Downtown Vancouver Updates

[osirisboy]

It'll happen one day. Maybe when there's a new cycle of people working at city hall that aren't afraid of height

[mcminsen]

Originally Posted by retro_orange

Thanks, I had always thought that building needed some help. Did you happen to notice if they were doing any construction inside? It just looks like new windows in the pics.

Originally Posted by mcminsen

New windows for sure on the old Pappas building but I can't remember seeing anything inside. I'll take a closer look next time I'm over that way.

Here are some pics I took today.



Sept.16 '15, my pics

[csbvan]

Thanks for the pics. Any word on who is moving in?

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by vanman

You must be thinking of the micro loft proposal by Reliance Properties, designed by NMDA.







http://projects.denari.co/902-DAVIE-2013-17


And there's also this futuristic proposal by the same developer and architect.







http://projects.denari.co/TOWER-X-2013

Okay, again, does anyone have any real insight to these proposals, or are they dead in the water?

I love both of them.

I do kind of remember someone saying that the second one is already dead / replaced, but what about the black tower????

[osirisboy]

Regarding that second tower I thought that proposal was what replaced the previous one that went dead

[mcminsen]

Originally Posted by mcminsen

The latest look for Sequel 138 - 138 East Hastings Street.

Previous posts with pics here:

Aug.16
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=7131592&postcount=12367

June 14
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=7062885&postcount=12189

March 28
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=6969407&postcount=11851

Jan.17
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=6879175&postcount=11695


Aug.30 '15, my pics

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

^ It was also always going to be metal panels. The faux articulation of the massing to try and make it 'read' as multiple buildings was part of the reason for the initial lack of support, mostly because it was going to use the same (lowish quality) materials in different colours, as opposed to committing to the differentiation through the use of different materials, different windows, different fenestration, awnings, commercial retail expression, etc.

However, my recollection was that the dominant reason were the huge reservations about the original design's highly problematic breezeway to the alley that would have added pedestrian permeability between Hastings and the alley, which the architects were excited to note functions as a "parallel pedestrian street" that they wanted to celebrate and activate with small incubator retail spaces. Yeah. To address the screamingly obvious CPTED issues, it would have had some sort of swinging & folding portcullis-like glass and metal barrier system that would be dragged out nightly to bar access to the alcove/passageway from Hastings and the alley outside of business hours, though I'm honestly not sure how that was illustrated in the previous rendering. There was a well-intentioned fantasy of having a series of (tiny) commercial retail units on the alley side that would accessible from Hastings during the day using the passageway. I am not sure whether the passage way survived to the final (built) iteration, perhaps in a re-thought configuration.

So yes, the final design is pretty flat and bland, and higher quality materials would have helped, but the insanity of creating brand new weather-protected alcoves and passageways free from prying eyes on the street leading to the largely lawless laneway were important reason for the original design's lack of support. At least that's my recollection. It's been a few years now.

Here are some more pics of Sequel 138 including ground floor shots showing the breezeway from Hastings to the back alley. The first four are from the front and the last six are in the alley.




Sept.16 '15, my pics












Back alley:

[Jebby]

That building makes me want to puke.

[mcminsen]

Originally Posted by Jebby

That building makes me want to puke.

Thank you for your thoughtful post.

[retro_orange]

Originally Posted by mcminsen

Here are some pics I took today.



Sept.16 '15, my pics

Awesome, thanks! I love the old tiled floor with the Greek key motif. Hopefully they won't cover it up.

[mcminsen]

Originally Posted by csbvan

Thanks for the pics. Any word on who is moving in?

I have no idea but wouldn't this main floor space with all the windows make a great restaurant with the view of Victory Square Park.



Former Pappas Furs building, Sept.16 '15, my pic

[csbvan]

Originally Posted by mcminsen

I have no idea but wouldn't this main floor space with all the windows make a great restaurant with the view of Victory Square Park.



Former Pappas Furs building, Sept.16 '15, my pic

Whenever I see old buildings being renovated like this my hope is always restaurant on the ground floor

[the_prof]

Thanks for the Sequel 138 photos, mcminsen! Did you by any chance take a photo of the Atira site (41 east hastings), where the bottle depot used to be? I think these two buildings, when done, will help this block finally look more normal.

[mcminsen]

Originally Posted by the_prof

Thanks for the Sequel 138 photos, mcminsen! Did you by any chance take a photo of the Atira site (41 east hastings), where the bottle depot used to be? I think these two buildings, when done, will help this block finally look more normal.

I agree, it will certainly help. I haven't taken any pics of 41 E. Hastings yet. I might be up for the challenge, though.

This stretch of Hastings is not a good place to be seen with a camera taking pictures. It's one thing to walk it but when you stop and start taking pics you risk getting harassed and challenged or worse. I always try to be quick, discrete and respectful and I never point my camera at people. Even still, when I was getting a pic today of Sequel from across the street, some big lout became enraged and started screaming and cussing at me and didn't stop until I left. And then when I was in the alley behind Sequel some guy started pestering me with questions about what I was doing and why and was I from the city and on and on. I just said I don't answer questions and carried on. This area is not for the meek.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

Regarding that second tower I thought that proposal was what replaced the previous one that went dead

I hope you are correct. I just wish someone on this forum would provide something of an answer. I am sure someone here must know the status of these two proposals.

