The Exchange | 115.7m | 31fl, 13fl | 400,000sqft. | Completed

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by Hourglass

if there were no attempts by city hall to alleviate the concerns of Jameson House residents, I could see the residents taking legal action, which would tie-up the development in litigation for years.

You have it completely backwards. Future commercial developments will be in danger of being tied-up in lengthy challenges if the city does attempt to alleviate the concerns of Jameson House residents, which is why the recommendations of the staff report are so unwise.

Let me explain.

Currently, residents living in the CBD have absolutely no grounds on which to base a complaint regarding minimum tower separation, neither under the common law nor under current city policy. Under the common law, it is well established that one does not have a right to a view or access to sunshine. Current city policy is no less clear: within the CBD, commercial development takes precedent over residential development and the guidelines governing minimum tower separation outside the CBD do not apply within the CBD. This policy of commercial supremacy within the CBD was adopted because the city recognized that the efficient maximization of job space within the CBD is essential to Vancouver’s future economic competitiveness.

Therefore, neither the developers nor the residents of Jameson House had a reasonable expectation that a commercial tower could not be built as close as 30 feet from their building. Indeed, as the staff report points out, there are already numerous examples of commercial/residential tower separations of 30 feet or less within the downtown core. Thus, the residents’ complaints regarding minimum tower separation can easily be dismissed out of hand and Credit Suisse’s project can proceed unhindered by such challenges, precisely as current policy intended.

This is why the recommendation of the staff report is not just bizarre but harmful. If accepted, it would not only frustrate current policy of efficient job space maximization in this particular case but could hinder many vital commercial developments in the future. For such a decision would hand those who choose to live in the CBD something they have never had before: it would create a clear precedent on which complaints against any future commercial project that comes in close proximity to residential property in the CBD could be based. Currently, such complaints have no foundation and can be swiftly dismissed. But armed with a precedent, residents in the CBD would now have a legitimate foundation on which to sustain complaints in the future. (“If the city accommodated the residents of Jameson House, then why can’t the city accommodate me.”)

Thus, "alleviating the concerns" of Jameson House residents would almost certainly have the opposite effect as you claim: given the precedent it would create, it would increase the likelihood that similar commercial developments will be tied-up in challenges from this point on, thereby creating a threat to Vancouver’s vital economic interest in efficient job space maximization within its CBD, the very interest that current policy was wisely designed to protect.

[officedweller]

Agreed.
i.e. Waht happens when the other parcels on the block are to be redeveloped?

[Metro-One]

Can you send what you wrote above to the city?

[BIMBAM]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Can you send what you wrote above to the city?

Seconded. I think i'll write something as well.

[officedweller]

Rezoning is up for approval next week.

http://former.vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/...20121030ag.htm

Of interest in the Summary and Recommendations:

1. Design development to the upper portion of the building to further refine and enhance its architectural contribution to the city skyline and the public view corridor.
Note to Applicant: The proposed building elements, including the architectural screen must be contained within the view shadow of the Fairmont Pacific Rim Building. Design development should further refine and architecturally integrate the rooftop mechanical penthouse, elevator override service volumes, other service equipment including window washing infrastructure and/or photovoltaic panels, if proposed, to minimize any incursion beyond the view shadow.

2. Design development to further refine the detailing of the tower façade to fully demonstrate the design intent of the passive design features (solar shade fins) in combination with the mullion details, glass color and transparency, fritting and expected energy performance.
Note to Applicant: Superior detailing and execution of the façade details are critical to achieving the proposed building aesthetic. Detailed sections and elevations demonstrating high quality material treatments are required. Glass samples along with full performance specifications are also required.

3. Design development to fully demonstrate the various green wall treatments’ viability and longevity, as one of the important components to the overall building design and composition.
Note to Applicant: Measures such as adequate soil depth, plant selection, maintenance, water, and sunlight access are critical aspects that must be demonstrated to ensure their viability and longevity.

4. Design development to northwest corner to improve the proximity between the proposed office tower and the existing residential units in Jameson House across the lane.
Note to Applicant: This can be achieved by modifying the northwest corner of the office building for the portion of the tower that overlaps with Jameson House, with the remaining tower floor-plate providing a 1'-6" setback as illustrated within Appendix E, page 12. Floor area can be reallocated to other areas of the building provided that it does not further compromise Jameson House or increase the amount of building bulk over the former Stock Exchange Building. See also condition 7.

5. Design development to improve privacy between the proposed office building and the existing residential units in the Jameson House.
Note to Applicant: Measures that significantly reduce direct sight lines between the two occupancies must be implemented as a permanent component externally integrated with the glazing treatment.

