Downtown Vancouver Updates

[wrenegade]

I agree that perhaps the building was a bit too small for the site, but I disagree that "the lack of retail was unconscionable," especially on Helmcken itself. Between Yaletown (Homer St) and Burrard approximately only half the buildings have retail on Helmcken including newer buildings. It is not a major traffic street (I believe one of the only ones downtown) and the base of every single building doesn't need to be retail, especially if it just ends up being nail salons, hair dressers, pizza places and shitty little convenience stores. The location might have been a bit off for a project that was priced like it was, but if it can sell, then why not? I absolutely loved the architecture and was really looking forward to seeing it being built. All is not lost, there is a slight chance Schouw could buy the site back himself and perhaps rescue the project and it's presales. It had almost made its way through the DP process. I can't imagine anyone else buying project and using the same plan though.

[flight_from_kamakura]

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

While I'm never glad to see a project founder, let alone fail, I do not feel that the loss of Artemesia is going to be mourned. It was much, much too low a building for its site and location downtown and the lack of any retail at grade was unconscionable. I appreciate that it was supposed to be an elegant mid-rise building comparable in scale to the first phase of Grace but in my opinion the location was all wrong. Hopefully the buyer of the site will bring a tower to market, and perhaps if there is a viewcone restriction a stubby tower like Alto at Davie and Howe would suffice.

agreed 100%. far too low, bizarre (unconscionable! hah!) relationship with surroundings, and something better will come up. i actually hated the look of that building, like the thing would actually have been embarrassing to the city, the sort of thing where you'd spot it while walking past and then later on awaken in the dawn's early hours with a sense of vertigo at the thought of it. and the idea of such a waste of buildable space, especially considering how little we need the sort of lunatic pastiche luxe development this schouw joker was offering, squarely slots this news into the "good" column.

[officedweller]

Add me to the list thinking that Artemisia was too small for a valuable downtown site - which is only constrained by the QE Park view cone (see red square below).


Uploaded with ImageShack.us

[djh]

Originally Posted by awvan

Yes, I'm sure.

In other (disappointing) news, James Schouw's Artimesia project is dead. Or at least mostly dead. Site is being disposed of by court ordered sale.

What does that bit really mean? Was it owned by Schow/his development company? If so, that doesn't bode very well for his/their financial condition. But if the property's not owned by him/them, who owned it, and why is it a court-ordered sale? I thought they pretty much worked independently and self-funded all of their projects?

[Conrad]

Originally Posted by awvan

I agree that perhaps the building was a bit too small for the site, but I disagree that "the lack of retail was unconscionable," especially on Helmcken itself. Between Yaletown (Homer St) and Burrard approximately only half the buildings have retail on Helmcken including newer buildings. It is not a major traffic street (I believe one of the only ones downtown) and the base of every single building doesn't need to be retail, especially if it just ends up being nail salons, hair dressers, pizza places and shitty little convenience stores. The location might have been a bit off for a project that was priced like it was, but if it can sell, then why not? I absolutely loved the architecture and was really looking forward to seeing it being built. All is not lost, there is a slight chance Schouw could buy the site back himself and perhaps rescue the project and it's presales. It had almost made its way through the DP process. I can't imagine anyone else buying project and using the same plan though.

It was a bad fit for the area – which is more befitting of nail salons and shitty convenience stores anyway. Besides, who'd want to pay a premium to live across from the Murray hotel? And frankly I thought the design was ghastly, it looked like a glorified funeral home. Good riddance.

[SpongeG]

but isn't there also a rule that you can't have four towers on one intersection?

[jlousa]

No such rule about too many towers on an intersection. I can think of plenty of intersections that prove the nonexistence. I wasn't a big fan of the proposed design, but I do agree that it wasn't due to lack of retail. Street fronting townhouses are great and better then lackluster retail which is becoming too commonplace.
The Murray Hotel isn't expected to remain as is it for long either.

[dleung]

i don't mind street-fronting townhouses downtown, but not on major throughfares into downtown like Seymour st, which is turning really suburban...

[hollywoodnorth]

looks like the site for http://www.thaliavancouver.com/ is DOA also ..... hmmmms

[wrenegade]

Originally Posted by djh

[/B]
What does that bit really mean? Was it owned by Schow/his development company? If so, that doesn't bode very well for his/their financial condition. But if the property's not owned by him/them, who owned it, and why is it a court-ordered sale? I thought they pretty much worked independently and self-funded all of their projects?

