Downtown Vancouver Updates

[Prometheus]

That's painful. It hurts even more when you consider that this is the same inelegant, unnatural, hunky monolithic form the future Bay parkade redevelopment will be forced to adopt, since the same artificial height restrictions (about 88 metres) suffocate that site too, barring any unforseen change in the city's intransigence and rigidity over its concocted viewcones.

[jollyburger]

Maybe the details are missing in the model, but I guess not even the height but the blocks sticking out of another big block seems boring even if they open the building to the street.

[urbancanadian]

Thanks jlousa for all the info! I am going to wait to reserve judgement until more details emerge. VERY happy to see three more rental towers proposed, and the new office space is good too.

The reference to a bookshelf sounds interesting, and from the massing I can see what they're going for. But they are going to have to use some different materials/change things up for each "book", otherwise it's just going to look like any other asymmetrical glass tower. 1133 Richards would be a good example, IMO, of two "books" in a tower. I'm also a big fan of repurposing buildings and infrastructure, so I'm looking forward to how they manage to enhance the heritage podium. I hope they make better use of the lighting at night.

And just a reminder to everyone, if you want to discuss viewcones, here is a link to the thread: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=167028

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by Shift

Looks great! Massing is somewhat similar to the Honest Ed's re-development in Toronto.

Hopefully the façade will be just as interesting.



Credit: Toronto Star

[phesto]

Took a brief look at the materials and model last night. I'm trying really hard to like this proposal but it just seems way too busy, and looking at Jlousa's pics as a reminder this morning doesn't change my view.

The whole time I'm wondering why this mediocre heritage facade is being preserved when they're just cramming a whole bunch of towers on top? (of course I understand why the proponent is doing it - view cones).

Hopefully some more refinements before they bring it to application.

[s211]

Originally Posted by phesto

Took a brief look at the materials and model last night. I'm trying really hard to like this proposal but it just seems way too busy, and looking at Jlousa's pics as a reminder this morning doesn't change my view.

The whole time I'm wondering why this mediocre heritage facade is being preserved when they're just cramming a whole bunch of towers on top? (of course I understand why the proponent is doing it - view cones).

Hopefully some more refinements before they bring it to application.

I was hopeful I could be generally supportive of this project but it's ponderous in execution because of the density they're going for and the height restrictions. There's not one person in our office that likes what they saw. That's unfortunate.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Infrequent Poster

Just a thought I had. Wouldnt this development look better, if instead of six buildings that are all basically the same height packed super close together. They made it two or maybe three buildings except taller (but still keeping the same sq footage). Obviously this would have the added benefit of creating some space between them, and allowing them to actually be distinguished from one another.

As the model shows, its basically just a full city block filled to the tits with stout tightly packed buildings all the same height.

Obviously v**w c***s wont allow this, but I feel the city is ending up with an inferior result due to this.

The only reason why it's so ugly is because they can't combine all the stout buildings into perhaps just 2 tall towers.... viewcones. All the extra roof-top space could be used for a park, pool or even Alfresco dining.

I'm only happy about the 3-storey mall element in this development, but they should make it 5 stories with an open foyer in the centre and natural skylight.

[Alex Mackinnon]

That model is heinous, and highlights the obvious problems with the viewcones. Come on CoV.

I was hoping they would do something cool like do a retake on the original office tower plan for the post office. That weird little stub building on top was originally planned to be a tower. If they could rejig the style of that planned building and put a few taller towers at the north end, then they could have had a really cool project.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

That model is heinous, and highlights the obvious problems with the viewcones. Come on CoV.

I was hoping they would do something cool like do a retake on the original office tower plan for the post office. That weird little stub building on top was originally planned to be a tower. If they could rejig the style of that planned building and put a few taller towers at the north end, then they could have had a really cool project.

heritage vancouver

[Vin]

That swath of a building will cover the entire north shore mountain range eeeeekkkk!

[officedweller]

This project provides such a contrast to all of the surrounding blocks - which provide variation in height and open space - that's it's really painful.

It really does look like that walled city.

The towers up top need to be set back from the Post Office façade to prevent the towers from dominating it.

The Post Office building looks great opened up with windows on the model.

It's the stuff on top crammed in that look awful.

Agreed that fewer, taller buildings would fit the area better and provide more livable / workable spaces.

Like some other view cone limited sites - the words "density transfer" come to mind.

