Downtown Vancouver Updates

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by Changing City

The new roof is zinc - about as expensive as copper and much more expensive than shakes or other similar alternatives. It should last at least three times longer than the previous roof (installed in 1980) which had to be removed carefully due to the asbestos content. There was also a problem with the dust in the roof, that had high lead levels and cost an additional million dollars to remove safely. The new roof structure incorporates steelwork to improve the seismic performance, and is now anchored into the walls. The plans were shown the Vancouver Heritage Commission in 2014, who unanimously supported the choice of materials.

Thanks for the details!

[Hot Rod]

Originally Posted by red-paladin

I think that having large scale cultural facilities like museums, theatres, churches, and libraries not only bring architectural variety and pedestrian traffic to downtowns, but they are at the very heart of urbanism. The best cities in the world are great because their densities are leveraged to enable cultural activity. Imagine going to Europe and remarking 'That old religious/cultural building on the corner should be replaced with a 200m office tower with an A&W and nail shop at the base'

Hmm, maybe not for a 200m office tower.

But I think we SHOULD replace it if there were a 300m+ office or mixed use tower with even modest architecture proposed. With the proceeds, the church could rebuild elsewhere, LOL.

[Metro-One]

This forum goes in some weird directions sometimes.

I for one actually like the renovations, and the quaint historic charm that the church has.

That is what makes that intersection so interesting. Among Vancouver's tallest office towers in the heart of the financial district sits a cute little stone church, unchanged since the city's humble beginnings.

Such a juxtaposition is what creates interesting and charming urban fabrics.

There are countless other sites one can build a 300 meter office tower without erasing the city's charm.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

There are countless... sites one can build a 300 meter office tower without erasing the city's charm.

where can we build 300m towers?!?! we need one!!!

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

where can we build 300m towers?!?! we need one!!!

I think you missed the point of my comment.

[red-paladin]

This attitude is the exact reason why the Birks building was torn down and the Scotia tower was built in it's place.


From: https://changingvancouver.wordpress.com/2014/11/06/birks-building-west-georgia-and-granville/

[retro_orange]

Originally Posted by red-paladin

This attitude is the exact reason why the Birks building was torn down and the Scotia tower was built in it's place.


From: https://changingvancouver.wordpress.com/2014/11/06/birks-building-west-georgia-and-granville/

Sad thing is the Scotia tower itself could have been built almost as it is without demolishing the Birks building because the tower is almost entirely where the Strand theatre was. The Birks building was as deep as the Vancouver block is yet if you look at the street view the alley facade of the Vancouver block is basically where the facade of the Scotia tower is that faces to Granville over London drugs. Truth be told, Birks was all for it's demolition.
spot on street view: https://www.google.ca/maps/@49.282194,-1...5s20090701T000000!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1



from: http://cinematreasures.org/theaters/24965#

[Joseph K.]

Originally Posted by retro_orange

Sad thing is the Scotia tower itself could have been built almost as it is without demolishing the Birks building because the tower is almost entirely where the Strand theatre was. The Birks building was as deep as the Vancouver block is yet if you look at the street view the alley facade of the Vancouver block is basically where the facade of the Scotia tower is that faces to Granville over London drugs.

I was having a good day, up until I looked at archival photos of The Strand. The loss of the Birks Building was already bad enough, but this is just rubbing it in. What the hell was wrong with people back then to allow such gems to be demolished? With a little extra engineering, both buildings could have been retained and integrated into a Scotiabank tower, and no one would have lost any sleep over the Vancouver Centre not being built. Just tragic.



City of Vancouver Archives

[Metro-One]

Same will be said about the Landmark Tower in 30 to 40 years.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

where can we build 300m towers?!?! we need one!!!

Ultimately, kitty-corner to Christ Church Cathedral, where the Burrard Building now is, will be the likely spot for our "centrepiece" masterpiece. ... that is, if height is so important to you.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by red-paladin

This attitude is the exact reason why the Birks building was torn down and the Scotia tower was built in it's place.


From: https://changingvancouver.wordpress.com/2014/11/06/birks-building-west-georgia-and-granville/

I would have wanted the Birks building to stay. I'm not a "build glass towers anywhere" kind of person. I don't want you guys to think that's where I'm coming from. The Georgia Medical Dental Building is another tragedy. I'm all for heritage preservation if it looks good and adds something to the streetscape. But I just don't think this church does.

Maybe it is an emblem of humble little old Vancouver, but there are other churches downtown. And either way, I question how important this reminder is anyway. There are other single family houses scattered throughout downtown as well. Do they not serve the same purpose?

