Downtown Vancouver Updates

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by dleung

Honestly, I rather it be shorter. ...... This will be the country's 4th or 5th glass box with diagonal folds if complete.

DOES THAT MATTER?? There are already several architectural styles replicated through Canada. I don't see the problem

[jlousa]

*l* go for it take it to the streets and see how much support you get. Most Vancouver residents could care less for taller buildings and you'd find more support to impose even additional view cones.
The view cones have done little to nothing to stiffle development in the city, if anything they have provided us with developments that wouldn't have happened otherwise, including this one, and MNP.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by jlousa

*l* go for it take it to the streets and see how much support you get. Most Vancouver residents could care less for taller buildings and you'd find more support to impose even additional view cones.
The view cones have done little to nothing to stiffle development in the city, if anything they have provided us with developments that wouldn't have happened otherwise, including this one, and MNP.

They have already stifled and dumbed down numerous downtown developments, in my opinion. The more prominent and taller structures built prior to the introduction of this archaic bylaw lay proof to this testimony.

[dleung]

I wish we had BETTER viewcones. The current system encourages building heights that will eventually form a flat layer-less wall from the viewpoints, which will look so imposing that even though portions of the mountains are visible per the viewcones, their effect will be relatively diminished. A fat 300' tower close to the viewcones, say along false creek does - even if it doesn't encroach on viewcones - is far more detrimental to the view than a 600' tower further in the distance such as in the CBD.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by jlousa

The view cones have done little to nothing to stiffle development in the city, if anything they have provided us with developments that wouldn't have happened otherwise...

Regarding commercial office development, this claim is totally inconsistent with the objective data. Please note that the following list compiled in 2011 does not purport to make a causal claim; it is simply a refutation of a causal claim, that is, the claim that viewcones have been some kind of stimulant to office development, either in number or in square footage.

The viewcones were adopted in 1989.

Office towers built in the 21 years after adoption of viewcones (1990 to 2011):

Bentall Five (577,976)
Waterfront Centre (365,168)
Terasen Centre (341,470)
Cathedral Place (307,399)
Vancouver Library Square (300,000)
BC Hydro Centre (290,571)
The Shaw Tower (279,000)
Pacific Centre Tower IV (264,177)
PriceWaterhouseCoopers Place (239,440)
Amec Building 222,135)
401 Burrard Street (214,000)
Viva Tower (171,888)
1508 West Broadway (146,486)


Office towers built in the 21 years prior to adoption of viewcones (1968 to 1989):

Park Place (576,840)
Four Bentall Centre (543,454)
Bank of Montreal Tower (476,649)
Toronto Dominion Tower (471,100)
Royal Centre (433,300)
Granville Square (386,601)
Scotia Tower (385,878)
HSBC Building (383,972)
1075 West Georgia (360,000)
Oceanic Plaza (331,128)
Canaccord Tower (284,970)
1177 West Hastings (265,060)
Guinness Tower (256,128)
Harbour Centre (249,707)
One Bentall Centre (248,700)
Commerce Place (227,482)
401 West Georgia (225,250)
1050 West Pender (220,129)
701 West Georgia (215,479)
Manulife Place (213,000)
Canada Place (210,000)
AXA Centre (206,044)
Georgia Place (199,979)
The Grosvenor Building (195,102)
Scotia Trust Centre (193,200)
Crown Life Place (193,088)
Nelson Square (190,000)
Two Bentall Centre (167,828)
Clarica Building (167,087)
1166 Alberni (165,000)
Grant Thornton Place (154,495)
Sun Life Plaza (151,654)
1185 West Georgia (147,088)
1090 West Georgia (144,181)
Pender Place I (142,530)
Pender Place II (142,356)
777 Hornby (138,585)
Vancouver House (138,308)
Broadway Plaza (132,000)
1125 Howe Street (128,912)
Standard Life Building (125,405)
1111 Melville (105,372)
475 West Georgia (103,361)
1550 Alberni (100,159)

Even if you add the two modest office components in the mixed-use projects of Georgia Residences and Jameson House, as well as the four major office developments that have started construction in the last 3 years, it would do very little to lessen the stark disparity between the pre-viewcone and post-viewcone eras. Moreover, you would also then be obliged to account for 3 extra years of office development (1965 to 1967) in the pre-viewcone era .

