Quote:
Originally Posted by dreambrother808
I don't think people are grasping the nature of this neighbourhood. The scale is perfectly in line with that its surroundings. Think of the BCIT building just up Seymour. This proposal may be a block or so over from the future Credit Suisse tower but in between there is a major transition area. To the east, Pender and Richards is little more than social housing. This is a huge step in the right direction.
|
You are not grasping the nature of this neighbourhood.
The corner of Seymour and Pender is well-within the commercial heart of downtown. Granville Station is one block directly to the south; Waterfront Station (the central transportation hub for Metro Vancouver) is two blocks directly to the north. The area is bounded by numerous tall commercial office buildings on
all sides. Harbour Centre, for example, lies one block to the north; Scotia Bank Tower lies two blocks to the south; the BC Hydro Building lies two blocks to the east; and the official Central Business District begins immediately across the street to the west. Moreover, on the very same corner sits
Conference Plaza, a mixed-use tower three times the height of this proposal.
Furthermore, this site sits on the "Central Business District Shoulder." According to city policy:
Quote:
"The adoption of the Rezoning Policy for the CBD and CBD Shoulder is strategic and it seeks to increase the potential for commercial capacity by guiding rezonings for non-residential buildings to reach heights and densities up to the view cones, thereby improving the climate for new office development. Rezoning of the remaining, viable commercially zoned sites in the CBD to maximize their job space potential is fundamental to Council’s objective..." (p.6)
http://former.vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20120918/documents/p2.pdf
|
The developer's choice of height may be limited by a number of factors, including economics, current zoning, view cones, site size, developer expertise, etc. But to claim that "the nature of this neighbourhood" is inconsistent with a substantially taller building is clearly inaccurate.