1021 W Hastings | 143M | 36Fl | Completed - Page 12

wrenegade · #**221** Posted **Apr 4, 2011, 8:43 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

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.

Interestingly Oxford themselves refer to the project as 1021 W Hastings a number of times in the Executive Summary of the application. Oh well.

officedweller · #**222** Posted **Apr 4, 2011, 9:24 PM**

Is thw 1075 reference because the density is being treated as an addition to the Guiness Tower?

dleung · #**223** Posted **Apr 5, 2011, 12:43 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

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.

I thought the reason why the project was encouraged to go higher was because it wasn't projecting into any view cones...

Canadian Mind · #**224** Posted **Apr 5, 2011, 1:26 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by dleung

I thought the reason why the project was encouraged to go higher was because it wasn't projecting into any view cones...

Yea, the viewcone is around the 165M mark...

SFUVancouver · #**225** Posted **Apr 5, 2011, 1:48 AM**

The project was approved by the Development Permit Board today.

LeftCoaster · #**226** Posted **Apr 5, 2011, 2:09 AM**

Fantastic... now the hard part, finding a tenant.

SFUVancouver · #**227** Posted **Apr 5, 2011, 3:08 AM**

The guy from Oxford intimated that they had some good solid leads and that high environmental building performance, read LEED Gold as a minimum, was what their prospective tenants, including government, require.

I asked about building signage as a way to gauge whether they had an anchor tenant and they said that they would pursue that separate approvals process for marquee rooftop signage if they were to secure a client that required it as a condition of their lease. I also asked about lighting and it sounds as if the crown will be internally lit 'like a lantern', which I see is still the term d'jour for internal architectural lighting of a tower's crown.

3,000th post, by the way.

squeezied · #**228** Posted **Apr 5, 2011, 3:17 AM**

^Awesome news! And congrats on the 3000th post!

Coldrsx · #**229** Posted **Apr 5, 2011, 4:17 AM**

I cannot see a tenant being an issue given its goals, location, and proximity to everything. I am curious to see though how Oxford markets this.

trofirhen · #**230** Posted **Apr 5, 2011, 12:45 PM**

Now that it has been given the green light, it's countdown time till actual construction begins. However, I do not know what colour / finish exactly Oxford has in mind. It's portrayed seemingly as a light olive green.

Does anybody know the colour and material? Green reflective glass? Green brick? Stainless steel? What?

3D Ninja · #**231** Posted **Apr 5, 2011, 1:43 PM**

The old design had the same glass as Shangri-La, with alternating mullion caps of aluminum like the guinness tower and stone like the marine. Not sure if this is still in this iteration though.

officedweller · #**232** Posted **Apr 5, 2011, 11:40 PM**

One problem that could arise for larger tenants is the small floorplate - I remember that we would have required 6 floors in PWC Place versus 3.5 floors (now 4) in TD Tower (i.e.splits up operations a bit)

*********

The discussion in the Staff Report (Appendix H) on view cones and view shadows is interesting.
This tower was allowed to break the 418 ft view cone because it lies behind the view shadow of 1033 Marinaside (which was allowed to be too tall). It was also allowed to intrude into the QE view cone because it met higher buildings policy standrads, even though it's not a higher buidlings project. So there seems to be some loosening of the reins at City Hall.

http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/planning/dp...t%20Hastings%20Street%20-%20DE414163.pdf

So what other sites lie within view shadows?
(i.e. what development sites lies behind the biggest view cone intruder (Scotia Tower)?

Some guy · #**233** Posted **Jun 3, 2011, 4:18 AM**

What happened. . . I thought construction was a go for this one?

Metro-One · #**234** Posted **Jun 3, 2011, 4:23 AM**

You should no better, this is an office tower proposal in Vancouver.

We will see renders, pass zoning, and then we will never hear about it again!

jlousa · #**235** Posted **Jun 3, 2011, 5:30 AM**

Umm not sure what you guys are expecting, these things take time. There wasn't even zoning on this project it's prezoned, just a straight development permit. They've been doing site surveying just last week. This one is going ahead in due process.

trofirhen · #**236** Posted **Jun 3, 2011, 9:05 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metro-One

You should no better, this is an office tower proposal in Vancouver.

We will see renders, pass zoning, and then we will never hear about it again!

EXACTLY what I was thinking ... then I came upon your post, Metro!! Pathetic is the word for that syndrome.

Delirium · #**237** Posted **Jun 3, 2011, 12:50 PM**

^ syndrome? it's called basic supply and demand. developers don't build office towers just for the fun of it. if they can't secure a lead tenant, they're not putting a shovel in the ground. why is that so hard to understand?

dreambrother808 · #**238** Posted **Jun 3, 2011, 6:08 PM**

Thanks for the sane, rational explanation, Jlousa.

trofirhen · #**239** Posted **Jun 3, 2011, 6:43 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delirium

^ syndrome? it's called basic supply and demand. developers don't build office towers just for the fun of it. if they can't secure a lead tenant, they're not putting a shovel in the ground. why is that so hard to understand?

No, of course, supply and demand is elemental. It's things like the Turn (Erickson's creation) that seem to fizzle out, that lead to this. Factually, you are absolutely right ... but they seem to do things in Vancouver in a particular way .........

SpongeG · #**240** Posted **Jun 3, 2011, 7:04 PM**

what way is that?