The Ultimate Vancouver Rumour Thread!

[red-paladin]

This lot has a large footprint. The economics should support a taller tower with good sized floorplates.

[Prometheus]

Such a waste of one of the last remaining non-viewcone sites in the CBD. They could have gone to 168 metres without any questions asked.

[squeezied]

Does anybody know why the developer is not pursuing the potential of the site? Perceived lack of office demand near the end of the office boom?

[jlousa]

I'm certain that they would've calculated the best footprint to land the maximum fsr onto the site. Going taller might have lead to smaller floorplates and the need for additional elevators further compromising the floorplates. I trust the developer would've crunched the numbers more then once before getting to this stage.

[logan5]

So anybody know what the maximum density is for this site? You'd think the city wouldn't allow for a 550' building without first considering a reasonable density to accommodate that height.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by jlousa

I'm certain that they would've calculated the best footprint to land the maximum fsr onto the site. Going taller might have lead to smaller floorplates and the need for additional elevators further compromising the floorplates. I trust the developer would've crunched the numbers more then once before getting to this stage.

So does that mean we can expect an even shorter building than this one at Burrard and Georgia, where the city allows for 700 feet!, since that site's upper floorplate will have to be half the size of this one?

Originally Posted by officedweller

It seems to me that this site has the one of the biggest (if not the biggest) footprint of any office building site in Vancouver, and twice as large as residential towers like Shangri-La and Trump Tower.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by prometheus

so i guess we can expect an even shorter building at burrard and georgia, where the city allows for 700 feet!, since that site's floorplate will have to be half the size of this one.

wtf ?!?!?!

[phesto]

Thanks for posting officedweller.

The site is 30,000 SF in size and it looks like the floorplates are quite large; probably in excess of 20,000 SF. Speculation on my part, but the design is probably intended to try and attract a couple of large companies that are currently seeking space downtown that would prefer larger floorplates; otherwise they would probably explore a taller, thinner tower like MNP, which was built on spec.

The previous Amacon proposal for this site was 42 storeys and 512 feet but only had 15,500 SF floorplates, and the first 10 storeys were to be a 110-room hotel, with office space on floors 11-42. The total density of that proposal was 21.75 FSR or 660,000 SF, so I would think Oxford is targeting a similar density with this proposal (ie. 33 storeys x avg. 20,000 SF per floor = 660,000 SF).

I haven't heard of an actual application for this, so the model could just be a presentation item to try and attract tenants. Perhaps not the final design...

To be clear, Oxford will absolutely be maximizing the density on this site, just perhaps not the height.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by officedweller

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).

Can't they bend some rules to include some residential? People need to be more flexible, life's too short.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by phesto

Speculation on my part, but the design is probably intended to try and attract a couple of large companies that are currently seeking space downtown that would prefer larger floorplates; otherwise they would probably explore a taller, thinner tower like MNP, which was built on spec.

The previous Amacon proposal for this site was 42 storeys and 512 feet but only had 15,500 SF floorplates, and the first 10 storeys were to be a 110-room hotel, with office space on floors 11-42. The total density of that proposal was 21.75 FSR or 660,000 SF, so I would think Oxford is targeting a similar density with this proposal (ie. 33 storeys x avg. 20,000 SF per floor = 660,000 SF).

I haven't heard of an actual application for this, so the model could just be a presentation item to try and attract tenants. Perhaps not the final design...

Actually, wasn't it you who mentioned a couple years back that the developer had lined up tenants that would allow the project to proceed independently of any office cycle?

It's just a shame that here we have one of the last remaining sites in the CBD unencumbered by the city's suffocating viewcone laws which could support a truly landmark office tower and we end up with nothing more than all the other viewcone-restricted towers in the city, cementing Vancouver's table top commercial skyline almost irrevocably now.

[csbvan]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Actually, wasn't it you who mentioned a couple years back that the developer had lined up tenants that would allow the project to proceed independently of any office cycle?

It's just a shame that here we have one of the last remaining sites in the CBD unencumbered by the city's draconian viewcone laws which could support a truly landmark office tower and we end up with nothing more than all the other viewcone-restricted towers in the city, cementing Vancouver's commercial table top skyline almost irrevocably now.

So maybe it has never been the viewcone policy that has created the problem for commercial developments. We lack taller office buildings because the market just doesn't support them.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by csbvan

So maybe it has never been the viewcone policy that has created the problem for commercial developments. We lack taller office buildings because the market just doesn't support them.

Yeah, so it's just a freak coincidence that almost all the major post-viewcone towers stop precisely at the viewcone limits to the very centimetre? LOL!

Moreover, the development proposals themselves explicitly reference the viewcones as the parameter they are working within regarding height. And despite the well-known nature of the viewcone restrictions, recent towers like the Waterfront Station tower, 320 Granville, and Credit Suisse's Exchange still tried to go beyond them. The city, of course, sent both of them back to the (very expensive) drawing board.

