Vancouver Infill & Lowrise Updates Discussion - Page 30

Jebby · #**581** Posted **Aug 25, 2016, 4:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wrenegade

While it passed UDP, it didn't pass the Heritage Commission and never got a DP. The site was listed for sale a while back and I believe it has been sold.

Damn, that's sad. It was an interesting design and respected the "heritage" building really well.

csbvan · #**582** Posted **Aug 25, 2016, 4:49 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jebby

Damn, that's sad. It was an interesting design and respected the "heritage" building really well.

That is a bit strange. It seems like this is the type of proposal that does best at retaining the heritage. It isn't a facade, and the way that the new addition was set back would mean that it probably would not dominate the heritage building.

whatnext · #**583** Posted **Aug 25, 2016, 5:48 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by csbvan

That is a bit strange. It seems like this is the type of proposal that does best at retaining the heritage. It isn't a facade, and the way that the new addition was set back would mean that it probably would not dominate the heritage building.

Yes, that is seriously whacked. How can the Heritage Commission accept facadism like the Catholic Charities Building yet turned down something like this?

mcminsen · #**584** Posted **Aug 25, 2016, 6:54 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wrenegade

While it passed UDP, it didn't pass the Heritage Commission and never got a DP. The site was listed for sale a while back and I believe it has been sold.

Thanks for the info.

BodomReaper · #**585** Posted **Aug 26, 2016, 9:47 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wrenegade

While it passed UDP, it didn't pass the Heritage Commission and never got a DP. The site was listed for sale a while back and I believe it has been sold.

As others have said, this is completely absurd. Can't imagine a proposal that better respects the heritage building.

Also, I was of the understanding that Heritage Commission approval wasn't necessary to get a DP? I recall that the brilliant Reliance office project on Beatty failed the Heritage Commission, but is still went ahead.

bc2mb · #**586** Posted **Aug 26, 2016, 9:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by whatnext

Yes, that is seriously whacked. How can the Heritage Commission accept facadism like the Catholic Charities Building yet turned down something like this?

what's happening with the Catholic Charities building? Do you mean at Robson and Cambie? Wasn't aware there was a proposal.

Jebby · #**587** Posted **Aug 26, 2016, 10:00 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bc2mb

what's happening with the Catholic Charities building? Do you mean at Robson and Cambie? Wasn't aware there was a proposal.

Rebuilt as a tower keeping just the facade.

bc2mb · #**588** Posted **Aug 26, 2016, 10:02 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jebby

Rebuilt as a tower keeping just the facade.

thank you, just spotted in other thread. the building is beautiful, glad they are keeping the facade at least. Amacon did a nice restoration on the heritage building with the Beasley.

wrenegade · #**589** Posted **Aug 31, 2016, 5:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BodomReaper

As others have said, this is completely absurd. Can't imagine a proposal that better respects the heritage building.

Also, I was of the understanding that Heritage Commission approval wasn't necessary to get a DP? I recall that the brilliant Reliance office project on Beatty failed the Heritage Commission, but is still went ahead.

I believe the density they were asking for was too high in exchange for preserving the heritage. They also threw almost all of the setback requirements out the window. I think whoever owns the site now will likely come up with a new design.

whatnext · #**590** Posted **Oct 16, 2016, 7:04 PM**

Airey's Bishop on W.57th and East Blvd. is nearing completion. Great little project, right down to the window boxes! I wonder what retail will take that unique space?

hand land prices not been allowed to spiral out of control, this would have been a great way to densify the West Side with affordable homes.

[IMG]

[/IMG]
[IMG]

[/IMG]

dleung · #**591** Posted **Oct 17, 2016, 12:29 AM**

faux heritage... how sad. Would've preferred the mature trees that used to be there. This is also the smallest project I've ever seen use a physical model: http://www.mikestewart.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Bishop-Vancouver-Presale-5.jpg

Those townhouses are probably $2.5 million each, so the $40k for a model might be worth it

scryer · #**592** Posted **Oct 17, 2016, 12:50 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by dleung

faux heritage... how sad. Would've preferred the mature trees that used to be there. This is also the smallest project I've ever seen use a physical model: http://www.mikestewart.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Bishop-Vancouver-Presale-5.jpg

Those townhouses are probably $2.5 million each, so the $40k for a model might be worth it

See I get what you're saying about it but I disagree with the criticism on the faux-heritage style. Personally I don't mind faux heritage, and especially in downtown Vancouver, I feel that it is underused as every proposal is boxy and extremely modern (almost boring in a sense).

Jebby · #**593** Posted **Oct 17, 2016, 2:34 AM**

Clean little brick building. Looks great.

BobLoblawsLawBlog · #**594** Posted **Oct 17, 2016, 2:49 AM**

Yeah that's a pretty good example of "faux-heritage". I doubted it until I checked on google street view, although it could have been bigger.

SFUVancouver · #**595** Posted **Oct 17, 2016, 2:27 PM**

Nice little project. We need a lot more of these throughout our existing single family home neighbourhoods.

officedweller · #**596** Posted **Oct 17, 2016, 8:11 PM**

The commercial building seems to dominate the townhouses a lot.
I think the townhouses should have been "beefier" - either without the setbacks (brownstone style) and heavier looking materials (brick/stone)

Vin · #**597** Posted **Oct 17, 2016, 8:46 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by officedweller

The commercial building seems to dominate the townhouses a lot.
I think the townhouses should have been "beefier" - either without the setbacks (brownstone style) and heavier looking materials (brick/stone)

This would've been sweet here:

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/03/05/article-2573718-1C0DE5E700000578-975_634x400.jpg

Jebby · #**598** Posted **Oct 17, 2016, 10:38 PM**

The entire development should have been done in brick and in the same style as the corner building.

whatnext · #**599** Posted **Oct 18, 2016, 12:19 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by officedweller

The commercial building seems to dominate the townhouses a lot.
I think the townhouses should have been "beefier" - either without the setbacks (brownstone style) and heavier looking materials (brick/stone)

Why? Brick and stone has never been the vernacular for Vancouver's residential real estate (unless you count the limestone on the latest horrendous Shanghai Specials). Shingle shakes have long been used as it is a material in abundance here.

Jebby · #**600** Posted **Oct 18, 2016, 5:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by whatnext

Why? Brick and stone has never been the vernacular for Vancouver's residential real estate (unless you count the limestone on the latest horrendous Shanghai Specials). Shingle shakes have long been used as it is a material in abundance here.

Brick looks so much better, though. These houses look flimsy.