Downtown Vancouver Updates

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by mhy

i'm pretty sure it'll be more than 300 feet tall, seeing that the renders show 30 stories of office, and seeing that Jameson house is 380 feet tall.

Yeah at a standard office height of 4m per floor it would be 120m to the top of the roof, add on what looks like at least 10-15 more m for that crown/spire and we are looking at a height of about a 130-140m.

Like I said the original design I saw called for a 400ft tower, this looks to be closer to 450.

Will be interesting to see what their next move is regarding the viewcones.

[mhy]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

Too bad they couldn't get the Edward Chapman store property as well and have a larger footprint to work with.

If this proceeds as planned, the Chapman store will end up as a slice of land that can't have anything taller than about 10 stories built on it.

The urban fabric is much more interesting with smaller parcels. A larger footprint will translate into a fat tower, whereas in the current scenario the chapman parcel might be integrated into the brick building beside it in a future development. Or better yet, both buildings are redeveloped separately, with the chapman becoming a — 10-15 storey infill.

It's great that we don't have to wait too long to be spared the unpleasantness of seeing the —-end of Jameson house, though if only one tall tower can be developed on that block, I'd rather it have been on the chapman/brick office building parcels.

It's unfortunate that the green spine splitting the tower is mostly cosmetic at this point. It would have been nice if that reveal was deep enough to allow for balconies (with planters) looking into the gap.

[phesto]

Wow, good to hear they're moving ahead. I had thought with the other 3 office projects going ahead they would've shelved this one for a while. Here is a less flattering rendering that had been floating around, though it was far more preliminary:



It will be 375 ft + roof element.

[Sir Conga]

The city is looking for ideas on the for the area surrounding the Viaducts. Check out this site for more info.

Perhaps we can get a thread going here, if people care to share their ideas on the subject. I'm sure there are no shortage of good ideas on the subject. Does this deserve it's own thread?

[jlousa]

There was a similar plan as to the above office tower but a little further east but it appears to have been shelved, as least for now.

[entheosfog]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

i don't care - its just a building that looks like painted cement block with some ornamental stuff tacked on to it - hence the word tacky

anyway i think its just a waste to preserve it the city is so desperate to have heritage kinda sad

I think it's sad we have to be so desperate to preserve what heritage is left in this city. One facade of a small building is a waste? Unfortunately this is the attitude so many people in this city have towards old buildings hence why so much has been lost over the years.

[Hed Kandi]

..

[leftside]

Globe and Mail article on 370 Carrall:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/home...pment/condo-in-the-rough/article2160123/

[whatnext]

Seems like the light installation at 1499 W. Pender is really — off the neighbours:

The city of Vancouver may revamp its approval process for public art as a result of complaints about a light installation in a high-end residential neighbourhood.

“One of the things we are looking at as we move forward, is when you have a piece of this type – and this is the first piece we’ve had of this significance – are there enhanced or augmented techniques we need to do to engage neighbours?” said director of planning Brent Toderian.

But while opening the door to more detailed consultation, Mr. Toderian appeared to slam it on the possibility that the city might order the installation – at West Pender Place, a new residential complex at 1499 West Pender St. – turned off or removed, saying it was approved according to the city’s existing guidelines and that steps have already been taken to address residents’ concerns....
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/nati...allation-has-a-dark-side/article2179840/

[Millennium2002]

Pretty severely I might add... those neighbours are out in force in the comments section of the same article.

At the same time, this makes me think... don't they have curtains? Doesn't the light from other buildings get in the way too? Or how about those from the houses and industries across the inlet? Doesn't that get away from the pretty view too? etc etc.

If they don't address the other two concerns, then this story is more bluffing than anything else. =S And I highly believe that it is, given that they've tolerated all the other background lights for how many years now?

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by mhy

i'm pretty sure it'll be more than 300 feet tall, seeing that the renders show 30 stories of office, and seeing that Jameson house is 380 feet tall. Decent looking tower... tho I really hope they're keeping the heritage building in its entirety instead of facadetomy. Also not a fan of the fake low-rise at the base and the wrap-around glass element on the north corner, which really clutters the otherwise simple design.