That the city's viewcone restrictions have prevented many buildings, both commercial and residential, from going substantially taller is beyond any rational dispute. Indeed, that's precisely why the viewcone restrictions exist.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by csbvan

So maybe it has never been the viewcone policy that has created the problem for commercial developments. We lack taller office buildings because the market just doesn't support them.

Tabletopping around the CBD wouldn't happen once the viewcone policy is removed. It is human nature for one to outdo the other.

[csbvan]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Yeah, so it's just a freak coincidence that almost all the major post-viewcone towers stop precisely at the viewcone limits to the very centimetre? LOL!

What I meant was maybe we wouldn't see buildings much higher than the viewcone limits. It seems that there isn't a market for 500-700 foot office towers in Vancouver right now.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by csbvan

What I meant was maybe we wouldn't see buildings much higher than the viewcone limits. It seems that there isn't a market for 500-700 foot office towers in Vancouver right now.

Not at the current city-imposed maximum allowable FSR.

Whether through viewcones restrictions or maximum allowable FSR or zoning, the city distorts the economic calculation of building heights from the very outset. As long as those city-imposed distortions remain, we will never know the true heights an unencumbered market will support.

[Klazu]

I think we should allow much more mixed-use towers to take use of the limited living space we have. For example there is a huge lack of hotel rooms in this city and many new hotel + office/residential towers should be built.

I have had several people tell me this summer how they could not find any hotel rooms in all of Vancouver and had to stay as far out as Langley or White Rock. With all the cruise ship passangers and events (like FIFA) taking place in the city, everything has been booked solid since June and this seems to be continuing at least until end of September. And this means everything: hotels, hostels, AirBnB, stayvacation apartments...

I think I read in one of the FIFA adds that there are around 45 000 hotel rooms in Metro Vancouver. Apparently that is not enough and much more is needed. Because of that integrating hotel with more projects like this should be allowed and even encouraged by the city. Hotels are also better in that sense that you can take away their views later on with new towers and they won't complain. Shangri-La hotel has no views anymore and there has been no complains of that (unlike Jameson House).

[WarrenC12]

I don't think you're going to find too many investors in hotel properties that are going to build on the margins (for things like FIFA). Bottom line is we had the event, much like the Olympics, and it was successful without anybody being homeless.

I work with some people who had to book rooms in town and ended up paying ~$300 for the HoJo during the busiest times. It is what it is.

[LeftCoaster]

Thanks for the scoop OD.

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 think the design is quite sharp. Nothing too gaudy but with the right finishes it will age quite well.

Also this looks to be closer to 140M. 32 floors @ 4M with a double height lobby gets you to the ~140 range.

Originally Posted by logan5

So anybody know what the maximum density is for this site? You'd think the city wouldn't allow for a 550' building without first considering a reasonable density to accommodate that height.

That's not really the city's prerogative. It is possible to build smaller floorplates and a taller tower, but the return would likely be less than if the tower was shorter with larger more efficient floorplates. The city dictates the parameters and it is up to the developer to build the most economically viable project within those parameters.

That said I was hoping for something taller here. The city may ask the developer to shrink the floor plates and go taller, as there is certainly a mantra within planning towards smaller floorplates.

[officedweller]

PS - my engineer friend confirms that the model shown is the same as the design they have been working with (as of a few months ago).

Originally Posted by phesto

Thanks for posting officedweller.

The site is 30,000 SF in size and it looks like the floorplates are quite large; probably in excess of 20,000 SF. Speculation on my part, but the design is probably intended to try and attract a couple of large companies that are currently seeking space downtown that would prefer larger floorplates; otherwise they would probably explore a taller, thinner tower like MNP, which was built on spec.

The previous Amacon proposal for this site was 42 storeys and 512 feet but only had 15,500 SF floorplates, and the first 10 storeys were to be a 110-room hotel, with office space on floors 11-42. The total density of that proposal was 21.75 FSR or 660,000 SF, so I would think Oxford is targeting a similar density with this proposal (ie. 33 storeys x avg. 20,000 SF per floor = 660,000 SF).

I haven't heard of an actual application for this, so the model could just be a presentation item to try and attract tenants. Perhaps not the final design...

To be clear, Oxford will absolutely be maximizing the density on this site, just perhaps not the height.

This leasing site cites 20,000 sq ft floorplates for the proposed 1133 Melville tower (but only cites 20 storeys and 400,000 sq ft):

http://www.altusinsite.com/index.php...spaceid=728169

[Caliplanner1]

Originally Posted by Vin

Tabletopping around the CBD wouldn't happen once the viewcone policy is removed. It is human nature for one to outdo the other.

LOL..so one could argue thus that the view cone policy is in essence egalitarian and therefore socialist?????