[phesto]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

I hope you are correct. I just wish someone on this forum would provide something of an answer. I am sure someone here must know the status of these two proposals.

From what I know, the proposal shown on this page for the West Pender site is dead. The City does not support the height that this proposal depicts as it would create a shadow on the Coal Harbour Community Centre. The site was subsequently sold to another developer, Port Development (same group that did South Creek Landing at the South end of the Cambie Bridge). I expect we'll be seeing a new design soon, similar in height to what was launched in 2013 under the name "The Views".

[VanK]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

I hope you are correct. I just wish someone on this forum would provide something of an answer. I am sure someone here must know the status of these two proposals.

Regarding the Davie & Hornby micro-suites building, I THINK(?)Reliance is still unsuccessfully trying to lobby Vision to accept micro suites. Someone correct me if I am not talking about the correct site, but from what I understand city hall is not sold on the idea of building these tiny micro suites and needs a further study. One concern the city has is that if these suites go to market, they will be snatched up by investors - which is not the intended target market for the units... My response to that is then so what? if its an investor buying the unit, they will either sell it (still going to be cheaper than a regular sized studio or 1 bed) or rent them out to a person that is looking for cheaper rent. By adding more small suites, it can only help by adding to the inventory of more affordable suites. Life is about supply & demand.. the more supply, more downward pressure on prices. The City is also concerned about people living in these tiny suites and they are not sold on the fact that it will "work".. which is an argument that baffles me because nobody is forcing people to live in them and if the developer is wrong and nobody wants them, then the risk is all on the developer!


http://globalnews.ca/news/1679849/develo...up-his-affordable-micro-suites-proposal/

[osirisboy]

This really makes me mad and irritated when the city spends our tax dollars on these studies to determine if something would be viable, in this case micro suites. Isn't that up to the owner/developer to decide. If they want to build this let them!!! Surely they have done their research and have determined a market for this. And if they built it and no one wants to live there then I guess they would have to renovate and make larger units. At the end it's their millions of dollars they have invested into it

Edit* or does the city have the owner conduct the study and pay for it? (That would make more sense)

[logan5]

Originally Posted by VanK

Regarding the Davie & Hornby micro-suites building, I THINK(?)Reliance is still unsuccessfully trying to lobby Vision to accept micro suites. Someone correct me if I am not talking about the correct site, but from what I understand city hall is not sold on the idea of building these tiny micro suites and needs a further study. One concern the city has is that if these suites go to market, they will be snatched up by investors - which is not the intended target market for the units... My response to that is then so what? if its an investor buying the unit, they will either sell it (still going to be cheaper than a regular sized studio or 1 bed) or rent them out to a person that is looking for cheaper rent. By adding more small suites, it can only help by adding to the inventory of more affordable suites. Life is about supply & demand.. the more supply, more downward pressure on prices. The City is also concerned about people living in these tiny suites and they are not sold on the fact that it will "work".. which is an argument that baffles me because nobody is forcing people to live in them and if the developer is wrong and nobody wants them, then the risk is all on the developer!

Micro-suites are allowed in the DTES/Chinatown, so I presume it's only a matter of time before they're allowed in the rest of the peninsula and beyond. An excerpt from the DTES Local Area Plan that I extracted from a City Hall Watch articled...

11.26 Micro dwelling

11.26.1 A micro dwelling must be at least 29.7 m2, except that the Director of Planning or the Development Permit Board may relax the permitted floor area of a micro dwelling unit to a minimum of 23.2 m2 if:

(a) the Director of Planning or the Development Permit Board first considers all applicable Council policies and guidelines, and
(b) the micro dwelling is part of a development which has a covenant or housing agreement registered against title restricting its use to secured market rental housing or social housing, for the longer of 60 years or the life of the building.

11.26.2 A micro dwelling shall only be permitted in: (a) HA-1 and HA-1A districts;
(b) HA-2 district;
(c) that area of the FC-1 District north of National Avenue; (d) Downtown-Eastside Oppenheimer District;

(f) that area of the Downtown District that is denoted as C2 on Map 1 of the Downtown Official Development Plan.

https://cityhallwatch.wordpress.com/2014/03/18/micro-dwelling-units/

[NewWester]

I should hope the developer isn't paying for the study. It would be like a Tobacco company paying for a study into the health effects of smoking.

Since this is the first mircosuite proposal like this (I think, right?) isn't it kind of important to come to some policy decisions about this style of building and the amount of these suites we will allow in the city? I mean, you are right they will increase the stock of affordable units, but only for a certain kind of individual. Cities need to keep building multi-bedroom apartments too, for instance, or else it will be impossible for families to live in cities. And I think understanding what allowing microsuite apartment buildings will do to the stock and development of larger (more liveable) apartment formats is pretty important.

Or put another way, the market only cares about what makes money, and sometimes what makes money sucks for us proles.

[dreambrother808]

Micro-suites tend to rent for more per square foot than larger suites of the same calibre. Do we want to incentivize this at the expense of those larger suites?

It's complicated.

I used to live in one and appreciated not having a roommate, while retaining an affordable rent downtown. At the same time, the turnover of renters is very high, as for most this is only a temporary solution. You move up in the world financially and/or tire of the constraints of this kind of accommodation.