The Ultimate Vancouver Rumour Thread!

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by Pinion

Edit: maybe later

This better be good, and I mean 600 feet + office tower good, hehe.

[officedweller]

From my engineer friend -

Latest concept for 1133 Melville:

• 132m to top roof slab
• 143m to top of roof windscreen.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by officedweller

From my engineer friend -

Latest concept for 1133 Melville:

• 132m to top roof slab
• 143m to top of roof windscreen.

What? There are no view corridors over this site. This site specifically falls under the city's higher building policy, which calls for a building of generally 168 metres.

What happened to the 600+ feet tower?

[Canadian Mind]

Originally Posted by officedweller

From my engineer friend -

Latest concept for 1133 Melville:

• 132m to top roof slab
• 143m to top of roof windscreen.

Sad. Who can be mailed, e-mailed, called at city hall so that if it is anything less than 600' and iconic it must be rejected?

[phesto]

Guys, 600 ft was never planned for this site. The expectation based upon all factors was in the 500-550 ft. range.

470 ft. would be somewhat disappointing, but let's wait and see the proposal before getting all worked up about it.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by phesto

Guys, 600 ft was never planned for this site.

Fine. But just for the record this is what you wrote on July 9, 2013:

Originally Posted by phesto

There is no view cone restriction for the site, though the general policy for higher buildings limit is 550 ft [168 metres]. With a 10% allowance for mechanical and a potential roof feature as OD mentioned, I'm guessing Oxford's could pass 600 ft.

The previous design (below) from a few years ago was 511 ft. I would expect Oxford's version to be at least this tall, but likely closer to 600 ft.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

[Pinion]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

This better be good, and I mean 600 feet + office tower good, hehe.

Erm, well, it's tall and somewhat big in scope by north shore standards? I have photos in my phone that I'd love to post but I'm not sure I can. It's weird having an inside scoop myself for once.

And I guess it's not even a rumour since it will happen if approved.

[Metro-One]

Uh oh, tall and north shore??? Dang, don;t tell us, because it will not happen. Remember the beautiful site 8 proposal??

And ugh, another office tower just under the 150m mark??? Honestly, would love to see an office tower at least 160 meters in Van.

[phesto]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Fine. But just for the record this is what you wrote on July 9, 2013:

Yeah, that was purely speculation on my part...I figured if they were going to build it so soon they would build at least as tall as the previous version, but who knows - maybe they are much larger floorplates. I guess we'll have to wait and see.

[spm2013]

...

[jlousa]

Now that summer is wrapping up we'll start hearing about the next round of developments.
Without saying too much...
Rumour has it that there will be a proposal for a new office tower, the name of which will end with the number 6. It will not break any height records but will be significate in sqftage.
There will be another rumour of a proposal that could include a 750ft building in an area that only allows for 300ft. It most likely will not be allowed, but it will probably end up higher then current zoning. We probably won't see any physical movement on this proposal soon but it'll be a huge development that will vastly alter the downtown landscape.
There are a couple other developments in the works as well but it's shaping up to be a pretty quiet 2014 (relative to yrs past) for new proposals.

[SFUVancouver]

Interesting hints. Thanks for sharing them, Jlousa.

Any thoughts on whether the large-scale developments in Richmond (Olympic Oval-area projects and the giant Concord/Pinnacle project on No3) are taking some wind out of the sails of development in the Metro Core?

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by jlousa

There will be another rumour of a proposal that could include a 750ft building in an area that only allows for 300ft. It most likely will not be allowed, but it will probably end up higher then current zoning. We probably won't see any physical movement on this proposal soon but it'll be a huge development that will vastly alter the downtown landscape.

My guess is that this is Holborn's Bay Parkade proposal - and for being on top of the Expo Line Granville Station - it should be allowed to go tall.

[red-paladin]

Could be the post office site too?

The first proposal could be the 'real' Bentall 6.

[s211]

Bentall 5 was the last "Bentall" building, as it was technically run as if it were part of Bentall Centre.

Any buildings since then have had Bentall as a development manager only, so it's a little quaint to keep putting sequential monikers on buildings they develop downtown on behalf of other parties.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by officedweller

My guess is that this is Holborn's Bay Parkade proposal - and for being on top of the Expo Line Granville Station - it should be allowed to go tall.

Isn't that one of the sites the city was considering for a tall building? Or has that been aba doned?

[officedweller]

After that review they settled on Burrard Gateway and Granville Gateway and Burrard & Georgia, I think.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by logan5

Isn't that one of the sites the city was considering for a tall building? Or has that been aba doned?

Yes. And the city considered eliminating or relaxing the view corridor that encumbers that site. If you recall, a few years ago, the city opened the issue of that view corridor (along with some others view corridors) to a city-wide survey. However, the survey was biased because it asked the questions in a way likely to elicit a particular response. In effect, the survey showed a picture of the affected mountain view and asked whether people would like that view blocked. A not large majority responded no. But the survey probably would have generated the exact opposite result if it had shown an attractive render of the proposed new skyline against the mountain backdrop and asked whether people wanted their city to look like this. In other words, the survey framed the question in a negative way, without giving people a positive vision of what could be. It put the focus on what would be lost and ignored entirely what would be gained.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by jlousa

There will be another rumour of a proposal that could include a 750ft building in an area that only allows for 300ft. It most likely will not be allowed, but it will probably end up higher then current zoning.

Is the 300ft due to zoning or viewcones? If zoning, what is the viewcone height for the site (not including Queen Elizabeth Park)?

[jlousa]

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

Interesting hints. Thanks for sharing them, Jlousa.

Any thoughts on whether the large-scale developments in Richmond (Olympic Oval-area projects and the giant Concord/Pinnacle project on No3) are taking some wind out of the sails of development in the Metro Core?

There is no doubt that all the development in Richmond and Burnaby is having a large effect on development in Vancouver. We are starting to see a real shift where people are starting to buy outside the city not just based on price but because that's where their collegues have bought and they are following suit. The market is seeing a large increase in demand for investment units outside the core which is something that wasn't really a large factor previously.

I won't be giving an more info on the potential 750ft building as it could jeopardize the proposal. I suspect we'll here about it by year end, or spring/14.