The Post | 67m | 27 fl | Completed

[Vin]

All the above comments can be resolved if the Viewcones restrictions are removed. A tall tower would essentially eradicate all the issues brought up above. With the Viewcones intact, it's almost like asking for the impossible, especially if the developer wants to attain the specified floor space.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Vin

All the above comments can be resolved if the Viewcones restrictions are removed. A tall tower would essentially eradicate all the issues brought up above. With the Viewcones intact, it's almost like asking for the impossible, especially if the developer wants to attain the specified floor space.

hey yeahh, OK. So remove the viewcones, already.

[jlousa]

Great idea, challenge the city what could go wrong on future applications. Seriously the situation is well known going in, the developer will be able to make the project work under what's permitted. It's a game of negotiations, that's all. The project will be fine tuned a little and will probably pass on the next go around and the public realm will be better for it.

[rofina]

Originally Posted by jlousa

Great idea, challenge the city what could go wrong on future applications. Seriously the situation is well known going in, the developer will be able to make the project work under what's permitted. It's a game of negotiations, that's all. The project will be fine tuned a little and will probably pass on the next go around and the public realm will be better for it.

I think people are just upset because its a ridiculous game to play with the city.

Creating a near endless set of hoops for architects and designers to jump through does not in any way promote affordability, or allow for outside the box solutions.

I think a lot of people, myself included, are getting fed up with the level of bureaucracy and elitism at City Hall.

This doesn't just pertain to one development being turned down either - its just infuriating that the these decisions have to be turned into games.

The tower is too bulky, but you can't build higher because we imposed height restrictions too - spend another couple million, and 6 months and try again later pal.

Its ridiculous, we need common sense back at City Hall.

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by rofina

I think people are just upset because its a ridiculous game to play with the city.

Creating a near endless set of hoops for architects and designers to jump through does not in any way promote affordability, or allow for outside the box solutions.

I think a lot of people, myself included, are getting fed up with the level of bureaucracy and elitism at City Hall.

This doesn't just pertain to one development being turned down either - its just infuriating that the these decisions have to be turned into games.

The tower is too bulky, but you can't build higher because we imposed height restrictions too - spend another couple million, and 6 months and try again later pal.

Its ridiculous, we need common sense back at City Hall.

Totally agree. We need more architectural diversity as well and it seems like every suggestion from the UDP is for buildings to become more cookie cutter and conforming to a narrow view of what the CoV should look like.

The UDP should be a voluntary process to get additional support and input for a project and shouldn't be an official step towards getting approval.

If a building fits zoning bylaws, there are very few reasons why it should not be approved by the City. Subjective tastes on design shouldn't be a criteria.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Jebby

Totally agree. We need more architectural diversity as well and it seems like every suggestion from the UDP is for buildings to become more cookie cutter and conforming to a narrow view of what the CoV should look like.

The UDP should be a voluntary process to get additional support and input for a project and shouldn't be an official step towards getting approval.

If a building fits zoning bylaws, there are very few reasons why it should not be approved by the City. Subjective tastes on design shouldn't be a criteria.

https://twitter.com/nlamontagne/stat...48705126895618

[SFUVancouver]

Originally Posted by Jebby

The UDP should be a voluntary process to get additional support and input for a project and shouldn't be an official step towards getting approval.

If a building fits zoning bylaws, there are very few reasons why it should not be approved by the City. Subjective tastes on design shouldn't be a criteria.

While you are right that UDP review is a prescribed part of a rezoning and development permit approval process, a project can receive non-support and still at least receive its Development Permit. 501 Pacific received non-support and was approved by the DPB, and I expect that there are others.

[rofina]

Originally Posted by Jebby

Totally agree. We need more architectural diversity as well and it seems like every suggestion from the UDP is for buildings to become more cookie cutter and conforming to a narrow view of what the CoV should look like.

The UDP should be a voluntary process to get additional support and input for a project and shouldn't be an official step towards getting approval.

If a building fits zoning bylaws, there are very few reasons why it should not be approved by the City. Subjective tastes on design shouldn't be a criteria.

Precisely.

Check zoning
Check use
Check set backs
Check right of way, etc
Submit engineer schedules

Build.

Done. Thats all it needs to take. Why are we making life so bloody difficult?

[Vin]

Originally Posted by jlousa

Great idea, challenge the city what could go wrong on future applications. Seriously the situation is well known going in, the developer will be able to make the project work under what's permitted. It's a game of negotiations, that's all. The project will be fine tuned a little and will probably pass on the next go around and the public realm will be better for it.

We should realise that all the extra time spent on jumping through hoops equates money or opportunities lost. A lot of nonsense is brought about by City policies. Challenging them can be good in the long run, as we aim to eradicate what that does not make sense. This is especially so with a city where our housing/commercial space is already so unaffordable, and ultimately, extra expenses translate to how much the consumers pay.

[trofirhen]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...C3%A9rieur.jpg
This is the Place Bonaventure in Montreal, dating from the mid 60s. It's big.
I am not advocating that this be a prototype for The Post, no way. Many here will find it too low, and grotesquely ugly or hard, I don't know.
But - would something along this scale (they're both big), finer, with floors added to it to bulk it higher, not endanger any viewcone,
but a massive, 10++ such project for The Post would, if connected right, designed right, and done right, still be a pulsing centre of downtown.
A high rise could be located somewhere not too far. Surely.

[retro_orange]

Originally Posted by jlousa

Great idea, challenge the city what could go wrong on future applications. Seriously the situation is well known going in, the developer will be able to make the project work under what's permitted. It's a game of negotiations, that's all. The project will be fine tuned a little and will probably pass on the next go around and the public realm will be better for it.

