The Ultimate Vancouver Rumour Thread! - Page 54

EdinVan · #**1061** Posted **Nov 18, 2014, 7:52 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by osirisboy

Oh I am well aware of them lol. My point was why are they there. They don't live or work there So why would it be inconvenient for them to go outside the area for a shelter

Moving it to the dtes would be horrible. That would just help to maintain the drug infested ghetto. If I was ever in a situation where I needed to use a shelter I would hate for it to be in the dtes

Yes, out of sight, out of mind, right? Horrible poor people; why can't they know their place?

Klazu · #**1062** Posted **Nov 18, 2014, 8:03 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by vanciti

The property is owned by 3 gentleman, 2 are back in HK and one is still here, however moving back to HK.

There have been half a dozen offers on the property, including 3 or 4 that were taken back to the owners. They have one valuation on the land and would sell it if they could achieve that valuation. The market could not bear that valuation however.

There is no communication between the owners and the city, they have no interest in developing the site on their own.

So how should one read this? Nothing going to happen in a long, long time?

Henbo · #**1063** Posted **Nov 23, 2014, 3:38 AM**

During 'The Sean Leslie Show' on CKNW today, he interviewed Stockwell Day who is now the Senior Advisor for the proposed $10 billion Pacific Future Energy refinery. When asked if they have yet chosen a location for the refinery, Day replied they are looking at 2 or 3 favourable sites. "We're looking at for sure one in the north, and lets just say one in a more lower mainland area."

whatnext · #**1064** Posted **Nov 23, 2014, 4:46 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Henbo

During 'The Sean Leslie Show' on CKNW today, he interviewed Stockwell Day who is now the Senior Advisor for the proposed $10 billion Pacific Future Energy refinery. When asked if they have yet chosen a location for the refinery, Day replied they are looking at 2 or 3 favourable sites. "We're looking at for sure one in the north, and lets just say one in a more lower mainland area."

Hehe that should get Gregor and/or Corrigan worked up into a lather!

Vin · #**1065** Posted **Nov 23, 2014, 10:29 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Klazu

So how should one read this? Nothing going to happen in a long, long time?

Start a petition to have the viewcone bylaws removed. I'm sure that would garner a lot more support compared to the yesteryears. There are also a lot more people living in highrises today compared to those living in low-rise Shaughnessey.

When that's done, we will see some major positive changes......

red-paladin · #**1066** Posted **Mar 28, 2015, 11:10 AM**

Do we think that we'll see a proposal to replace the small buildings across Alberni from the Burrard building with a moderately sized office building?

Canadian Mind · #**1067** Posted **Mar 28, 2015, 2:15 PM**

By moderate, are you talking 300, 400, 500 feet? Considering the majority of that block isn't view coned, I think it'd be a waste if anything less than 600 feet goes there.

osirisboy · #**1068** Posted **Mar 28, 2015, 2:46 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by EdinVan

Yes, out of sight, out of mind, right? Horrible poor people; why can't they know their place?

Sorry I just saw this now. But yea youre right let's only build shelter space downtown where we can't actually afford to build an adequate number and create a drug infested ghetto while we are at it! Good job! Because God forbid we try to spread it out across the region

red-paladin · #**1069** Posted **Mar 29, 2015, 7:06 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Canadian Mind

By moderate, are you talking 300, 400, 500 feet? Considering the majority of that block isn't view coned, I think it'd be a waste if anything less than 600 feet goes there.

Well, as tall as allowed would be ideal of course.

Vin · #**1070** Posted **Mar 29, 2015, 7:56 AM**

It is just simply wrong that people in this city can only hope to have something really tall built only when an existing short building of one selected site gets demolished. What if the owner decides not to do anything until beyond our lifetime? Should we be content with just the Shangrila and Trump for the foreseeable future?

osirisboy · #**1071** Posted **Mar 29, 2015, 3:18 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by red-paladin

Well, as tall as allowed would be ideal of course.

No what would be "ideal" is if the city got over its irrational fear of heights

officedweller · #**1072** Posted **Jul 22, 2015, 12:17 AM**

I think this is a model of Oxford's new office tower project on Melville Street - posted April 22, 2015 on the B+B Model website:

https://www.facebook.com/pages/BB-Sc...=photos_stream

Klazu · #**1073** Posted **Jul 22, 2015, 12:22 AM**

32 or 33 floors so perhaps around 110 meters. Will this be preventing any views from Trump Tower? Which exact lot this is?

I don't mind it, but it isn't that exciting either.

officedweller · #**1074** Posted **Jul 22, 2015, 12:36 AM**

Here's the site:

It's a site that can go up to 550 feet under the Higher Buildings Policy
- but looks like it won't b built to the maximum height.

http://former.vancouver.ca/commsvcs/guidelines/H005.pdf

It'll probably be similar in height to Bentall IV (maybe a few floors shorter)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Klazu

trofirhen · #**1075** Posted **Jul 22, 2015, 12:52 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Klazu

32 or 33 floors so perhaps around 110 meters. Will this be preventing any views from Trump Tower? Which exact lot this is?

I don't mind it, but it isn't that exciting either.

I try thinking of it as quality infill. Doing that might help. It's daring and bold - for an insipid, undramatic infill office tower.

Klazu · #**1076** Posted **Jul 22, 2015, 12:54 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by officedweller

It's a site that can go up to 550 feet under the Higher Building Policy
- but looks like it won't b built to the maximum height.

That sucks. Such opportunities are not many. They could have added a 10-floor residential component on the top. I am sure it would be worth it.

officedweller · #**1077** Posted **Jul 22, 2015, 12:57 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Klazu

That sucks. Such opportunities are not many. They could have added a 10-floor residential component on the top. I am sure it would be worth it.

The residential density for the site was transferred to The Melville condo tower next door. This one has to be 100% commercial space (office/hotel).

Klazu · #**1078** Posted **Jul 22, 2015, 1:01 AM**

Well, make it a hotel then like Ritz-Carlton Hong Kong.

officedweller · #**1079** Posted **Jul 22, 2015, 1:03 AM**

Yeah, you'd think that would be a possibility - but I guess the sale of condo units these days is needed to subsidize hotel construction.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trofirhen

I try thinking of it as quality infill. Doing that might help. It's daring and bold - for an insipid, undramatic infill office tower.

It bears resemblance to 745 Thurlow, as well as the proposed Vancouver Centre II - so I think the local architects must be MCM.
The lead architect is supposed to be the same as MNP Tower - Kohn Petersen Fox

logan5 · #**1080** Posted **Jul 22, 2015, 1:23 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by trofirhen

I try thinking of it as quality infill. Doing that might help. It's daring and bold...

...for Nanaimo.

An opportunity for a 550' office is few and far between for Vancouver. Too bad. This would by far be the tallest office tower in Vancouver. Though I slag the tower a bit, it would still stand out against a backdrop of condo towers.