Downtown Vancouver Updates - Page 655

officedweller · #**13081** Posted **Feb 24, 2016, 10:15 PM**

Central Broadway is part of the "Metropolitan Core", so it would make sense.
I suspect overshadowing adjacent residential may factor against a continuous tall streetwall.

logan5 · #**13082** Posted **Feb 25, 2016, 2:30 AM**

i think were at the stage where we should start treating Central
Broadway as downtown.

When the subway line finally arrives, Broadway will be able to function better than the DT peninsula. Thousands of people will be able to take a quick one ticket ride to their jobs, from the dense neighbourhoods that flank Broadway. The peninsula for the most part doesn't have that.

Prometheus · #**13083** Posted **Feb 25, 2016, 2:48 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by logan5

I think were at the stage where we should start treating Central Broadway as downtown.

We are actually past that stage. But if the city's currently timid and regressive approach to zoning within the inner city continues, then the tallest, densest, most big city buildings that the Broadway Corridor will ever see were already built many years (even decades) ago.

I would love (and Vancouver needs) for that to be untrue.

bc2mb · #**13084** Posted **Feb 26, 2016, 3:43 PM**

Didn't see a thread, but went to the open house for the new Grosvenor Pacific tower at Hornby and Pacific and snapped some pics of tower and neighbourhood models... showing a couple new buildings where the Granville Street bridge loops are.

More pics at bottom of this article:

http://www.vancouvercondonews.com/blog/grosvenor-pacific-hornby-granville-bridge-loops

Looks like people in Maddox about to lose their views..

Tommyrey · #**13085** Posted **Feb 26, 2016, 5:45 PM**

I was surprised to see this line in the article bc2mb linked to:

"There are also plans for a new aquatic centre at the corner of Pacific and Seymour across from the Mark development to replace the aging facility on Beach Ave."

I knew the aquatic centre was going to be replaced but didn't realize they were planning to move it there.

Vin · #**13086** Posted **Feb 26, 2016, 6:17 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tommyrey

I was surprised to see this line in the article bc2mb linked to:

"There are also plans for a new aquatic centre at the corner of Pacific and Seymour across from the Mark development to replace the aging facility on Beach Ave."

I knew the aquatic centre was going to be replaced but didn't realize they were planning to move it there.

Yes! That would be really convenient for me to use the new facilities. Wish there would be new odourless ultraviolet pools instead of the old chlorinated ones. Will that lot be big enough for a new downtown aquatic centre?

Vin · #**13087** Posted **Feb 26, 2016, 6:19 PM**

As expected, the model of this building looks rather boring. The original renderings only looked good because they tweaked the corners to make them look more pointy.

Prometheus · #**13088** Posted **Feb 26, 2016, 7:02 PM**

In case it has not already been posted, here are some renderings of the project Wall Financial was planning for the 1400 Alberni site, a block from the "Jenga" tower that the city recently neutered on the grounds of the Queen Elizabeth Park viewcone, notwithstanding its being no taller than the new height allowances under the city's West End Community Plan:

Quote:

Concept for 1400 Alberni in Coal Harbour uncovered

February 16, 2016/ Vancouver Condo News

Some interesting renderings have surfaced for an extremely valuable redevelopment site in Coal Harbour that has been in the news lately.

1444 Alberni Street, currently home to a 1970s-era rental apartment tower, along with an office building at 740 Nicola St., were first acquired by Wall Financial for $83.5 million in 2014.

Then, just last month, the site was re-sold to a new buyer, rumoured to be Hong Kong-based Asia Standard International Group and Vancouver-based Landa Global Properties, for almost double the price: $160 million.

These renderings are for the previous scheme by Wall Financial and were created by Perkins+Will. That scheme called for a two tower development with a podium featuring childcare space. That design has since been scrapped by the new owners and a new architect has been brought on.

Musson Cattell Mackey Partnership (MCM) are now working on a new proposal for the site, which is yet to be revealed. MCM has been involved in the designs of the Trump Tower and Bentall 5, among other high profile developments.

It will be very interesting to see the latest proposal for the site, but in the meantime, enjoy these beautiful renderings of what could have been... a beautiful looking proposal nonetheless.

Source: http://www.vancouvercondonews.com/blog/1400-1444-alberni-renderings-proposal

Jebby · #**13089** Posted **Feb 26, 2016, 7:08 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vin

Yes! That would be really convenient for me to use the new facilities. Wish there would be new odourless ultraviolet pools instead of the old chlorinated ones. Will that lot be big enough for a new downtown aquatic centre?

Don't UV swimming pools still need to use chlorine, just at a smaller dose?

Porfiry · #**13090** Posted **Feb 26, 2016, 7:10 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vin

Yes! That would be really convenient for me to use the new facilities. Wish there would be new odourless ultraviolet pools instead of the old chlorinated ones. Will that lot be big enough for a new downtown aquatic centre?