Renders from the iredale website:

Thanks for posting - the Iredale website appears to be unavailable at the moment.

I suppose that the NY Times-esque grid of rods is a result of the LEED Platinum being sought.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Seems like the light installation at 1499 W. Pender is really — off the neighbours:

The city of Vancouver may revamp its approval process for public art as a result of complaints about a light installation in a high-end residential neighbourhood.

“One of the things we are looking at as we move forward, is when you have a piece of this type – and this is the first piece we’ve had of this significance – are there enhanced or augmented techniques we need to do to engage neighbours?” said director of planning Brent Toderian.

But while opening the door to more detailed consultation, Mr. Toderian appeared to slam it on the possibility that the city might order the installation – at West Pender Place, a new residential complex at 1499 West Pender St. – turned off or removed, saying it was approved according to the city’s existing guidelines and that steps have already been taken to address residents’ concerns....
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/nati...allation-has-a-dark-side/article2179840/

It is sad, but who didn't see this coming?? It will be a shame when the lighting is removed / turned off forever, and then such a beautiful development will have two pointless blank walls. People are slowly starting to realize that Vancouver is becoming a bigger city, along which downtown will have more noise, lights, etc..., but this was too much too fast for our city to handle.

I hope a compromise can be reached, such as turning the lights off at 10 or 11 during the week and 1 am on Fri / Sat night. Or even having it off completely during the week and having it on all weekend long, but, i don't expect such an outcome given the grouchyness and insular attitude of these NIMBYs.

[wrenegade]

FYI a friend of mine lives in the Mariner building in Cooper's Quay and other residents there have already started complaining about the new lighting at BC Place. My friend himself won't push the complaints beyond just bitching and moaning (he says his bedroom is super bright now and is thinking about getting blackout curtains), but others in the building want to push the complaints further.

Can't say I'm surprised, hopefully they'll get the same answer as those across from West Pender Place. What happens though to other buildings with proposed lighting schemes that haven't been built (745 Thurlow) or approved (Telus)?

[Coldrsx]

^I am quite surprised considering that for a project of that 'calibre/scale' you would likely need a lighting plan that includes directional or wash lighting so as to mitigate these vary concerns. There should be no or limited adverse affects on neighbours from lighting. You should NOT have to go buy blackouts, even though it is a good idea in general.

[Jebby]

No one should need to buy blackouts because they understand they're living downtown. Downtown has lights and noise. Don't like it, move.

[Coldrsx]

^That's the spirit mate.

Noise and light pollution will happen downtown, sure, but consideration/sensitivity to thy neighbour is important and very much practiced by good designers and many cities.

Light pollution is terribly annoying, more so than noise IMO, and while better blinds can help, a well thought out lighting plan, proper light guards, intensity, duration of animation, and dynamic adjustments for night time conditions (ie less bright) should be mandatory.

[jlousa]

The buildings that are light up do not garner complaints (ie Canada Place) it's the ones that emit light outwards that obviously require much more attention and need to be considerate of neighbours. I'm sure that a solution can be found at WPP and I'm sure Bentall 6 and others will be take this into account. Personally I love the lightning at WPP, would I feel the same if I live across from it? Mabye not. I don't think requiring everyone to buy blackout curtain or sleep with earplugs is a solution, better design is the solution.

[ckkelley]

Maybe they could just fire it up every now n' then. Like the Olympic cauldron.

[Metro-One]

Again, that would be a reasonable compromise. My idea would be they are only on Friday and Saturday nights, instead of them being perminantly removed.

I do feel a little more for these people since it is such a big display of lights in what really is almost a purely residential area.

The stadium one on the other hand, not so much, those people moved next to what is designated an entertainment area, and the stadiums have been there long before them (and this designation I beleive).

Also i hope this does not stop the Telus lights, since it is located in a more commercial area.

[SpongeG]

BC place is only going to be lit for games and the odd event - its not like an everyday thing is it? maybe soem of the lights will be on every night ? was it in complete blackness before with the old roof?