The Ultimate Vancouver Rumour Thread!

[Klazu]

Originally Posted by 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

Thanks! Man, this building is huge and bulky if those are accurate at all. I think they have drawn the height a bit conservatively on few of the photos, as 160 meters should raise quite a lot above The Melville.

I have no idea what some of those QEP view cones are trying to protect. View of the West Vancouver mansions?

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Klazu

Thanks! Man, this building is huge and bulky if those are accurate at all. I think they have drawn the height a bit conservatively on few of the photos, as 160 meters should raise quite a lot above The Melville.

I have no idea what some of those QEP view cones are trying to protect. View of the West Vancouver mansions?

One of those things in Vancouver that defies logic. From that view area of QE Park, the expanse of mountain views on both sides of downtown is still really wide. Even if you add ten 60 to 80-storey towers onto the downtown peninsula, it wouldn't really spoil any view, but only enhances it, and the world wouldn't come to a sudden end. I think what we experience now is the die-hard remnant of hippy culture from the 60s, with people who started it fearing the urban sophisticates coming to town and driving them to oblivion.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by 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:

Thanks - didn't catch that.

Originally Posted by 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:

Thanks for posting.

Originally Posted by squeezied

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.

Correct - the rendering is off.

FortisBC tower and the Federal Gov't Building next to Orca Place should both be blocked by this tower.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

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.

We were talking about viewcones not density. 1

Is there an official plan for this area (that's not out of date) that dictates a maximum allowable FSR. I haven't seen one. Even if there is an official plan, FSR will not necessarily be set. In the DTES OCP, there is no maximum density for the Chinatown sub-area, it states - "urban design performance based".

If there is no density specified for this site then the city has determined nothing at this point. And if that's the case, my statement holds true. You may then retract your erroneous post.

[PaperTiger]

Originally Posted by logan5

We were talking about viewcones not density.

Is there an official plan for this area (that's not out of date) that dictates a maximum allowable FSR. I haven't seen one. Even if there is an official plan, FSR will not necessarily be set. In the DTES OCP, there is no maximum density for the Chinatown sub-area, it states - "urban design performance based".

If there is no density specified for this site then the city has determined nothing at this point. And if that's the case, my statement holds true. You may then retract your erroneous post.

When one one believes to ones core that the CoV regulating land use is the only thing standing between us and some fantastic futuristic world of architectural delight, and that no other forces are at play, arguments to the contrary are seldom heard.

I fear you may be wasting your breath.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by logan5

We were talking about viewcones not density.

You were talking about whether "market demand stunted this tower's ultimate potential." There are regulations created by the city other than viewcones that can constrain or affect the economic calculus of a tower's optimum height. Allowable FSR is one of those regulations. If the current maximum allowable FSR (or the developer's belief about the greatest potential change to the current maximum allowable FSR) was a factor in the economic calculus of this tower's height, then it is not the case that "market demand stunted this tower's ultimate potential." The city played a part.

Originally Posted by logan5

Is there an official plan for this area (that's not out of date) that dictates a maximum allowable FSR. I haven't seen one. Even if there is an official plan, FSR will not necessarily be set.

Under current zoning, this site allows for a maximum height of 450 feet at 9.00 FSR. In light of other city policies, such as the Higher Building Policy (which allows 550 feet on this site), the developer is requesting an increase in FSR to 22.65.

Originally Posted by logan5

If there is no density specified for this site then the city has determined nothing at this point. And if that's the case, my statement holds true.

The city has specified density for this site, and the developer is requesting a massive increase in that specified density. If the developer believes a request for an even larger increase in the allowable FSR would likely be granted if he were to request one (and there were no other city regulations that played a meaningful factor in his economic calculus of the tower's optimum height), then your statement would hold true. However, I think it is more probable that the developer believes he is requesting the maximum increase (if not more than the maximum increase) in the allowable FSR that the city is likely to grant. If that is the case, then your statement is false.