It's directly on what should be our flagship intersection, and I just believe that as long as it stays there, that intersection will never be what it could be.

[s211]

Originally Posted by Changing City

The new roof is zinc - about as expensive as copper and much more expensive than shakes or other similar alternatives. It should last at least three times longer than the previous roof (installed in 1980) which had to be removed carefully due to the asbestos content. There was also a problem with the dust in the roof, that had high lead levels and cost an additional million dollars to remove safely. The new roof structure incorporates steelwork to improve the seismic performance, and is now anchored into the walls. The plans were shown the Vancouver Heritage Commission in 2014, who unanimously supported the choice of materials.

Sonofagun....

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Ultimately, kitty-corner to Christ Church Cathedral, where the Burrard Building now is, will be the likely spot for our "centrepiece" masterpiece. ... that is, if height is so important to you.

Originally Posted by Metro-One

I think you missed the point of my comment.

i was hoping all the "!!!" and "???" would have come off as a joking comment. haha. oh well its hard to get that over text.

we do need to loose the height fear though when we are talking about Georgia and Burrard and the surrounding area. the church itself is mehh, but it is a left over piece of what Vancouver once was. a small, modest English town, instead of a money-laundering centre and resort for the rich.

[privatejet]

The sale of City View on Haro should be interesting as the site allows 550' redevelopments
http://urbanyvr.com/west-end-strata-goes-sale-two-new-550-foot-tall-towers-allowed

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Same will be said about the Landmark Tower in 30 to 40 years.

Very unlikely.

[phesto]

Originally Posted by privatejet

The sale of City View on Haro should be interesting as the site allows 550' redevelopments
http://urbanyvr.com/west-end-strata-goes-sale-two-new-550-foot-tall-towers-allowed

Apparently the site is limited to about 200 feet in height as the City will not allow shadows on the North side of Robson Street.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by phesto

Apparently the site is limited to about 200 feet in height as the City will not allow shadows on the North side of Robson Street.

Either way, the city has imposed one of its viewcone limitations over this downtown site, artificially arresting new building heights at 250 feet. If the shadowing limitation is true as well, that would mean the city would have to contradict not one but two of its development-restricting policies, if a building of 550 feet was to move forward.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by phesto

Apparently the site is limited to about 200 feet in height as the City will not allow shadows on the North side of Robson Street.

The City wants to turn most of the high-density districts outside downtown, such as O.V. to 10-12 storey blocks of condos with narrow streets, ie. shadows abound, and here they are anal about narrow high-rise shadowing which would not even last throughout the whole day?

A little shadow in the day helps to cool down buildings in the middle of summer. A good thing I'd say.

This City should stop being anal about nonsensical policies that keep hampering decent developments.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by privatejet

The sale of City View on Haro should be interesting as the site allows 550' redevelopments
http://urbanyvr.com/west-end-strata-goes-sale-two-new-550-foot-tall-towers-allowed

If a tall building does succeed in going ahead, I hope it enhances the curve on Haro Street. The curves on Melville and Haro Streets add a "flair" to d/t and take away that monotonous grid feeling.

Originally Posted by phesto

Apparently the site is limited to about 200 feet in height as the City will not allow shadows on the North side of Robson Street.

That's idiotically contradictory.

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Either way, the city has imposed one of its viewcone limitations over this downtown site, artificially arresting new building heights at 250 feet. If the shadowing limitation is true as well, that would mean the city would have to contradict not one but two of its development-restricting policies, if a building of 550 feet was to move forward.

All this would be funny enough for a situation comedy about a ficticious, wacky city ... if it weren't so pathetically stupid.

Originally Posted by Vin

The City wants to turn most of the high-density districts outside downtown, such as O.V. to 10-12 storey blocks of condos with narrow streets, ie. shadows abound, and here they are anal about narrow high-rise shadowing which would not even last throughout the whole day?

A little shadow in the day helps to cool down buildings in the middle of summer. A good thing I'd say.

This City should stop being anal about nonsensical policies that keep hampering decent developments.

One sure way is to fire the crew of idiots. That being out of the question, maybe electroshock would do it. That being out of the question, mass street riots might. That being out of the question, the only solution is to petitition until you have writer's cramps, and if that doesn't work ... live with their idiotic, dumbing-down solutions.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by Jebby

Very unlikely.

Thank you for providing that pitch perfect example of what many would have thought when it was decided to take down the Birks building

It is amazing how few people can actually think of context.