Couldn't tell you. Someone has foreclosed on the property and the court has ordered it go to auction for sale. The brochure came across my desk, I'm just passing on the news. I am surprised so many people here hated the design. I can understand the height thing, but in a city filled with concrete, steel, spandrel and green glass, it is extremely refreshing to see something different. Really different.

[officedweller]

For me, it wasn't the design per se, just the siting and use of the site.
It would fit in well in the West End or the Westside, but not in the CBD shoulder.

[SFUVancouver]

With regard to retail, I think that the live/work townhouses on The Canadian, across the street to the north of the subject site, would have been a model to follow if conventional retail units were incompatible with the design of the building.

[vanman]

Took these pics tonight with my iphone. Quality sucks but they're decent enough to post.

The new (supposedly inadequate) flight center taking shape.


Jameson with interior lights actually on.


3HG


Also looks like some wooden spheres are hanging from the ceiling inside the west side of the new CC.

[Hed Kandi]

..

[jlousa]

I edited the above post, if anyone is interested in seeing the above updated thread they are more then welcome to follow the link to it. There isn't the need to repost all that info again into this thread. Cheers.

[vanman]

The Mark excavation looks like its wrapped up:

[SFUVancouver]

^ Great photos Vanman. I've posted the second photo, with quotes and sourcing, in the Social Housing in Vancouver thread.

[vanman]

^Thanks. It was taken from a buddy's house, he's got an awesome view........that is until the Mark is complete haha.

[jlousa]

Looks like the UDP liked the proposal for 720 Robson St.

. 720 Robson Street
DE: 414406
Use: To develop a 5-storey building with a 2-storey retail and three storeys of office space above grade. Two levels of underground parking to be maintained and restored.
Zoning: DD
Application Status: Complete
Review: First
Architect: Musson Cattell Mackey Partnership
Owner: Vancouver & Shanghai Land
Delegation:
Mark Thompson, Musson Cattell Mackey Partnership
Mark Whitehead, Musson Cattell Mackey Partnership
Margot Long PWL Partnership Landscape Architects
Robert Lemon, Robert Lemon Architects
Staff: Sailen Black and James Boldt
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (9-0)

I wasn't aware of the complete history of the site.

817-819 Granville Street – ‘The Power Block’
(Project Address: 720 Robson Street)
VHR “B” (Designated Façade)
DE#414406
The development application proposes to construct a five storey building with two storey of retail and three storeys of office space above grade and two levels of underground parking. The Art Deco façade at 817-819 Granville Street is listed in the “B” category and is protected by a Designation By-law (circa 1976) and therefore must be retained. The structure behind the facade is not protected. The application meets the provisions of the Downtown District Official Development Plan and no incentives or bonuses are applicable or being sought.
“The Power Block” dates to 1888 and was originally constructed as a saloon for Captain William Power. The building was altered in 1911 but the current façade dates to 1929 when the notable architectural firm of Townley and Matheson renovated the building for the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (the building is often referred to by this name). The façade is an excellent example of the Art Deco style and is clad almost entirely in terra cotta elements. The terra cotta details include expressive Egyptian motifs with rich colouring, fluted columns, and an articulated parapet. The upper windows have been replaced but the lower windows may be original. The Director of Planning has required that a Conservation Plan, which will form a part of the final approval documents, be included in the submission.
The building on the corner of Robson and Granville Streets (712 Robson Street) is not listed on the Vancouver Heritage Register. The building has been identified as having potential heritage merit (b. 1922). The Director of Planning has required that the applicant explore the viability of retaining the building, including the possibility of an Heritage Revitalization Agreement. The applicant has concluded that there is no feasible option to retain the corner building and it is proposed to be demolished. Staff are not pursuing the addition of the building to the Heritage Register at this point in time but the Director of Planning has instructed staff to present the issue to the Commission for comments. The applicant will explain the challenges and issues with respect to the retention of this building.
Issues:
(i) Statement of Significance and Conservation Plan for the 817 Granville Street Art Deco facade;
(ii) Design of the new building with respect to the heritage character of 817 Granville Street; and
(iii) Proposed demolition of the building at 712 Robson Street.

[LeftCoaster]

So the develiopment in question relates to both the building on the corner with Granville optical and the adjacent "Power Block" building, which is to have the facade retained?

I hope the Granville optical building is not having the facade retained as well, I know we have to fight hard to keep heritage buildings in this city, but some are just not worth saving.