But maybe a developer or someone with good knowledge of the development industry and city policy can weigh in. Because in this case, where some extra height under the Higher Building Policy is being left unutilized, the question of what factors determined the developer's choice of height is an interesting one. However, as jlousa stated:

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.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

But maybe a developer or someone with good knowledge of the development industry and city policy can weigh in. Because in this case, where some extra height under the Higher Building Policy is being left unutilized, the question of what factors determined the developer's choice of height is an interesting one.

I think it is more probable that the developer believes he is requesting the maximum increase (if not more than the maximum increase) in the allowable FSR that the city is likely to grant... as jlousa stated -

"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."

We've all been confused and frustrated by the decisions the city makes with regards to development downtown. Case in point the waterfront tower proposal at 555 Cordova Street, which was completely shot down by the city. Clearly developers have no idea how the city is going to react to the various aspects of their application, otherwise they would get the first proposal right and would not have to take the time and expense of going back to the drawing board, as we've seen time and time again.

It's more probable the developer is quite unsure how the city will react to its requested density.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by logan5

We've all been confused and frustrated by the decisions the city makes with regards to development downtown. Case in point the waterfront tower proposal at 555 Cordova Street, which was completely shot down by the city. Clearly developers have no idea how the city is going to react to the various aspects of their application, otherwise they would get the first proposal right and would not have to take the time and expense of going back to the drawing board, as we've seen time and time again.

It's more probable the developer is quite unsure how the city will react to its requested density.

So, now you know more about the nature of development proposals and city approval behaviour than jlousa?

If developers' initial aspirations regarding height or density are unsuccessful, then it is almost always because they ask for more than the city is willing to allow, not less. Your examples underscore that fact. Thus, it is most probable the developer in the current case is requesting the absolute maximum increase in FSR he believes the city is likely to grant. And working within that non-market constraint, he has calculated the economically optimum height of the building.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

So, now you know more about the nature of development proposals and city approval behaviour than jlousa?

If developers' initial aspirations regarding height or density are unsuccessful, then it is almost always because they ask for more than the city is willing to allow, not less. Your examples underscore that fact. Thus, it is most probable the developer in the current case is requesting the absolute maximum increase in FSR he believes the city is likely to grant. And working within that non-market constraint, he has calculated the economically optimum height of the building.

I've never seen an application declined because they aren't asking for enough density. I presume there must be some examples otherwise you wouldn't have suggested that cases like that exist.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by logan5

I've never seen an application declined because they aren't asking for enough density. I presume there must be some examples otherwise you wouldn't have suggested that cases like that exist.

I am not sure if it is because you don't actually read people's responses or just a lack of reading comprehension, but you are starting to lose your grip on the conversation.

If you have a compelling argument for why you think this developer is requesting a smaller increase in density than he believes the city would be likely to grant if he asked for it, then you should make it now.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

I am not sure if it is because you don't actually read people's responses or just a lack of reading comprehension, but you are starting to lose your grip on the conversation.

If you have a compelling argument for why you think this developer is requesting a smaller increase in density than he believes the city would be likely to grant if he asked for it, then you should make it now.

I was trying to make the point that developers can't predict what the City will allow or will not allow. I think I made that point. Unless there's such a level of collusion between the City and developers that they're (the developers) being told beforehand the outcome of a rezoning application. Maybe Jlousa could add something to the contrary.

Now hurl your insults...

[logan5]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

I am not sure if it is because you don't actually read people's responses or just a lack of reading comprehension, but you are starting to lose your grip on the conversation.

If you have a compelling argument for why you think this developer is requesting a smaller increase in density than he believes the city would be likely to grant if he asked for it, then you should make it now.

Just noticed you edited your previous post which you said something far different than what is there now. Though I had already quoted it before you edited it, but somehow the quote in my post was edited too. How did you do that?

That opened the door for your "reading comprehension" line. Nice.

