose.

Today I walked past 1030 W. Georgia and had a similar feeling, though it's currently a perfectly-usable office building with fairly decent density.

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by jlousa

As per what is on the citys radar there isn't anything that matches either.

Interesting to see that one of the dots is on Pattison Toyota. He's apparently consolidated most of the developable lots on that block (Drake / Burrard / Hornby), and may be ready about to reveal a two-tower proposal. I think this will be held back until the 'significant height increases' proposals are worked through.

[golog]

• Vacant lot north of Pacific Central Station (Bus/Train).
bounded by Station St, Prior St, Malkin Ave, Thornton St, and National Ave
- falls into a gap between viewcones
- ~1200ft x 875ft incl. a few buildings
- near a skytrain station, as well as train and bus (densification goal)
- near to the east side (helped get Woodward's redevelopment through)
- it feels like it fit well with the waves of development in general

As for losing something if it does not go ahead, I can only guess that it's a mining corporation and one that wants a lots of contiguous grade A floorspace.

As an alternate site of sufficient size, there is a huge parking lot behind the Molson brewery and Seaforth Armory that is underused.

[peters]

Proposed Application: Reliance Properties Ltd. and Jim Pattison Developments Ltd. are seeking to rezone 1252 to 1290 Burrard Street and 1229 to 1281 Hornby Street from DD (Downtown District) to CD-1 (Comprehensive Development) District. The proposal is for a 3-storey automotive dealership, 13-storey office building, and 2-storey retail building along Burrard Street, and two commercial and residential towers of 48 and 36 storeys with a 7-storey commercial and residential podium along Hornby Street. The proposal also includes a number of public amenities. The rezoning would increase the permitted density from a maximum floor space ratio (FSR) of 5.50 to 11.36. A maximum height of 466’ for the 48 storey tower is proposed.

[jlousa]

I'm surprised to see a formal application already in place, mind you by the time it works it's way thru the system and construction were to actually start.

Can we expect to see a Nesters/Urban Fare or perhaps even a PriceSmart included in the development?

[PaperTiger]

Originally Posted by golog

• Vacant lot north of Pacific Central Station (Bus/Train).
bounded by Station St, Prior St, Malkin Ave, Thornton St, and National Ave
- falls into a gap between viewcones
- ~1200ft x 875ft incl. a few buildings
- near a skytrain station, as well as train and bus (densification goal)
- near to the east side (helped get Woodward's redevelopment through)
- it feels like it fit well with the waves of development in general

As for losing something if it does not go ahead, I can only guess that it's a mining corporation and one that wants a lots of contiguous grade A floorspace.

As an alternate site of sufficient size, there is a huge parking lot behind the Molson brewery and Seaforth Armory that is underused.

Good guess, only the thing that we woud be losing woud be the new st. pauls hospital.

[golog]

Originally Posted by PaperTiger

Good guess, only the thing that we woud be losing woud be the new st. pauls hospital.

Thanks for pointing that out, I had thought the new St Paul's was to be somewhere south.

With the site being ~1 million sq ft, and jlousa's assumption of 10 fsr -- perhaps there is room for these 2 towers and a new hospital? If possible, I think that would make approving the new development even more likely

Maybe the "something to lose" hint was at losing old St Paul's downtown, and that this hypothetical project provides enough funds to keep the old hospital and establish a new hospital with better surgical facilities?

In the couple news stories I pulled up from 2005 and 2007, the downtown hospital site was to be largely sold off in order to fund a new hospital in the false creek flats. There were some upset people, news died away, then developers/banks paused just about everything. Timing seems plausible to me.

The site is at a lower elevation so you could build a taller tower while having less of an impact on the skyline. For all the residential developments around the false creek area, there might be a backlogged quota of office space/jobs to replace the former industrial operations.

Great Northern Way and the Broadway Tech Centre (Broadway and Renfrew business park) never really took off as initially hoped... maybe linking the office/jobs zones of downtown with Broadway would have better success. Add the overdue grade separated transit line along Broadway and maybe this will be the direction the city goes in for the next 20 years, fulfilling the plans of the last 20.

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by jlousa

As per what is on the citys radar there isn't anything that matches either.

I saw the ad earlier in the week for these open houses.
I think this is for revising the view space of certain Downtown blocks to get significantly higher buildings.

