Downtown Vancouver Updates - Page 684

officedweller · #**13661** Posted **Jun 14, 2016, 11:34 PM**

Is this new?

Hollyburn 42 storey rental tower proposal 1640-1650 Alberni.

Hollyburn 42 storey rental tower proposal 1640-1650 Alberni. Open House June 13
https://twitter.com/vancouvermrkt

https://westendneighbours.wordpress.com/...e-june-13-2016-mon-hollyburn-properties/

http://www.hollyburn.com/Development/1640-1650-alberni

Marked by the arrow here - it should block a lot of western views from the Westbank Kengo Kuma building at 1550 Alberni:

LeftCoaster · #**13662** Posted **Jun 15, 2016, 12:06 AM**

Looks new to me. Totally out of left field, I didn't even know Hollyburn developed. Shows how expensive buying buildings is getting when an outfit that has traditionally purchased get's into developing.

I'd expect a 42 storey rental to be in the 385-400ft range.

wrenegade · #**13663** Posted **Jun 15, 2016, 2:06 AM**

Hollyburn has become a lot more active in the development game in the last 5 years. They are currently finishing a building at 14th & Chesterfield in North Van, and have another tower proposed at 13th & Lonsdale.

Vin · #**13664** Posted **Jun 15, 2016, 4:59 AM**

Pulling down another good tower when there are so many low rises that can be redeveloped? So much for being a green city. I hope someone publishes an academic research on how damaging density zoning policies can be. This City is contributing to the most environmental pollution in the entire region. All the LEED buildings, recycling programs, eco cars, bike lanes and recycling won't make any dent to this damage.

BodomReaper · #**13665** Posted **Jun 15, 2016, 6:10 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vin

Pulling down another good tower when there are so many low rises that can be redeveloped? So much for being a green city. I hope someone publishes an academic research on how damaging density zoning policies can be. This City is contributing to the most environmental pollution in the entire region. All the LEED buildings, recycling programs, eco cars, bike lanes and recycling won't make any dent to this damage.

The density of the tower coming down must be quite similar (or even greater than) the density of the Bayshore community - which I've always felt is one of the most tragically underbuilt parts of the peninsula. Too much to hope for the redevelopment of 1990's luxury condos?

retro_orange · #**13666** Posted **Jun 15, 2016, 6:42 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vin

Pulling down another good tower when there are so many low rises that can be redeveloped? So much for being a green city. I hope someone publishes an academic research on how damaging density zoning policies can be. This City is contributing to the most environmental pollution in the entire region. All the LEED buildings, recycling programs, eco cars, bike lanes and recycling won't make any dent to this damage.

Thats exactly what i was thinking. Theres many crumbling wood frame buildings in the west end that should come down before we start demolishing quality older concrete mid and highrise buildings. Also Brockton House has neat Formalist precast concrete motifs and appears to be in very good condition.

nice interior space too

pics from: http://www.hollyburn.com/rental-apartments/brockton-house

officedweller · #**13667** Posted **Jun 15, 2016, 7:06 AM**

Yes, it does look like a nice building.
Another Formalist building bites the dust.

VanK · #**13668** Posted **Jun 15, 2016, 4:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

I believe that is correct. Initial zoning says 17 storeys but this one is envisioned to be roughly 500ft tall.

Question: This is a City owned site and they only have a 3.00 FSR density in the city tendering package. Why wouldn't the city rezone the site themselves first before selling to maximize value?

jlousa · #**13669** Posted **Jun 15, 2016, 4:21 PM**

You don't see a conflict of interest in the city rezoning the property first?
The city will still get top dollar for it as it will be sold to the highest bidder and they will be bidding on expected density, not to mention the city will still pocket the CACs from the purchaser.

Anorak · #**13670** Posted **Jun 15, 2016, 5:14 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vin

Pulling down another good tower when there are so many low rises that can be redeveloped? So much for being a green city. I hope someone publishes an academic research on how damaging density zoning policies can be. This City is contributing to the most environmental pollution in the entire region. All the LEED buildings, recycling programs, eco cars, bike lanes and recycling won't make any dent to this damage.

Before you get up in arms, understand why they are doing this. They cant tear down rotting old houses in the west end to build this because none of the neighbors would ever let a 42 story building go up in its place. At this location, there are already other relatively high buildings so the resistance to the construction will be less. The reason they're having to do it here is because it would be impossible to do it elsewhere, they're just being practical. Don't get mad at the developers for being pragmatic and putting their buildings where it is feasible to do so, get mad at the NIMBY's who wont let them get built in place of a single family home.

officedweller · #**13671** Posted **Jun 15, 2016, 10:17 PM**

Reliance Properties buys building at Davie & Deman:

http://www.vancouvermarket.ca/2016/06/15/reliance-properties-acquires-1770-davie-st-in-43mm-deal/

Klazu · #**13672** Posted **Jun 15, 2016, 10:34 PM**

Yeah, I am not going to miss that concrete tower. Just saying that this part of Downtown is going to look grazy with at least five 40+ floor towers.

