The Ultimate Vancouver Rumour Thread!

[officedweller]

Yeah,
I don't know which would be correct.

My friend says they haven't worked on it for several months, so his figure could be out of date.

But as you mention, Changing City Updates own figures - 33 storeys and 524 ft (33 storeys should yield about 460 ft) do seem out of line with each other (unless there's a 5 storey mechanical penthouse and windscreen)

[Locked In]

The Changing City post includes the following (don't see it in the quote OD posted above - maybe it was added later), which could explain some additional height:

The architect seems to have used the opportunity afforded by the generous height allowance to design high floor-to-ceiling heights (for the 20,000 square feet average floorplate) and a 40 foot high main floor atrium.

[red-paladin]

If it is 150m+ to the tip like Changing City suggests, that's larger than it first appeared and sounds like a good height for that location to me.

[Canadian Mind]

wouldn't 32-33 floors result in a tower closer to the 140m mark?

Either way, is it possible for locals to email the UDP and suggest that building anything less than 150m is a waste of the available airspace?

[Metro-One]

People just said it will have a very tall 1st floor (atrium) and taller than normal general floors.

Looking at the renders again I actually believe that the top may be over 150 meters. It is a wider floor plate so it doesn't look quite as tall as it is compared to other towers in Vancouver.

[Locked In]

I guess this isn't a rumour anymore - the formal rezoning application is in for 1133 Melville: http://former.vancouver.ca/commsvcs/planning/rezoning/applications/1133melville/index.htm. Height is listed at 159.9 metres to the top, 139.4 to the top habitable floor. ~487,000 square feet of usable office space, and 9,800 square feet of retail.

More renders here (PDF): http://former.vancouver.ca/commsvcs/plan...lville/documents/building-renderings.pdf

Here's a render posted on Vancouver Market:

[phesto]

^The location of the building in the rendering appears to be slightly off; the building should be further North.

[Klazu]

NOW I am officially excited. 160 meters!

Too bad it will line up with Shangri-La and thus not contribute much to the skyline from North Shore.

[csbvan]

Originally Posted by Klazu

NOW I am officially excited. 160 meters!

Too bad it will line up with Shangri-La and thus not contribute much to the skyline from North Shore.

A bulky 160m no less!

[Klazu]

That's one massive and wide floorplate in the skyline shot. I just love how the glass interior has structured layers going up.

Now the question is: will people in Shangri-La, Trump and especially The Melville complain for losing views?

[squeezied]

That rendering doesn't seem right. Isn't that where Shangri-La suppose to be?

[Pinion]

MNP tower is AWOL in that render too. That's been a significant positive addition to the view from the north IMO. Hopefully that one sits right in between it and Shangri La.

Our pre-9/11 Manhattan look will be ended by this guy.

[Klazu]

Actually, from this exact angle MNP Tower is more to the east and Shangri-La would pretty much be hidden in the background, although taller. If you would move 100 meters to left or right, Shangri-La would show up.

[Vin]

This sweetie breaks the trend of the recent office tower table-topping phenomenon. See how awesome it is if viewcone policies do not intrude on the "freedom of expression"? (To counter those who insist that office tower heights are determined by market demand) Sadly, this is allowed only because it is situated at the viewcone shadow of the Shangrila.

[logan5]

Thing is that the view cones didn't intrude on any freedom of expression in this case. Obviously a different strategy with office development vs residential.

Since this tower doesn't come right to the height limit, could we say that market demand stunted this towers ultimate potential?

[Henbo]

There are a couple more rough renderings in here: http://former.vancouver.ca/commsvcs/plan...1133melville/documents/view-analysis.pdf

Gives you a bit more of an idea of how it'll look among the skyline

[Vin]

Originally Posted by logan5

Thing is that the view cones didn't intrude on any freedom of expression in this case. Obviously a different strategy with office development vs residential.

They still are, otherwise this building can go even higher than the Shangri-la. Point is, even with the viewcone at play, as long as the office tower is shorter than the Shangri-la, the City has nothing else to complain about. I guess this is a tiny "loophole" that those viewcone fanatics missed, that allowing one site to go tall essentially means allowing quite a few more taller buildings to flout the viewcone rules, but they would be lining up behind the viewcone shadow of that first tall building.

[red-paladin]

This building deserves it's own thread at this point.

[squeezied]

Originally Posted by Klazu

Actually, from this exact angle MNP Tower is more to the east and Shangri-La would pretty much be hidden in the background, although taller. If you would move 100 meters to left or right, Shangri-La would show up.

The reason why I found it peculiar was the FortisBC tower was visible in that rendering and the Shangri-La building (hidden in that rendering) should be right behind it. I suppose the FortisBC tower should be hidden then.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by logan5

Since this tower doesn't come right to the height limit, could we say that market demand stunted this towers ultimate potential?

No, because the economics of the tower's height is affected by the maximum allowable FSR, which is determined by city council, not the market place.

In one of your earlier statements, you seemed to understand that.