Open Houses:
Sat 23rd at Central Library
Tues 26th at Pacific Centre Rotunda
Wed 27th at Roundhouse Community Centre

from:
http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/plannin...y/feedback.htm

http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/plannin...dlocations.pdf

[Locked In]

Originally Posted by peters

Proposed Application: Reliance Properties Ltd. and Jim Pattison Developments Ltd. are seeking to rezone 1252 to 1290 Burrard Street and 1229 to 1281 Hornby Street from DD (Downtown District) to CD-1 (Comprehensive Development) District. The proposal is for a 3-storey automotive dealership, 13-storey office building, and 2-storey retail building along Burrard Street, and two commercial and residential towers of 48 and 36 storeys with a 7-storey commercial and residential podium along Hornby Street. The proposal also includes a number of public amenities. The rezoning would increase the permitted density from a maximum floor space ratio (FSR) of 5.50 to 11.36. A maximum height of 466’ for the 48 storey tower is proposed.

Thanks. What's the square footage of the site? FSR of 11+ must work out to a massive development.

[officedweller]

Good (but a bit odd) to see that the main oval lines up with the area where there aren't any view cones and most of which already lies under the Higher Buildings Policy Zone.
Note that Erickson's 1075 West Georgia lies at the heart of that oval, as does the relatively new Terasen Gas Building (which I think has common ownership with the former Ritz-Carlton site) - so that would be a prime development site if the owner is gutsy enough to demolish Terasen.
The sites on Melville under the Higher Buildings Policy go to about 400 ft as the "higher limit" - so maybe that's the limit that will be increased (as opposed to increasing the the 600 ft limit on Georgia).
The 755 Burrard site would be a great site for a taller building. Technically, it is across the street from the "higher buildings policy zone" but it does meet the requirement of having frontage on a major street and lies within the area with no view cones - so that would be an "increase" too.

Refresher in the Higher Buildings Policy map - I've superimposed a rough estimate of the oval (above) onto the map.
Note the area marked "No View Cone Restrictions" and how the oval covers part of the 400ft Higher Buildings Area.


Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Originally Posted by peters

Proposed Application: Reliance Properties Ltd. and Jim Pattison Developments Ltd. are seeking to rezone 1252 to 1290 Burrard Street and 1229 to 1281 Hornby Street from DD (Downtown District) to CD-1 (Comprehensive Development) District. The proposal is for a 3-storey automotive dealership, 13-storey office building, and 2-storey retail building along Burrard Street, and two commercial and residential towers of 48 and 36 storeys with a 7-storey commercial and residential podium along Hornby Street. The proposal also includes a number of public amenities. The rezoning would increase the permitted density from a maximum floor space ratio (FSR) of 5.50 to 11.36. A maximum height of 466’ for the 48 storey tower is proposed.

Thanks.
That's probably why the City moved the separated bike lane to the south side of Drake - all of the public consultation had it on the north (Pattison) side of Drake. The shift has the residents of Anchor Point condos up in arms because it eliminates the loading zone on Drake in front of their building (i.e. for moving in and moving out).

[phesto]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Good (but a bit odd) to see that the main oval lines up with the area where there aren't any view cones and most of which already lies under the Higher Buildings Policy Zone.
Note that Erickson's 1075 West Georgia lies at the heart of that oval, as does the relatively new Terasen Gas Building (which I think has common ownership with the former Ritz-Carlton site) - so that would be a prime development site if the owner is gutsy enough to demolish Terasen.
The sites on Melville under the Higher Buildings Policy go to about 400 ft as the "higher limit" - so maybe that's the limit that will be increased (as opposed to increasing the the 600 ft limit on Georgia).
The 755 Burrard site would be a great site for a taller building. Technically, it is across the street from the "higher buildings policy zone" but it does meet the requirement of having frontage on a major street and lies within the area with no view cones - so that would be an "increase" too.

I'm curious as to why it covers that area as well (the area already identified by the General Policy for Higher Buildings). Is the intent to allow buildings higher than 600 ft. where there are no view cones now? ie. The Ritz site?

755 Burrard/1028 Alberni would be a great site. Unfortunately, both are strata-titled buildings that won't likely be redeveloped for a long time.

[hollywoodnorth]

Originally Posted by jlousa

I'm surprised to see a formal application already in place, mind you by the time it works it's way thru the system and construction were to actually start.

Can we expect to see a Nesters/Urban Fare or perhaps even a PriceSmart included in the development?

I was under the impression it would be a Save-On Foods and a Best-Buy as anchors.

[hollywoodnorth]

Originally Posted by golog

Thanks for pointing that out, I had thought the new St Paul's was to be somewhere south.

With the site being ~1 million sq ft, and jlousa's assumption of 10 fsr -- perhaps there is room for these 2 towers and a new hospital? If possible, I think that would make approving the new development even more likely

Maybe the "something to lose" hint was at losing old St Paul's downtown, and that this hypothetical project provides enough funds to keep the old hospital and establish a new hospital with better surgical facilities?.

