Downtown Vancouver Updates

[retro_orange]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

I hate to say it, but taking down the landmark tower is a mistake. It is unique among Vancouver's skyline and will be replaced by shorter bland towers.

The loss in the lighting feature on top of the building alone is unfortunate.

There will be a time 30 years from now where even this tower will be looked back on as "heritage" and people will say, "How could they tear down such a building?"

I'd be more likely to agree with you if it had more redeeming architectural features of the era. In person it really looks like they just invested in the size of the building and skimped on nice details to add more floors.

[retro_orange]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Wow, that's a surprise.

Currently, the building is owned by Hong Kong based Asia Standard International Group.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_Landmark_Hotel

and the exact reason there's no sympathy from the current owners.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by retro_orange

and the exact reason there's no sympathy from the current owners.

But they are proposing no less than what is allowed under current city policy. There would be no crime in replacing this building with something better, with something outstanding and singular, something that was consistent with a city that has advanced by almost another 50 years into the future. But two shorter (and inevitably bland and forgettable) condo towers is all this site allows for. We are almost a half century into the future, but under current policy, no new building on this site could rightfully bear the name Landmark ever again.

[csbvan]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

I hate to say it, but taking down the landmark tower is a mistake. It is unique among Vancouver's skyline and will be replaced by shorter bland towers.

The loss in the lighting feature on top of the building alone is unfortunate.

There will be a time 30 years from now where even this tower will be looked back on as "heritage" and people will say, "How could they tear down such a building?"

Agreed 100%. When I saw that update my first thought was that in several decades it will be the Georgia Medical building all over again. I hope this proposal never happens.

[osirisboy]

Doesn't make sense to me at all. Looking at Google maps thee is plenty of room on either side of the tower to put in other buildings.

[idunno]

Woo hoo! This building is hideous and the hotel is a piece of s#%t. I'm all for it going down.

[Vin]

Empire Landmark hotel tower coming down? What a waste: another interesting public venue for a city view from the top gone! And so much for being a "green" city. I suppose they need to replace it with something shorter? Other way crappier old short buildings surrounding it will never come down just because zoning doesn't allow taller towers. A complete overhaul of the facade and interior of this hotel building would've made it look really great. Now we are getting condos and probably a "homeless residence"?

Was at the Shard London just couple of weeks ago and the Shangri-la hotel there had a couple of restaurants and at least 3 separate lounges around level 40, providing great views of the city below and relaxation for Londoners after work. In addition, a roof viewing gallery also gave unbeatable view of the gorgeous city. Here in Vancouver, we are only great at taking nice things away. Doesn't the lounge at Empire Landmark Hotel provide the best views of the Northshore mountain range? Shouldn't that be protected, more so than the stupid viewcones?

http://www.the-shard.com/restaurants/aquashard/
http://www.timeout.com/london/attractions/the-shard-guide

This City is pretty backward in its planning logic.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by retro_orange

I'd be more likely to agree with you if it had more redeeming architectural features of the era. In person it really looks like they just invested in the size of the building and skimped on nice details to add more floors.

Which makes it pretty much the same as most condos being built today. The reason people don't like it is the 1970's aesthetic. As other have said, another 20 years and that's heritage.

It's pretty sad that we've sunk to cannibalizing buildings that size to feed the gaping maw of the real estate industry. That's a huge amount of material destined for the landfill. And if it's replaced by condos it's a huge loss of hotel rooms in the downtown core, which seems to be a disturbing trend.

[csbvan]

Originally Posted by Vin

Empire Landmark hotel tower coming down? What a waste: another interesting public venue for a city view from the top gone! And so much for being a "green" city. I suppose they need to replace it with something shorter? Other way crappier old short buildings surrounding it will never come down just because zoning doesn't allow taller towers. A complete overhaul of the facade and interior of this hotel building would've made it look really great. Now we are getting condos and probably a "homeless residence"?

...

This City is pretty backward in its planning logic.

The City hasn't approved anything yet.

[BodomReaper]

So just like we lose beautiful old craftsman homes for the sake of building a new McMansion - because that's the maximum allowed by city hall - we'll lose a landmark that defined the West End and skyline for decades so we can have a project of significantly lesser stature. That's not the fault of developers, it's the fault of the central planners and the absurdities they force on everyone else.

And for the great privilege of being allowed to construct a project of lesser stature on their own property, the developer will have to give away 1/5th of the units, and probably had the ownership structure of the market units forced on them too.

Does anyone know if the proposal includes the office building on the eastern portion of the site that was converted from a parkade of the hotel?

Sidebar: the Empire Landmark is the tallest all-hotel building in the city.

