The Ultimate Vancouver Rumour Thread!

[phesto]

Originally Posted by officedweller

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

1133 Melville was purchased by Oxford Properties earlier this year. They would stand to benefit greatly if the height limit was relaxed there.

[officedweller]

Thanks - forgot who it was.
So that's 2 potential projects for Oxford - 1021 Hastings (University Club) and this one. Makes me think the Melville site would be built later.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

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.

...

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.

WRT 1090 - There's no other building in downtown that looks as sleek with the horizontal banding. It's a bit like the Citibank Building in Toronto near Union Station (which some people don't like either).

That Chanel building is the former Bank of Canada Building.

[dleung]

Yeah I was referring to 900 W Hastings, which thankfully turns out to be a heritage building, so it'll never be torn town. I like cities with layers and depth to its architecture, and am therefore in favor of tearing down only buildings that are actually ugly. As to the future of the short towers on Georgia Street (Burrard, Grovesnor, 1090), here's my vision of what should happen:



The short towers become architecturally-separate podiums for taller towers. Perhaps a small chunk of the existing floorplates will be demolished to fit in a elevator core for the taller tower. Only issue here is parking, but I'm banking on the fact that by that time everyone will take transit. Isn't everything so much easier without cars? =)

PS, I added a few other buildings in the background, and made the royal bank tower look a little more deadly...

[officedweller]

Based on Shangri-La (and even Terasen Gas) I think that you might see a longer podium in order to accumulate enough density to go really tall - especially if the owner owns the entire block rather than transferring density (which is capped at what, 10%?) to the site. That would probably be "worse" for the streetscape in an urban sense.

[phesto]

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?

Do you think the City will allow higher than 600 ft height limit on Georgia (ie. Ritz/Carlton site)? It seems like with only a handful of non-view corridor tower sites left, the height limit becomes somewhat of an arbitrary number.

[officedweller]

Maybe, if the City starts to realize the reality of the view cone limitations on the higher buildings policy and the downtown, and given that it did, in essence, reaffirm those view cones last year.

I think that the problem with the Ritz-Carlton site is that it's a small site, so just building something very tall and very skinny may be pushing the envelope. If they consolidated the site with the Terasen Gas Building, they could probably add more amenities to the site and leverage more density bonusing out of the City. The classic example of density bonusing being the Capitol.

[wrenegade]

I believe there are shadow restrictions on Robson street so nothing immediately to the South of Robson (from Burrard west) will have anything substantial built there.

The cost of retrofitting buildings with new elevator cores has to be astronomical. Not to mention structural issues to deal with the weight or parking (as you mentioned). The only building worth saving is the Grosvenor I think. The tin can (1090 West Georgia) is absolutely awful.

[Metro-One]

Are you guys serious? You don't like 1090 West Georgia? I don't think there is a single building on West Georgia that I don't like, yes a few of them are short but they are a lot more varied and interesting in design than the hundreds of carbon copy residential towers that have sprung up over the last decade.

I think with 1090, the Golden office tower beside it, the Concrete Waffle, the Royal Centre, the blue building opposite of the Shangri-La, etc... make one of the most interesting street views in Vancouver. All the buildings are different designs! (height, colour, texture, etc...) It makes it feel like a true, organically grown city street (of commerce I may add as well).

I personally would bulldoze the new Capitol Residence building before any of these to make way for a new tower.

[phesto]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Maybe, if the City starts to realize the reality of the view cone limitations on the higher buildings policy and the downtown, and given that it did, in essence, reaffirm those view cones last year.

From what I've heard from reliable sources, the 600' discretionary height limit zone will be increased to 700'.

So since the view corridors will remain intact, the only realistically developable site at the new 700' height would be the Burrard Building site, which is what we'll likely see in the Open house materials.

The CBD shoulder zone (ie. Melville) will go from 400' to 550'.

ps. one thing you guys have to keep in mind is that under current policy, you can't build residential on any of these West Georgia sites you're talking about, only commercial. For a developer to demolish a fully functional office building and replace it with....another office building, even if it's larger, is a very difficult proposition in any city, let alone Vancouver. I think we'll see Burrard Building go, but not the others.

[sacrifice333]

^Any idea if that were to be true if it would allow 'Vancouver's Turn' to increase to 700'?!

That would be awesome!!!

[officedweller]

Thanks for the info.

It would be interesting if the Ritz Carlton site is allowed to go to 700 ft - but remember that there is a view cone that flanks the site (same one that forces Shangri-La to cut to a triangular floorplate) and the building design twists so that the upper storeys angle or lean outside the view cone.
I'm not sure if the building would twist back into the view cone if it were allowed to twist for another 100ft.

[Metro-One]

Or maybe encroaching a few meters into a view cone with something architecturally stunning may even improve upon a view corridor and it should not be seen as such a big deal.....

I don't know, to me keeping the streets and parks clean of garbage and graffiti, removing dumpsters from the alleys and ensuring that stores keep their facades clean and presentable are all far more beneficial to the feel / health of a city than spending sooo much energy and time on these view cones. Yes, they deserve some attention, but it would be nice for them to be relaxed somewhat... Then some of the wasted time and energy spent on these frivolous regulations could be spent on improving the conditions of the prior.....

[SpongeG]

with all the view cone talk - is there a possibility a 600 or 700 footer could be built say the broadway corridor? or are heights limited there?

[officedweller]

Non-starter - there's a view cone from QE Park.

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by officedweller

It would be interesting if the Ritz Carlton site is allowed to go to 700 ft - but remember that there is a view cone that flanks the site (same one that forces Shangri-La to cut to a triangular floorplate) and the building design twists so that the upper storeys angle or lean outside the view cone.

That's silly. The view cone should be eliminated for that project and the structure should be moved over and expanded in scope to take over that dinky office building next to the current site to add to the visual value of an already great design. To compensate for the loss of office space, the structure could add an office component that would see the overall height increase to the 700' range. A project this good shouldn't be sandwiched in between to other buildings on one city block.

[SpongeG]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Non-starter - there's a view cone from QE Park.

ah oh well

time to move to a real city i guess

[p78hub]

isn't the view from QE park mostly blocked by trees anyway?

[dleung]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Based on Shangri-La (and even Terasen Gas) I think that you might see a longer podium in order to accumulate enough density to go really tall - especially if the owner owns the entire block rather than transferring density (which is capped at what, 10%?) to the site. That would probably be "worse" for the streetscape in an urban sense.

I hate podiums let alone long ones! If I were planner I would limit the maximum size of development plots. My render is of what should be, not what might result from adhering to current bylaws.

[SpikePhanta]

Originally Posted by p78hub

isn't the view from QE park mostly blocked by trees anyway?

I think they'll be trimming many trees.

Originally Posted by dleung

I hate podiums let alone long ones! If I were planner I would limit the maximum size of development plots. My render is of what should be, not what might result from adhering to current bylaws.

You hate a lot of things (Not flaming you btw)