I could easily see them working together. More than enough room

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by phesto

I'm curious as to why it covers that area as well (the area already identified by the General Policy for Higher Buildings). Is the intent to allow buildings higher than 600 ft. where there are no view cones now? ie. The Ritz site?

The sites that come to mind are:

Likely sites:
Former Ritz-Carlton site -> higher than 600ft?
"Amacon" site (new owner?) -> higher than 400ft?

Longshot/longterm sites:
(Burrard Building (1040), Grosvenor Building (1060) and 1090 West Georgia)-> higher than 600ft?

Given that the oval reaches Hastings (and encompasses Pender & Bute):
Uniglobe site (Pender & Bute) (what happened to the project that was supposed to be east of this building?) -> higher than DD zoning(?)
East Asiatic House (Pender & Bute, but small site) -> higher than DD zoning(?)

[SpikePhanta]

Originally Posted by officedweller

The sites that come to mind are:

Likely sites:
Former Ritz-Carlton site -> higher than 600ft?
"Amacon" site (new owner?) -> higher than 400ft?

Longshot/longterm sites:
(Burrard Building (1040), Grosvenor Building (1060) and 1090 West Georgia)-> higher than 600ft?

Given that the oval reaches Hastings (and encompasses Pender & Bute):
Uniglobe site (Pender & Bute) (what happened to the project that was supposed to be east of this building?) -> higher than DD zoning(?)
East Asiatic House (Pender & Bute, but small site) -> higher than DD zoning(?)

Is amacon site the building on melville?

Also imagine seeing the whole block of Thurlow- burrard, georgia-alberni being redeveloped.

[dleung]

I really hope they don't demo some of the smaller office towers like grosvenor, 1090 Georgia, Burrard building, East Asiatic House, or the one with the Chanel store. That last 2 have really unique concrete detailing that I rather not see replaced by glass towers. If there's a any way to stack an extra 25-30 floors on top of the existing buildings in a feasible way, that would be cool.

The generous and monumental spacing of towers along Burrard and Georgia is also something to be maintained in the future.

[LeftCoaster]

Well I do agree with you on some of the buildings, I must say I would not be sad to see 1090 w georgia or grosvenor go. Neither of them are particularily unique or have any historical value. It will not likely happen in our lifetimes, but it would be nice to see the two demolished with a large office tower replacing them... utilizing the burrard building's blank western wall.

[officedweller]

The Burrard Building lost its significance when it was re-curtain walled in the early 1990s - the only element that remains is the Lever House-ish podium and slab combination.

Agreed on the concrete detailing of East Asiatic House. The building with Chanel (and Shabusen) was built in the 1980s I think and isn't particularly unique. Or is that the old Chanel location and you're thinking of the old Bank of Canada Building (which is not in the oval area of the map).

1090 West Georgia is actually very sleek/futuristic looking - but it's short.

Grosvenor is classic 1980s granite and reflective glass cladding - but it too is short. (Park Place, HSBC and Grosvenor (and the 1500 Alberni condo) - that's it from the era - maybe 401 West Georgia, but BC Hydro is too post Modern, after that it's glass and steel)

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by SpikePhanta

Is amacon site the building on melville?

Also imagine seeing the whole block of Thurlow- burrard, georgia-alberni being redeveloped.

Yeah, the Amacon site is the parkade building on Melville.

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by officedweller

The Burrard Building lost its significance when it was re-curtain walled in the early 1990s - the only element that remains is the Lever House-ish podium and slab combination.

Agreed on the concrete detailing of East Asiatic House. The building with Chanel (and Shabusen) was built in the 1980s I think and isn't particularly unique. Or is that the old Chanel location and you're thinking of the old Bank of Canada Building (which is not in the oval area of the map).

1090 West Georgia is actually very sleek/futuristic looking - but it's short.

Grosvenor is classic 1980s granite and reflective glass cladding - but it too is short. (Park Place, HSBC and Grosvenor (and the 1500 Alberni condo) - that's it from the era - maybe 401 West Georgia, but BC Hydro is too post Modern, after that it's glass and steel)

I've gotta disagree on 1090, its not even that it's short, it just looks cheap. I dont know if its the materials or if I just have a predisposition against the style but I've never liked it at all.

Grosvenor isnt that bad, in fact its a decent looking tower, but it is just too short and its lack of height is more unforgivable since we have a taller version of it in Park Place.

I actually really like the building Chanel was in, if its the one im thinking about. Really sinister looking brutalist building? Corner of Granville and W Hastings? The building next to it with Brandy's and the Keg I could live without though.

Edit* This one: http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&source=s_...4wAPHun08fpezFGQ&cbp=12,266.12,,0,-36.44