6. Design development to minimize the lighting impacts of the office occupancy on the existing residential units in Jameson House.
Page 3 of 10
Note to Applicant: In addition to measures that significantly reduce direct sight lines between the two occupancies, building features that reduce light impacts from the office occupancy, particularly during late-night hours should be implemented.

7. Design development to the proposed new building massing to lessen its visual impact over the former Stock Exchange Building.
Note to Applicant: Design development should consider reduction of level 14 to be consistent with levels 12 and 13 below and should also include the treatment of the soffit with high quality materials as to not distract from the prominence of the former Stock Exchange Building. See also condition 4.

8. Design development to the lower massing to better integrate into the overall tower composition.

9. Provision of a conceptual lighting strategy to ensure appropriate lighting levels and CPTED performance, while minimizing glare for nearby residents.

10. Provision of a pedestrian wind study.

[Prometheus]

This inexplicable deviation from established, good policy will have negative ramifications for efficient commercial development in the Central Business District and thus Vancouver's economic competitiveness.

[Hed Kandi]

The current design is rubbish. I'd like to see some hacksaw style tweaking made.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Hed Kandi

The current design is rubbish. I'd like to see some hacksaw style tweaking made.

Are you talking about the current design as entered some months ago, or a current design tweaked to accomodate JH residents?

Personally, I'd like to see it TALLER, with a more daring use of angles. In other words, a real landmark building. (wishful thinking, I fear)

[officedweller]

He was being sarcastic. "Hacksaw" meaning taking a slice off the corner.

Taller won't happen - see item 1 of the recomendations. The height must stay within the view shadow of the Fairmont Pacific Rim "to minimize any incursion beyond the view shadow".

[Spork]

I don't consider myself a letter writer, but this recommendation pissed me off enough to write one.

Removed for privacy.

[djh]

@Spork
I'm a little confused. You're pissed off *because* of that letter, or you were so pissed off that you wrote the above letter and sent it to council?
(If the latter, I assume you used your real name, not Batman's)

[Mininari]

Nice letter, Batman.
gah, you beat me to the too-obvious joke.

But seriously, it never hurts to voice your opinion.

[Spork]

Originally Posted by djh

@Spork
I'm a little confused. You're pissed off *because* of that letter, or you were so pissed off that you wrote the above letter and sent it to council?
(If the latter, I assume you used your real name, not Batman's)

Clarified in my original post. I am so pissed off that it prompted me to write that.

And yes, I used my real name. If you knew my true identity, mysterious things would start happening.

[sacrifice333]

Great letter, Bruce.

p.s. did you know that wayneenterprises.com forwards to johnwayne.com?! So does this mean that John Wayne is in fact Batman?!

[jlousa]

Guys the city is is asking them to shift the corner by 1 foot and 6 inches, no loss of density just a shift. Seems pretty reasonable and certainly not a deal breaker.

[Spork]

It is the message that it sends, more than anything.

[jlousa]

I understand that, but we need to realize that the site is zoned for an FSR of 9.0 and is asking for and ultimately going to land an FSR of 21. That's a major increase, the city can't just dole out an increase like that, it needs to be earned. Having the developer work with it's neighbours is mandatory in cases like this. I don't think the city is sending out a bad signal at all on this one, if anything it's telling developers that they can land serious density if they are seeking commercial space.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by jlousa

Having the developer work with it's neighbours is mandatory in cases like this.

That's false.

Under the city's own policy, there are no guidlines regarding minimum tower separation within the Central Business District. The absence of a guidline was completely intentional. It was left out specifically to prevent a situation like this (i.e., to prevent residents habitating within the city's commercial district from fettering the efficient maximization of job space precisely where its needed most and threatening Vancouver's economic competitiveness).

This decision is completely gratuitous and represents a total contradiction of good policy. By placating the foundationless demands of the residents of Jameson House at the expense of a potential job space-provider, the city has demonstrated a serious lack of wisdom. It has created a precedent what will cost Vancouver going forward economically.

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by jlousa

I understand that, but we need to realize that the site is zoned for an FSR of 9.0 and is asking for and ultimately going to land an FSR of 21. That's a major increase, the city can't just dole out an increase like that, it needs to be earned. Having the developer work with it's neighbours is mandatory in cases like this. I don't think the city is sending out a bad signal at all on this one, if anything it's telling developers that they can land serious density if they are seeking commercial space.

A developer has to earn the right to build on his own property?

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Jebby

A developer has to earn the right to build on his own property?

They can build at FSR 9.0 to their heart's content...