retro_orange · #**13673** Posted **Jun 15, 2016, 10:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by officedweller

Reliance Properties buys building at Davie & Deman:

http://www.vancouvermarket.ca/2016/06/15/reliance-properties-acquires-1770-davie-st-in-43mm-deal/

Oh no! That's one of my favorite buildings in the west end. Although the current colour scheme does nothing for the original architecture and needs restoration it has great angles including the way it's situated on the property and the perforated roofline on the porte cochere and at the top accentuate it's forward modernism popular in the 50's. A style that we don't have much of anymore. This was completed only a year after the BC hydro tower and IMO it's just as prominent and well known as the Sylvia hotel along the beach. I'd love to see it converted to a retro beach hotel or restored.

officedweller · #**13674** Posted **Jun 15, 2016, 10:48 PM**

Hmmm - 1770 Davie is actually in the "Denman Village" part of the West End Community Plan, not the "Lower Davie" part of the plan.

Denman Village is limited to 60 ft.

http://vancouver.ca/files/cov/west-end-community-plan.pdf

urbancanadian · #**13675** Posted **Jun 16, 2016, 4:30 AM**

Here's some info from the open house for the Hollyburn tower:

Units: 276 (currently 66)
Height: 42 fl. | 117.35m
FSR: 13.66

View from Alberni Street (looking south)

http://www.hollyburn.com/_literature_232823/BH_Presentation_2016 (11mb)

View from the lane (looking north)

http://www.hollyburn.com/_literature_232823/BH_Presentation_2016 (11mb)

Alberni Street render:

http://www.hollyburn.com/_literature_232823/BH_Presentation_2016 (11mb)

It's still a concept, I know, but it looks like too much spandrel for me. Prominent location too (at least for now).
Link to the open house boards: http://www.hollyburn.com/_literature_232823/BH_Presentation_2016

Klazu · #**13676** Posted **Jun 16, 2016, 5:11 AM**

Decent shape and I counted 40 or so real floors (seems that City's new policy is taking effect). But yeah, we all know what color this tower will be. They could at least make it darker, as now it will take away from the sweet landmark towers that it will partially be hiding from sight.

Anyways, great height and interesting how they can fit 40 floor in 118 meters. The ceiling heights must be low!

officedweller · #**13677** Posted **Jun 16, 2016, 5:15 AM**

Agreed on too much spandrel.

The balconies help on the north and south elevations, but the east and west elevations have a lot of spandrel (but may be blocked by future development).

Most downtown towers have 8 ft ceilings.
Even Trump does I think (or 8' 6") to fit within the maximum height.

South side:

http://www.hollyburn.com/_literature_232823/BH_Presentation_2016

The strip of spandrel on the north side could easily be hidden by a strip of perforated metal running up the tower to a spire.

North side:

http://www.hollyburn.com/_literature_232823/BH_Presentation_2016

Like this one in Richmond:

Quote:

Originally Posted by BodomReaper

All pics from http://www.townline.ca/en/homes/past-successes/harmony

logan5 · #**13678** Posted **Jun 16, 2016, 5:23 AM**

Too late now, but it night of been a good idea to give further density bonuses (for the West End) for a social housing component that replaces the old units at the same rental rate.

csbvan · #**13679** Posted **Jun 16, 2016, 5:49 AM**

Yeah, I don't really see this one ending up well due to the excessive use of spandrel. But, being a rental building, I suppose it will be a fairly uniform use of spandrel, unlike the Mark and its "customized" top floor suites.

Vin · #**13680** Posted **Jun 16, 2016, 8:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anorak

Before you get up in arms, understand why they are doing this. They cant tear down rotting old houses in the west end to build this because none of the neighbors would ever let a 42 story building go up in its place. At this location, there are already other relatively high buildings so the resistance to the construction will be less. The reason they're having to do it here is because it would be impossible to do it elsewhere, they're just being practical. Don't get mad at the developers for being pragmatic and putting their buildings where it is feasible to do so, get mad at the NIMBY's who wont let them get built in place of a single family home.

"They can't tear down" is what Nimbys try to tell you. There is no such thing. We should replace that with "They can't oppose to higher density downtown". I think people should be educated and rightfully informed about this.

Therein lies the problem: too much power given to neighbouring residents, especially the West End, where every single high-rise proposals had been met with strong resistance for decades. Residents should realize that they actually live downtown. On top of that, we have a City Council without any backbones, and blinded by their own "green" agenda to make sense of what is actually happening on the ground.

I'm not mad at the developers, especially knowing that so many have actually given up on building in Vancouver and moved elsewhere. Just mad at the City for letting this nonsense to go on forever. Have you ever thought of the fact that maybe that's why so many heritage buildings in this city had been demolished?

Quote:

Originally Posted by retro_orange

Thats exactly what i was thinking. Theres many crumbling wood frame buildings in the west end that should come down before we start demolishing quality older concrete mid and highrise buildings. Also Brockton House has neat Formalist precast concrete motifs and appears to be in very good condition.

I think not many people question this "rationale" and fail to see the link between such a practice, Nimbys and City zoning policies.