CF Pacific Centre Developments

[officedweller]

WRT view cones - the same can be said for the Bay Parkade site.

Originally Posted by SpongeG

i wonder how dead the area will be when this sits empty in november, i wonder how much of a hit pac centre will hit without the easy robson connection

The saving grace for the mall stores near Sears is that the Canada Line entrance is very close to Sears (versus the old connection to Vancouver Centre)

[Canadian Mind]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

In all honesty given this square's prominence and possible direct underground connection to two rapid transit subway stations (along with downtown's largest mall) this is a situation where the view cones should subside to simple reason. Maximize this site's potential to the highest level possible. This is the premier site for a 600 foot tower. In all honesty, why are these view cones treated so holy??? Even the ALR (which is far more important IMO) seems to be often marginalized, well, so can these regulations.

Which is precisely why I think this should be one of the last sites to be redeveloped. When the rest of downtown is finally built out, and we have a few office towers is the 600-800 foot range, this would be a wonderful spot to stick the last signature tower in the city in the 800+ range, particularily with direct connection to two transit lines.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

In all honesty given this square's prominence and possible direct underground connection to two rapid transit subway stations (along with downtown's largest mall) this is a situation where the view cones should subside to simple reason. Maximize this site's potential to the highest level possible. This is the premier site for a 600 foot tower. In all honesty, why are these view cones treated so holy??? Even the ALR (which is far more important IMO) seems to be often marginalized, well, so can these regulations.

I agree that this is perhaps THE prime location for a downtown building, and one that should be allowed to pass the view cone dragons.

As such, and given that it faces (on the West side) The Art Gallery, The Hotel Vancouver, and Cathedral place, I think this site site, if expanded into a high-rise, should be designed to harmonize with the VAG and the aforementioned buildings.

I'm not suggesting gargoyles, but I am suggesting a certain design cohesion that will pull the real centre of Vancouver - and this is the real centre!!! - into a cohesive area regarding design.

Otherwise stated, I would not want a Telus Condo tower or such occupying it, but rather, something with classical lines that will make an elegant statement, and provide more architectural continuity for this part of downtown.

[LeftCoaster]

Can you guys explain the logic to me of tearing down a 600,000 sf building to replace it with a similar sized building?

I really don't understand why you guys think building a 600+ ft tower on this site is such a viable option? We're not talking about a parking lot here, but one of the largest buildings in the city.

Forget the viewcones, it's just simple economics.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

Can you guys explain the logic to me of tearing down a 600,000 sf building to replace it with a similar sized building?

I really don't understand why you guys think building a 600+ ft tower on this site is such a viable option? We're not talking about a parking lot here, but one of the largest buildings in the city.

Forget the viewcones, it's just simple economics.

I believe the idea is to build a tower in addition to a podium equal in size to the current structure (maybe even build a tower without destroying the current building). What is more economically viable? What is there now? Or what is there now plus a tower?

[TwoFace]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

Can you guys explain the logic to me of tearing down a 600,000 sf building to replace it with a similar sized building?

The lifespan of most buildings is 100 years unless they are architecturally iconic as in: The Fairmont, The Bay and many others.
The Sears block is an architectural nothing and also 41 years old, so it's a natural target for re-development even at it's 1/2 life.

[phesto]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

Can you guys explain the logic to me of tearing down a 600,000 sf building to replace it with a similar sized building?

I really don't understand why you guys think building a 600+ ft tower on this site is such a viable option? We're not talking about a parking lot here, but one of the largest buildings in the city.

Forget the viewcones, it's just simple economics.

On the face of it I completely agree. Since Sears was rumoured to be looking at converting the upper floors to office themselves a few years back, with the announcement last week led me to believe that Cadillac had recieved sufficient interest from a retail anchor (Norstrom or other) to proceed with simply re-leasing to a new tenant (or tenants) and converting the upper vacant floors to office.

But as Jlousa alluded to, Cadillac has to at least be exploring the possibility of adding more density and they would certainly want to unlock any ability to add to their office portfolio in such a prime location. The current CD zoning for all of Pacific Centre allows a density of 9.47 FSR, but the DD zoning would allow for 11 FSR in this area...