Sounds great, looking forward to it. Just eyeballing it on Apple Maps, the site does look roughly as large as the existing facility, perhaps even a bit bigger once the loops are taken out.

vanman · #**13091** Posted **Feb 26, 2016, 7:11 PM**

Quote:

but in the meantime, enjoy these beautiful renderings of what could have been... a beautiful looking proposal nonetheless.

What now? This is anything but beautiful. Thankfully it is just conceptual and will never see the light of day.

officedweller · #**13092** Posted **Feb 26, 2016, 8:26 PM**

Thanks for the pics of the Grosvenor tower.
The model shows how the largely rectangular floorplate is a lot bigger than the irregular floorplates of the other nearby towers (though the Quality Inn site tower will also have a large floorplate).

****

Glad that Wall Financial proposal won't be built.
It just looks like a spandrel mess with a top-heavy top.
The part with the wavey windows isn't bad though.

Prometheus · #**13093** Posted **Feb 26, 2016, 9:44 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by officedweller

Wall Financial...looks like a spandrel mess with a top-heavy top.

No question.

But as you recently pointed out, the interesting issue will be how or whether this project will be substantially affected by the city's decision to deny the "Jenga" tower the height allowed under the West End Community Plan, and thus whether the purchasers of the site were victims of a bad deal. However, I can't imagine they didn't contractually protect themselves with some kind of condition precedent.

csbvan · #**13094** Posted **Feb 26, 2016, 9:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by officedweller

Thanks for the pics of the Grosvenor tower.
The model shows how the largely rectangular floorplate is a lot bigger than the irregular floorplates of the other nearby towers (though the Quality Inn site tower will also have a large floorplate).

****

Glad that Wall Financial proposal won't be built.
It just looks like a spandrel mess with a top-heavy top.
The part with the wavey windows isn't bad though.

My thoughts exactly. I saw the pictures first scrolling down the page, was relieved when I read that it was a dead project.

wrenegade · #**13095** Posted **Feb 27, 2016, 1:46 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prometheus

No question.

But as you recently pointed out, the interesting issue will be how or whether this project will be substantially affected by the city's decision to deny the "Jenga" tower the height allowed under the West End Community Plan, and thus whether the purchasers of the site were victims of a bad deal. However, I can't imagine they didn't contractually protect themselves with some kind of condition precedent.

Honestly, if any buyer doesn't recognize that View Cones are sacrosanct and trump all height limits/guidelines in neighbourhood plans then they deserve to have their proposals extra height lopped off. Now, if we are talking about a couple of feet here or there, no big deal, but if it the height can be measured in storeys then what do they expect?

This isn't to say I agree with the height limits View Cones put in place, but the guidelines are clear on what you can and can't do. However, it has been 5 years since the report and the city has changed (case in point, the new West End Plan). We need to look at the View Cones again, and raise the upper height limits on many of them.

mcminsen · #**13096** Posted **Feb 27, 2016, 1:53 AM**

I got this in the mail today.

Feb.26 '16, my pics

Klazu · #**13097** Posted **Feb 27, 2016, 2:21 AM**

Wow, so much going on! I had no idea that the Wall project would have been three towers. That would have been a massive complex, if built like that! But just like others are saying, I think we are dodging a bullet here if that would have been the design. VERY uninspired spandrel mess that would look like 🞵🞵🞵🞵 compared to the other towers going up in the area.

For that reason I am very happy they ended up selling the lot to someone else. It also makes me happy to think that likely the speculator overpaid badly for the lot - those greedy idiots.

I hope a new design would come up with iconic twin towers. It seems that the lot would allow for something nice, and twin towers are so rare.

WarrenC12 · #**13098** Posted **Feb 27, 2016, 2:59 AM**

I got that in the mail too. Pretty interesting stuff. Trying to get public approval for something bold ahead of any City of Vancouver meetings is my guess.

hollywoodnorth · #**13099** Posted **Feb 27, 2016, 8:27 AM**

http://www.vancouvercondonews.com/blog/milky-way-public-art-led-yaletown-vancouver

A new art installation dubbed the "Milky Way" of lights will soon brighten up the 135 metre-tall blank wall of an upcoming Yaletown development.

DIALOG Architects has applied to the City of Vancouver on behalf of their client Wall Financial Group for permission to install the public art project.

Wall is currently building a 43 storey tall rental tower at 1310 Richards Street called Wall Centre Yaletown. The project is already above ground.

I did not know that this was rental nor that it was being billed as a 'Wall Centre'

Vin · #**13100** Posted **Feb 27, 2016, 7:18 PM**

I actually like the Wall Financial proposal from before. I don't have problems with the spandrels as they are shown as dark grey. I also like the fact that the balconies are not protruding messes. If built with a tinted curtain glass cladding, this project would have looked fantastic. Solid heights for the 3 towers too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jebby

Don't UV swimming pools still need to use chlorine, just at a smaller dose?

You're probably right, but the pool definitely won't make your skin stink so much of chlorine as compared to a conventional one.