[jlousa]

The viewcones are not what kept office towers from being built, lack of demand was. Just like the view cones did not create the explosion of residential towers, demand did. As demand ramped up, the office towers proposed returned. Creating a business friendly government environment is a lot more conducive to building office towers then removing the view cones will ever be.
Washington DC has extreme height restrictions that make ours look tame, but has office space out the ying-yang due to heavy demand.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by jlousa

The viewcones are not what kept office towers from being built, lack of demand was.

Allow me to repeat myself:

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Please note that the following list does not purport to make a causal claim; it is simply a refutation of a causal claim, that is, the claim that viewcones have been some kind of stimulant to office development, either in number or in square footage.

In other words, I am not making any causal claims about what promotes or discourages office development, but rather pointing out that you have no empirical basis to make your causal claim:

Originally Posted by jlousa

if anything [the viewcones] have provided us with developments that wouldn't have happened otherwise, including this one, and MNP.

That causal claim is completely without empirical support. Indeed, it appears to be positively contradicted by the empirical evidence. So, although it may or may not be the case that the viewcones kept office towers from being built, it is certainly not the case that the viewcones caused office towers to be built. Such an assertion is inconsistent with the empirical evidence, as well as our common sense.

[djh]

[crickets]


Sometimes I could swear that I hear the voice of Tim Louis behind some of the more "friendly" posts on this forum.

[Caliplanner]

Originally Posted by jlousa

*l* The view cones have done little to nothing to stiffle development in the city, if anything they have provided us with developments that wouldn't have happened otherwise, including this one, and MNP.

jlousa, if the cost of office (or residential) building construction is excessively high in the CBD (where land space is limited) then the construction of taller buildings will tend to render such projects more financially viable/cost effective (than shorter ones) ceteris paribus!

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by Caliplanner

jlousa, if the cost of office (or residential) building construction is excessively high in the CBD (where land space is limited) then the construction of taller buildings will tend to render such projects more financially viable/cost effective (than shorter ones) ceteris paribus!

Furthermore, if it were never more economically efficient to build towers taller than the viewcone restrictions, then there would be no need for such restrictions. The very existence of the viewcone restrictions are an acknowledgment that in many cases taller projects are more economically viable. So, assuming all other things being equal in viewcone and non-viewcone worlds (including demand), it is patently false to claim that viewcones do not negatively impact potential office development in a high-cost, land restricted environment.

[vancouver604]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Furthermore, if it were never more economically efficient to build towers taller than the viewcone restrictions, then there would be no need for such restrictions. The very existence of the viewcone restrictions are an acknowledgment that in many cases taller projects are more economically viable. So, assuming all other things being equal in viewcone and non-viewcone worlds (including demand), it is patently false to claim that viewcones do not negatively impact potential office development in a high-cost, land restricted environment.

~~If anyone want's view cones don't worry once the big quake happens pretty much the whole west end will open up to mountain views and a bunch of rubble (sad but true)

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by urbancanadian

Thanks for all the info. That is really a great looking building. The roofline makes me think of Two World Trade Center in NYC.

Is there any chance that part of the site sits inside a "view shadow"? Maybe of the Harbour Centre or Granville Square?

Could anyone look into that?

If 320 Granville is any indication, then it is View Cone 3.2.3 - the Queen E view cone.

BUT I thought that's the one that can be relaxed?