[jlousa]

The city didn't turn down 555 W.Cordova... It never made it that far, the UDP sent it back to work on it's form. I fully expect the city will approve 555 W. Cordova once it's been tweaked.
It's pretty easy for those in the industry and those that follow this forum closely and have a decent head on their shoulders to understand what gets proposed and why. I've tried explaining things over the years and it gets frustrating at times.
We hear all the time on here about how crappy our local architects are and how much better the proposals are from outside architects... Truth is any certified architect can design a fancy super building. The price of penning a fancy building is pretty insignificate over having a run of the mill one drawn up. The costs go way up building the damn thing though. Then it comes time to sell it, lots of times it acutally becomes a tougher sell instead of easier due to awkward floorplans. Look at the diffilculties Jameson had selling due to rounded walls and slightly higher prices to recoup the extra building costs. That's the the ultimate reason plain square buildings get built, they provide the most bang for the buck to the developer. The city can indicate what they'd like to see built but the developer is the one footing the bill and in the end dictate what can be built.
I know this is a skyscraper forum, and people tend to think higher is better. It isn't. Height isn't free, it costs a lot of money to build higher and once you get above a certain level you reach the cost of diminishing returns. For residential it's usally around the 30flr level right now. For office probably close to the same. As the floor count increases you are potentially adding extra elevators reducing your floor space on all floors below, you are adding significate upfront and operating costs as well. You are also potentionally adding more columns to support the weight, at the very least thicker colums, again reducing leasable space. Each floor also adds about 10days of construction time, while that doesnt' seem like much, an extra 10 stories could cost the developer millions in financing costs over landing that same FSR (and more importantly leasable space) in less height. While height can command a higher premium in residential due to views, it's less of an issue with commercial property. Being on the 40th floor gets old really fast when you are taking the elevator several times a day, multiple that by a couple hundred employees and you can understand why the number of companies willing to lose that much productivity isn't large.

[osirisboy]

I keep hearing that it's not economically feasible to build taller. Yet Calgary, Edmonton, seattle etc seem to have no problem building higher office towers than we do. Is it because those cities allow larger floor plates than vancouver does?

So if there were no height limits developers would still only roughly build up to 140 meters? Because anything taller wouldn't be ecomincally feasable?

[WarrenC12]

Thanks jlousa! Posts like this should be in a sticky or FAQ section.

[logan5]

You dont consider the UDP as part of the CoV? Who do they work for then?

[logan5]

@Prometheus

Your expert witness has spoken.

[Henbo]

jlousa, you're the man

Originally Posted by osirisboy

I keep hearing that it's not economically feasible to build taller. Yet Calgary, Edmonton, seattle etc seem to have no problem building higher office towers than we do. Is it because those cities allow larger floor plates than vancouver does?

So if there were no height limits developers would still only roughly build up to 140 meters? Because anything taller wouldn't be ecomincally feasable?

I am guessing it might be because of the block sizes in each downtown? Vancouver tends to have smaller and more rectangular/irregular block sizes then those cities?

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

I keep hearing that it's not economically feasible to build taller. Yet Calgary, Edmonton, seattle etc seem to have no problem building higher office towers than we do. Is it because those cities allow larger floor plates than vancouver does?

So if there were no height limits developers would still only roughly build up to 140 meters? Because anything taller wouldn't be ecomincally feasable?

Economically feasible vs. economically optimal are two different concepts. Based on building capital and operating costs, along with future revenue generating potential, all kinds of buildings are possible in different areas.

Maybe bigger corporate egos dominate, maybe construction costs are cheaper, or any number of other variables.

[osirisboy]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Economically feasible vs. economically optimal are two different concepts. Based on building capital and operating costs, along with future revenue generating potential, all kinds of buildings are possible in different areas.

Maybe bigger corporate egos dominate, maybe construction costs are cheaper, or any number of other variables.

Wasn't the law courts downtown originally going to be built in a 200 meter plus tower. I don't think you can say it's not feasable to build taller. It is interesting to see what the variables are.

Henbo, Vancouver doesn't like large floor plate buildings. It has little to do with our blocks.