[Klazu]

A lot more photos and story on the proposal on VanCityBuzz: http://www.vancitybuzz.com/2016/03/canada-post-redevelopment-vancouver/

[CurtisVerbatim]

The view cones strike again!

[Aroundtheworld]

I see a lot of people are commenting on the form of the building, which is meh in my opinion.

I will comment on the parking. There seems to be an excessive amount planned for a building that is just a few blocks from a Skytrain station. Does anybody know if the city's minimum requirements apply here or is this on the developer?

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by Aroundtheworld

I see a lot of people are commenting on the form of the building, which is meh in my opinion.

I will comment on the parking. There seems to be an excessive amount planned for a building that is just a few blocks from a Skytrain station. Does anybody know if the city's minimum requirements apply here or is this on the developer?

They said they are including less than the required amount of parking required by the city.

I guess after seeing all these new projects proposed/under construction this kind of design just seems so underwhelming.

[Jebby]

From the article on Vancitybuzz


Image: Musson Cattell Mackey Partnership / Bentall Kennedy
http://www.vancitybuzz.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/canada-post-redevelopment-5-984x500.jpg


Image: Musson Cattell Mackey Partnership / Bentall Kennedy
http://www.vancitybuzz.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/canada-post-redevelopment-1.jpg


Image: Vancity Buzz
http://www.vancitybuzz.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/canada-post-redevelopment-28.jpg


Image: Musson Cattell Mackey Partnership / Bentall Kennedy
http://www.vancitybuzz.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/canada-post-redevelopment-3.jpg


Image: Musson Cattell Mackey Partnership / Bentall Kennedy
http://www.vancitybuzz.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/canada-post-redevelopment-2.jpg

[Jebby]

Image: Musson Cattell Mackey Partnership / Bentall Kennedy
http://www.vancitybuzz.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/canada-post-redevelopment-6.jpg


http://www.vancitybuzz.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/canada-post-redevelopment-7.jpg


Image: Musson Cattell Mackey Partnership / Bentall Kennedy
http://www.vancitybuzz.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/canada-post-redevelopment-8.jpg

[WarrenC12]

High end destination retail would demand more parking than normal. You can't wear your Saks fashion next to the dirty poor on the train.

Sarcasm aside, consider the public parking needs when Larwill park is eventually developed.

[SFUVancouver]

Very interesting! This flew entirely under my radar. I had no idea that the First Nations land claims had been resolved with Canada Lands Company, plus I had no idea that BCimc had purchased the site.

Initial thoughts:
-Very happy to see that they are committed to keeping the exterior of the existing structure.
-Glad to see a mixed program of office, retail, and residential (market & rental, too).
-Happy to see that there has been an effort made to create some texture and depth to the tower facade.
-The inclusion of office, especially giant block-long 'land-scraper' floor plates is excellent and appeals to businesses that are often looking for breadth instead of height for their GLA. It's more space efficient, avoids the need for expensive internal circulation, is generally considered to be more conducive to cooperation, and it reduces the literal hierarchy of the organization.
-Understand entirely that this is a preliminary massing model, however there is a lot of 'sameness' at the moment and I hope that further refinement can yield some interesting gestures.
-"Cracking" the exterior of the Post Office structure in a few places could present some interesting opportunities to have the new modern towers appear to come down to grade/burst out through the old facade like new bark on a tree in spring.
-The tyranny of the view cones strike again and has negatively affected the massing of a major downtown site. I would love to see the view that the view cone protects and decide for myself how irreplaceable the peek-a-boo view is.
-The separation between towers sure looks tight, thought the massive size of the full city block site probably is messing with my sense of scale. I'm sure that they aren't any closer than the normal 75' minimum.

I think that the quality of materials and detailing will be essential to the success or failure of this project. If it's clad in a family of high quality glazing, as opposed to them all being the same, I think that it will have potential. If it turns into a spandrel fest with the cheapest window wall that can be spec'd, it will look pretty bad. I do think that MCM does a good job with restrained-but-engaged commercial architecture. I'm a fan of Five|Ten Seymour and Renfrew Center, as a couple recent examples of their work, and Bental 5 is a clean modern classic.

[jlousa]

*l* Commentary is pretty well as expected, what a shame the usual voices couldn't make it out yet again to voice their expertise to those actually making the decisions.

Tonight there is an open house on the First Baptist Church project at the church 5-8pm. Look forward to seeing you all there.