As housing costs are out of hand for most these days, most do not prioritize a view of the mountains over having an affordable place to live as you would be lucky to have a view from your home in the first place.

jlousa your posts sound like Marie Antoinette, "let them eat cake" the bitch says, sooner or later we will chop off your head.

[jlousa]

Originally Posted by retro_orange

As housing costs are out of hand for most these days, most do not prioritize a view of the mountains over having an affordable place to live as you would be lucky to have a view from your home in the first place.

jlousa your posts sound like Marie Antoinette, "let them eat cake" the bitch says, sooner or later we will chop off your head.

How is the UDP responsible for affordability? They are responsible for providing input on projects and although some here might despise them, there is no doubt they have helped shape Vancouver into the great city it is today. Many major cities have sent planners to learn from and copy our system. Must be terrible eh. Heck don't need to go far, look at the quality of the public realm in our suburbs and ask yourself if you think they are getting a better product on the typical project.
If you want to complain about affordability a large chuck of it is from the city forcing developers and in turn buyers to pay ridiculous amounts of CACs that go to civic pet projects that are arguable outside the scope of running a city.
Take a look at this link for an example of the city charging $40M on a single project. I'll let you crunch the numbers to see how much each unit will be contributing just to pay for that.
http://council.vancouver.ca/20170221...esentation.pdf

[rofina]

Originally Posted by jlousa

How is the UDP responsible for affordability? They are responsible for providing input on projects and although some here might despise them, there is no doubt they have helped shape Vancouver into the great city it is today. Many major cities have sent planners to learn from and copy our system. Must be terrible eh. Heck don't need to go far, look at the quality of the public realm in our suburbs and ask yourself if you think they are getting a better product on the typical project.
If you want to complain about affordability a large chuck of it is from the city forcing developers and in turn buyers to pay ridiculous amounts of CACs that go to civic pet projects that are arguable outside the scope of running a city.
Take a look at this link for an example of the city charging $40M on a single project. I'll let you crunch the numbers to see how much each unit will be contributing just to pay for that.
http://council.vancouver.ca/20170221...esentation.pdf

The implication is that an unnecessarily convoluted permit and design process is contributing to escalating construction costs, and hence increasing housing costs.

Add into this LEED, and ASHREA, and all the other pseudo green legislation and you have a costly maze to navigate.

I lived through Vancouver's transformation over the last 2 decades, I would be hard pressed to find many residents that would say Vancouver has turned into a great city.

The constant back patting about building a great city is only shared by few travel magazines and the development community.

For those of us who actually live and operate here, the progress doesn't seem very progressive.

[osirisboy]

Originally Posted by jlousa

Great idea, challenge the city what could go wrong on future applications. Seriously the situation is well known going in, the developer will be able to make the project work under what's permitted. It's a game of negotiations, that's all. The project will be fine tuned a little and will probably pass on the next go around and the public realm will be better for it.

The public realm will be better for it? Well that's a matter of opinion! I would say having them taller with dark glass would be better for the public realm

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by Vin

All the above comments can be resolved if the Viewcones restrictions are removed. A tall tower would essentially eradicate all the issues brought up above. With the Viewcones intact, it's almost like asking for the impossible, especially if the developer wants to attain the specified floor space.

Yup - Similar problems to those raised by the view cone restriction over the IcePick site next to the CP Station...

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Yup - Similar problems to those raised by the view cone restriction over the IcePick site next to the CP Station...

a naïve question, I know, but I had to ask it: is there any way that the viecones could be legally callenged? By a developer/ devlmnt groups, etc, or has it /could it happen?

[Metro-One]

Don't mean to pile on but so many of those comments came off as a direct result to the viewcone restrictions. Taller more slender towers would resolve most of those issues

[connect2source]

I still hate this development, it's horribly top-heavy and represents a pathetic attempt to integrate the heritage elements and the new addition. It does nothing but make the heritage section look ridiculous, like it's being sat upon and squished by an elephant.

Does anyone really think this is successful design in any respect?!?!? Sorry but it's an absolute awkward monstrosity, cannot believe it's even being considered and no wonder the UDP gave it the thumbs down.

I've copied and pasted one of my previous ideas below, yes there would be view-cone issues with it but it's harmonised, integrated and balanced.

_______________

I think they should go with something like this. Maintain the original integrity and essence of the overall design, honour the mid-century architectural while adding density.

source : http://www.vancouverheritagecommunity.com

[retro_orange]

Originally Posted by connect2source

I still hate this development, it's horribly top-heavy and represents a pathetic attempt to integrate the heritage elements and the new addition. It does nothing but make the heritage section look ridiculous, like it's being sat upon and squished by an elephant.

Does anyone really think this is successful design in any respect?!?!? Sorry but it's an absolute awkward monstrosity, cannot believe it's even being considered and no wonder the UDP gave it the thumbs down.

I've copied and pasted one of my previous ideas below, yes there would be view-cone issues with it but it's harmonised, integrated and balanced.

_______________

I think they should go with something like this. Maintain the original integrity and essence of the overall design, honour the mid-century architectural while adding density.

source : http://www.vancouverheritagecommunity.com

If only... I would have loved to see this at twice the height. That's quite the lively street scene for a post office in this render but with the added office component I'm sure it would have spurred more expansion of office buildings in this part of downtown.

[djmk]

I think this building is going to be awesome. And with the new art gallery, in connection with the library and the removal of the viaducts, I expect this part of the city to change dramatically.

It will definitely be different