If you were to rezone/amend the site, Cadillac would seemingly have about 250,000 sq ft of excess density. Then if you could somehow remove the upper two floors of Sears, you would have enough for another TD Tower size office building (ie. 450,000 sq ft). The most logical placement for another office component would be on the Howe Street side.

Just some food for thought...

[dreambrother808]

It seems to me that Leftcoaster already knows what the plans are, so perhaps we should just take what he says at face value. I'm sure that CF has explored all of their options and come up with what is in their best interest, regardless of whatever desires some may have.

[Zassk]

Merely replacing the facade with something more modern (e.g. involving glass windows) would be a massive improvement.

[Metro-One]

No debate there, hehe.

But yes, when I say building an office tower by that I mean to build a podium the same size as the current Sears building for retail and some office, and then an office tower on top of that.

But, that is just my ultimate dream for the site, I did like the idea another forum member posted on here saying it would be nice for the bottom few levels of the Sears building to become an expansion of Pacific Centre and have the top 2 floors Nordstrom or another major anchor tenant.

[jlousa]

I agree with Leftcoaster that it doesn't make economic sense to knock down one 600K building to replace it with another. As I have no inside info on the current situation I can only comment as an outsider.
If CF can find a way to lease all 600K sqft then redevelopment does not make sense. If they can only lease half that space for current going rates then redevelopment starts being an option, especially so if they can land additional density while doing so. The scenario that Phesto describes becomes economically attractive in the right situation. Heck going to 11FSR plus buying an additional 20% hertiage density could be accomplished w/o much trouble, it would eat up a sizeable amount of the hertiage density bank as well.
To be honest I can't recall hertiage density ever being purchased for commercial purposes though. In no way would I expect a signature tower though and if anything something akin to the existing TD tower (size wise).

[officedweller]

Taken by me at 11:35 am today - note how none of the buildings cast long shadows over Robson Square?
The question is whether the City would be willing to forego that long standing [policy/bylaw].
The new tower at Nelson & Howe will be the tallest of the bunch, but its shadows will fall on the back of the atrium part of the Law Courts.
A tower on the Sears site would probably *only* cast shadows on the Art Gallery block of Robson Square.


Uploaded with ImageShack.us

[jlousa]

With the Sun to the south it's possible to land a potential tower so that it's shadow lands mostly on the TD tower and not the square itself any shadow that did land on the north lawn would probably only be early morning before it's actively used.

[s211]

Originally Posted by jlousa

To be honest I can't recall hertiage density ever being purchased for commercial purposes though. In no way would I expect a signature tower though and if anything something akin to the existing TD tower (size wise).

I seem to recall bcIMC transferring its own heritage density from the Evergreen Building to 745 Thurlow.

[yogiderek]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Taken by me at 11:35 am today - note how none of the buildings cast long shadows over Robson Square?
The question is whether the City would be willing to forego that long standing [policy/bylaw].
The new tower at Nelson & Howe will be the tallest of the bunch, but its shadows will fall on the back of the atrium part of the Law Courts.
A tower on the Sears site would probably *only* cast shadows on the Art Gallery block of Robson Square.


Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Gosh the roof of sears is ugly. Would be the most depressing building as an office in the city.

[PaperTiger]

Originally Posted by yogiderek

Gosh the roof of sears is ugly. Would be the most depressing building as an office in the city.

Wadiya mean? Green roofs are all the rage these days. Didn't you hear..

[s211]

Originally Posted by PaperTiger

Wadiya mean? Green roofs are all the rage these days. Didn't you hear..

That roof was green before green was the new black.

[dleung]

I don't have much details, but at a recent meeting I noticed in a consultant's binder a render of a proposal on the site, looking similar to 122 leadenhall in London. I remember seeing the words "20-storey waterfall". I was going to ask about it but forgot by the end of the meeting. Will do some digging.

[officedweller]

Whatever happens, i expect the roof to be better utilized - whether green space or otherwise.

There used to be tennis courts on top of the 777 Dunsmuir podium (Pacific Centre atrium) before the Holt Renfrew renovation - unless there's still one there?

[Pinion]

Originally Posted by officedweller

There used to be tennis courts on top of the 777 Dunsmuir podium (Pacific Centre atrium) before the Holt Renfrew renovation - unless there's still one there?

They are - or at very least they were there right after Holts was completed. I used to go up there every day.