View Cone 3.2.3:
It pretty much limits anything taller than the office part of Harbour Centre.


http://former.vancouver.ca/commsvcs/views/viewcones/3.htm

From the 320 Granville staff report:


http://former.vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20140715/documents/phea2presentation.pdf

Otherwise, the City Hall view cones also apply - maybe a bit higher limit than the QE one:

View Cone 9.1 from Cambie & 10th/11th Ave. (City Hall).


http://former.vancouver.ca/commsvcs/views/viewcones/91.htm

View Cone 9.1 from Cambie & 12th Ave. (City Hall).
This is also the one that will limit the Holborn project on the Bay Parkade site (to the right of Scotia Tower).


http://former.vancouver.ca/commsvcs/views/viewcones/91.htm

I wonder if they just lopped off the peak?


http://vimeo.com/84787920

Reminder what 320 Granville will look like:

PS - Won't these look cool pretty much flanking the station?
(until buildings are built over the tracks)

Originally Posted by officedweller

From the VIA Architecture website (dated Aug 2012).
The prow seems to be an over-used feature these days.


http://www.via-architecture.com/project/320-granville/

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by urbancanadian

Is there any chance that part of the site sits inside a "view shadow"? Maybe of the Harbour Centre or Granville Square?

Could anyone look into that?

The building has been submitted at 127M, there are no view shadows and no easements to viewcone penetration.

Originally Posted by madog222

Looks like a solar panel roof.

Sure is!

Originally Posted by a very long weekend

i guess the idea of running a road through there for a transit bay is dead?

No, the reason the building hangs over the station (not sure if that is clear from the video, but it does) is because the city stipulated that an easement be maintained on the west side of the site.

Originally Posted by canucks23

So how much shorter are we looking at?

13M, the building has already been redesigned and does not look significantly different.

Originally Posted by officedweller

BUT I thought that's the one that can be relaxed?

I believe that the final report stated that the QE view cones will not be relaxed. Either way the city has stated the tower cannot penetrate the viewcone.

I wonder if they just lopped off the peak?

Absolutely not!

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

No, the reason the building hangs over the station (not sure if that is clear from the video, but it does) is because the city stipulated that an easement be maintained on the west side of the site.


Absolutely not!

Thanks!

From the video it looked like it hung over the sidewalk and street to the east, rather than the station.

Good to hear it will still have the peak.

BTW - it reminds me a bit of Cira Centre in Philadelphia (also next to a train station).

[LeftCoaster]

Cira was one of my first thoughts too.

This tower should really be a stunner at grade. The top portion will be elegant and hit the skyline well but the real focal point of the design is the 'oragami wall' facilitating the overhang and interaction with the station.

And chopping the peak was a non-starter from every team involved, the developer, the architect and presumably the city (although it was never even presented as an option). It's just too important a part of the design the lose.

[officedweller]

Looked at the video again and on the side facing the station, it looks like the origami wall sits away from the floorplate to create an atrium.

[LeftCoaster]

Good eye, it sure does.

8 Floors in the very SW corner, but about 5-6 floors high for the bulk of it. Should be an impressive feature.

[officedweller]

Cool. I guess the office tower lobby will connect to the CP Station corridor with the atrium above.

[Klazu]

Originally Posted by officedweller

If 320 Granville is any indication, then it is View Cone 3.2.3 - the Queen E view cone. It pretty much limits anything taller than the office part of Harbour Centre.


http://former.vancouver.ca/commsvcs/views/viewcones/3.htm

This view cone should be made redundant as that view has long since been overgrown. This used to be the view from right next to the arboretum, but nowadays you can only see tree tops from there. If anything, those treetops are violating the view cone as of today.

There is still a similar view from the patio of The Seasons restaurant and the walkway next to it, but it is a slightly different view.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by Klazu

This view cone should be made redundant as that view has long since been overgrown. This used to be the view from right next to the arboretum, but nowadays you can only see tree tops from there. If anything, those treetops are violating the view cone as of today.

There is still a similar view from the patio of The Seasons restaurant and the walkway next to it, but it is a slightly different view.

They cut back the trees a few years ago (to some outcry).
The pic on the city website is outdated.

But you highlight the absurdity of the viewcones when the trees have foliage or are evergreen.