1021 W Hastings | 143M | 36Fl | Completed - Page 11

jlousa · #**201** Posted **Mar 24, 2011, 2:55 AM**

They had a photo blimp onsite today taking view photos. Looks like Oxford will begin heavy marketing for the office space shortly. Think this one might just go ahead of the Bentall proposal at this pace.

Mininari · #**202** Posted **Mar 24, 2011, 3:11 AM**

Great!
And why not? They can offer high-quality, spectacular views, and suites as high as a 36th floor.

The stubby popcorn box can't really compete... except maybe in that its floorplates are bigger.

Dylan Leblanc · #**203** Posted **Mar 24, 2011, 8:04 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Built Form

All pics by Built Form

Here's some more pics of the model for your enjoyment.

Awesome thanks for getting these man!

trofirhen · #**204** Posted **Mar 24, 2011, 9:55 AM**

When construction time comes along, I think this one will grab a lot of attention, and be a very active thread !!

LeftCoaster · #**205** Posted **Mar 24, 2011, 4:38 PM**

Hope this one goes forward, the location is much better than Bentall's proposal, but the building is much less attractive than the large floorplate offering from Bentall. If I was a large anchor tenant I would likely be looking to lease with Bentall as opposed to Oxford, but Vancouver has interesting siezed tenants and Oxford might be able to put together a tenant list not as put off by the less functional building.

Also I'm hoping for some increased height, not from floors as that is very unlikely at this point, but from an exagerated crown. I would be surprised if it actually happens, but the UDP reccomendation has me thinking that this is one of the few buildings where an attractive crown is a definite poissibility. View cones in this city often leave us with buidings building their functional space right up to the allowable height, leaving us with boring roofs and pinnacles, but the unique circumstances in this project, with tiny floorplate office space might finally allow for a building with a sizable and architecturally interesting crown.

dleung · #**206** Posted **Mar 25, 2011, 5:05 AM**

A 100'+ crown like the London Shard would be nice

trofirhen · #**207** Posted **Mar 25, 2011, 9:58 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by dleung

A 100'+ crown like the London Shard would be nice

Indeed it would!! The London Shard is magnificent. However, such an "icy peak," though dramatic, MIGHT be a bit excessive for Vancouver. Then again, maybe not. We are a smaller city, and though London (or Europe) has never seen anything like it, it seems it might be a bit overstated for Vancouver. I'ts just that "point" you seem to wish to see, I know, and not the entire building form! I can certainly dig it, but is that the right height or location? I can see a supertall on the Burrard Building site. That might be a better place for such. Maybe not, though. People can discuss it.

dleung · #**208** Posted **Mar 26, 2011, 5:31 PM**

The current crown is 40 feet. Increasing the building height by 60 feet will make it barely as tall as those fugly proposals at Burrard. For a city with so many natural icy peaks, Vancouver has next to none in terms of architectural gestures.

dleung · #**209** Posted **Mar 26, 2011, 5:48 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Built Form

All pics by Built Form

Here's some more pics of the model for your enjoyment.

I prefer my version:

LeftCoaster · #**210** Posted **Mar 26, 2011, 5:55 PM**

^ Looks better I agree, but that's a lot of lost leasable area...

dleung · #**211** Posted **Mar 26, 2011, 5:59 PM**

It could be as simple as having a low-key/transparent curtain wall set back a couple metres from the facade. Better yet, they fill that space underneath with a 3-level garden. They can bump the lost square footage to an additional floor

trofirhen · #**212** Posted **Mar 26, 2011, 9:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by dleung

The current crown is 40 feet. Increasing the building height by 60 feet will make it barely as tall as those fugly proposals at Burrard. For a city with so many natural icy peaks, Vancouver has next to none in terms of architectural gestures.

Thank you. Could yout tell me what those "fugly"

proposals for Burrard are like. Never seen one. If you have access to a render, maybe post it on another thread? Or start a new one? Might be interesting for people to look at and discuss: even for just a short while. Thank you. (I'm as curious as hell, in fact

)

LeftCoaster · #**213** Posted **Mar 26, 2011, 9:14 PM**

^He's talking about Burrard gateway, you made an entire thread to discuss the asthetics of the project...

trofirhen · #**214** Posted **Mar 26, 2011, 9:31 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

^He's talking about Burrard gateway, you made an entire thread to discuss the asthetics of the project...

Duuuuuh! Whoops, sorry. I was thinking of the Burrard Building site, which I believe has been designated as a "tall" site.
(gotta admit though, the Burrard Gateway desingn is ... icky ... in its own way!

jlousa · #**215** Posted **Mar 26, 2011, 9:38 PM**

So you created a new thread for a project which no one envisions happening for at least 20yrs???? Wow.

trofirhen · #**216** Posted **Mar 27, 2011, 12:25 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlousa

So you created a new thread for a project which no one envisions happening for at least 20yrs???? Wow.

Didn't know it was so far in the future, so it looks as if I goofed. Excuse me.
Oh well, as Mrs. Goldwitz said to her neighbour whose son had the flu: "give him some chicken soup ... it wouldn't hoit"

navazan · #**217** Posted **Mar 28, 2011, 9:08 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlousa

So you created a new thread for a project which no one envisions happening for at least 20yrs???? Wow.

i can just see mr. J sitting on a throne belittling the commoners with his ego boosting statements...

SFUVancouver · #**218** Posted **Apr 4, 2011, 6:47 PM**

This project goes before the Development Permit Board this afternoon.

Note to moderators; could the thread be renamed 1075 West Hastings? That is the official address for the project. I'm also loath to point out that the building height is 143 metres (469.2 feet), not 145.

Source (page 5): http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/planning/dp...t%20Hastings%20Street%20-%20DE414163.pdf

Hed Kandi · #**219** Posted **Apr 4, 2011, 7:43 PM**

..

SFUVancouver · #**220** Posted **Apr 4, 2011, 8:14 PM**

The project is already right up against the maximum 12.1 FSR zoned density cap for the site, which includes the existing Guinness Tower. If the tower were to go higher it would mean shrinking the floor plates and that could lead to this already narrow office tower being difficult to lease, plus extra height could lower the efficiency of each floor as the required additional width for the columns adds up. The other option would be for the developer, Oxford Properties, to seek a rezoning for the site and pursue increased height. That would delay the project by likely close to a year and also subject them to the more stringent LEED Gold certification requirements, though the tower is pursing that level. There is also the view cone to consider. The current height and shape limit the project's intrusion into the view cone to a fraction of a percentage point and is being allowed. However a taller building would intrude more and lead to a more complicated rezoning process. So in balance the developer probably considered all of these options, and though they would likely have loved to have gone taller, they came to a decision that they would be happy with what they could build outright with their existing zoning.