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by BodomReaper

So just like we lose beautiful old craftsman homes for the sake of building a new McMansion - because that's the maximum allowed by city hall - we'll lose a landmark that defined the West End and skyline for decades so we can have a project of significantly lesser stature. That's not the fault of developers, it's the fault of the central planners and the absurdities they force on everyone else.

And for the great privilege of being allowed to construct a project of lesser stature on their own property, the developer will have to give away 1/5th of the units, and probably had the ownership structure of the market units forced on them too.

Does anyone know if the proposal includes the office building on the eastern portion of the site that was converted from a parkade of the hotel?

Sidebar: the Empire Landmark is the tallest all-hotel building in the city.

Great post. I completely agree with the sentiment.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by csbvan

The City hasn't approved anything yet.

I know, all I was trying to say is that many developers would choose to demolish many other surrounding low density/old structures with no heritage value if the City allows more lots to go higher density along Robson, Denman and Davie Street, and pretty much everywhere else in the West End. The owners of Empire Landmark would probably not bother tearing it down should there be more intense competition going around.

[s211]

Originally Posted by Vin

I know, all I was trying to say is that many developers would choose to demolish many other surrounding low density/old structures with no heritage value if the City allows more lots to go higher density along Robson, Denman and Davie Street, and pretty much everywhere else in the West End. The owners of Empire Landmark would probably not bother tearing it down should there be more intense competition going around.

You can guess that the owner and their architects have already had pre-application discussions with the planning department and wouldn't be putting their proposal forward with at least a conceptual nod from the city.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by s211

You can guess that the owner and their architects have already had pre-application discussions with the planning department and wouldn't be putting their proposal forward with at least a conceptual nod from the city.

Agreed, hence the shortsightedness of the City.

[retro_orange]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Which makes it pretty much the same as most condos being built today. The reason people don't like it is the 1970's aesthetic. As other have said, another 20 years and that's heritage.

It's pretty sad that we've sunk to cannibalizing buildings that size to feed the gaping maw of the real estate industry. That's a huge amount of material destined for the landfill. And if it's replaced by condos it's a huge loss of hotel rooms in the downtown core, which seems to be a disturbing trend.

You would be hard pressed to find another forumer or individual who appreciates 70's design as much as i do (among other retro eras) however this building was always bland yet overtly phallic. As far as landfill, it's mostly concrete, steel, aluminum and glass. All of which would be recycled. Plus Trump tower is opening soon, 2 new hotels at Parq that will open before this closes down and the hotel that was just proposed on Robson where the Catholic mens hostel is.

I will side with you on the fact that theres a good chance the new buildings will not be nearly as iconic, a better solution would be to keep the existing tower and add more floors to the podium and convert the whole thing to rentals with more affordable units in the expanded podium.

[retro_orange]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

I hate to say it, but taking down the landmark tower is a mistake. It is unique among Vancouver's skyline and will be replaced by shorter bland towers.

The loss in the lighting feature on top of the building alone is unfortunate.

There will be a time 30 years from now where even this tower will be looked back on as "heritage" and people will say, "How could they tear down such a building?"

Have you taken the survey to change our current sign bylaws? http://vancouver.ca/your-government/sign-bylaw-update.aspx

If you want more lighting features like that then tell them and you will get more than what this has; which i believe was tacked on in the 80's or 90's and is not an original feature. The neon sign does little for the architecture and the rest looks made from christmas lights, it's not even a good quality light feature.


from: https://www.emporis.com/images/details/247269/nightview-glimmering-crown

[officedweller]

Kenneth Chan at Hive has confirmed the plan to demolish with the hotel owners:

http://dailyhive.com/vancouver/empire-landmark-hotel-vancouver-demolished

[trofirhen]

If they're going to tear it down, couldn't they at least replace it with something tall and snazzy. I've always thought that the building is a bit 'cheap' looking.
But it is tall, and would, one day, be a heritage building despite its faults. So put in something classy, and it'll hurt less.

[osirisboy]

This is disgusting. What a waste. In future generations they will look back at this and wonder what the — we were thinking to allow this. Could they not build the 280 some units that they want to construct in a building beside the current tower? Although, that would mean building another tall tower close to the current one, something the city would have an anxiety attack over.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

This is disgusting. What a waste. In future generations they will look back at this and wonder what the — we were thinking to allow this. Could they not build the 280 some units that they want to construct in a building beside the current tower? Although, that would mean building another tall tower close to the current one, something the city would have an anxiety attack over.

Exactly. This is the most frustrating news I have heard out of Vancouver in years.

Not to play with the name, but love it or hate it the tower is a landmark.

It is a big piece of the Vancouver skyline, and it's loss will be felt.

This is seriously making me angry.

Even if the proposed replacement were taller with better lighting features, I would still be against it, simply because there are so many surrounding lots with two or three storie building that are far less of a waste to redevelop.

Green — city indeed.