The Stack (1133 Melville) | 161m | 36fl | Completed

[Metro-One]

Great renders, thanks for posting.

Reconsider the use of the bamboo, what does that mean?

It better not mean "we want you to use the same boring maple trees we plant everywhere now."

Sorry to harp on this, but the lack of variety regarding the flora used in Vancouver recently at the hand of the city is starting to get annoying, especially when what they often push / choose are pretty plain trees that are bare for more than half the year (seriously, they are literally using species that take exceptionally long to bud and fully leaf out in the spring, unlike our native species or other species such as cherry trees (which add colour early in the spring) or broadleaf evergreens.

[jlousa]

We have bamboo at a couple of our buildings and I wouldn't recommend it to anyone. The leaves absolutely get everywhere and clog things like you wouldn't believe. But I agree some variety would be welcome.

[koops65]

I revised my drawing: http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=106925

Vancouver diagram: http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?searchID=77597803

[Vin]

See Toronto's newest buildings VS our Melville tower.

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=210030&page=386

[PaperTiger]

Originally Posted by Feathered Friend

http://vancouver.ca/your-government/urban-design-panel.aspx



Again, I feel the UDP made some good calls here. I've heard a couple people with more experience than I call for better treatment of the entrance, so it's reassuring to hear that will be addressed. Perhaps it's because I'm a relative layman in the field, but I don't understand why they want the fins to help make the boxes more discrete? If the panel feels the boxes should be more discrete, I assume that means they dislike the concept. So then why not just suggest a new design rather than a cover up?

I think you are misinterpreting there meaning of the word discrete. The want each appear as an individual distinct element.

"Discreet" is a different word that means careful and circumspect.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Vin

See Toronto's newest buildings VS our Melville tower.

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=210030&page=386

WOW!! That top render looks like a brother or cousin to 1133 Melville. True, though, Toronto does have some daring, flashy buildings, a couple of them a bit "over the top," perhaps

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

100,000 sqft less than the original proposal, that's unfortunate. And 550,000 sqft will make it the largest office building here? Ugh that's kinda sad lol

And if anyone knows, why did the UDP not support the earlier proposal?

Agreed. Breaking the 600,000 sq. ft barrier would have been at least a start here seeing as in other cities (even some Canadian ones who are smaller than us), larger buildings routinely are in the 800,000-1,000,000, sq ft range.

But I guess in Vancouver progress moves at a glacier pace so we'll probably see buildings increase in size 40,000 sq ft at a time.

[LeftCoaster]

Want larger office buildings? Get bigger companies.

As it stands most institutional developers don't want to develop 600K or more SF here as there are so few tenants in this market who can take enough space to even make a dent in a building that size.

This is starting to change with some of the tech demand, but we'll see how far that goes.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

Want larger office buildings? Get bigger companies.

As it stands most institutional developers don't want to develop 600K or more SF here as there are so few tenants in this market who can take enough space to even make a dent in a building that size.

This is starting to change with some of the tech demand, but we'll see how far that goes.

How about twice the height but with half the tower built as condos or hotel space? Commercial buildings don't always have to be "just office" space.

[Metro-One]

Mixing residential with major office projects is something I though we are trying to avoid now, after seeing how such practices decades prior were eroding away our commercial heart.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Mixing residential with major office projects is something I though we are trying to avoid now, after seeing how such practices decades prior were eroding away our commercial heart.

I think you are mistaken. We are just trying to avoid purely residential towers downtown, but mixed developments especially with full commercial space uses are highly encouraged. But what do I know, I'm merely a 15-year old according to someone.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Vin

I think you are mistaken. We are just trying to avoid purely residential towers downtown, but mixed developments especially with full commercial space uses are highly encouraged. But what do I know, I'm merely a 15-year old according to someone.

No, mixed developments in the central part of the CBD (that's the Central Business District) are not just discouraged, they are not allowed. If residential, even as mixed use, were allowed than sites like the Budget car rental site would probably have been developed years ago and the recently proposed Westbank tower could never have been developed. Land values would also have risen to reflect residential values, which would also have made the commercial projects uneconomic.

There are very few exceptions, and they're limited only to the cost of retaining existing non-market housing or heritage structures - which is why the future development of the Bay Parkade could have some limited residential to cover the cost of the retention and restoration of the Dunsmuir Hotel. It's also why the Post Office can have some residential as part of the overall scheme. There are almost no other candidates for those exceptions.

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

Want larger office buildings? Get bigger companies.

As it stands most institutional developers don't want to develop 600K or more SF here as there are so few tenants in this market who can take enough space to even make a dent in a building that size.

This is starting to change with some of the tech demand, but we'll see how far that goes.

Chicken and egg. Large companies don't rent 20,000 sq ft at a time spread over multiple floors or even multiple buildings as they have to do in Vancouver. You need to have the capacity to attract and house them. Besides we're only talking about an extra 200,000 or so sq ft. That amount will likely get absorbed over time anyway even if it doesn't attract a large company.

We hurt ourselves and our tax base in the name of esthetics.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Changing City

No, mixed developments in the central part of the CBD (that's the Central Business District) are not just discouraged, they are not allowed. If residential, even as mixed use, were allowed than sites like the Budget car rental site would probably have been developed years ago and the recently proposed Westbank tower could never have been developed. Land values would also have risen to reflect residential values, which would also have made the commercial projects uneconomic.

There are very few exceptions, and they're limited only to the cost of retaining existing non-market housing or heritage structures - which is why the future development of the Bay Parkade could have some limited residential to cover the cost of the retention and restoration of the Dunsmuir Hotel. It's also why the Post Office can have some residential as part of the overall scheme. There are almost no other candidates for those exceptions.

So who makes these rules? Are those people better than you or me? Mixed developments can include OR exclude residential. I don't see anything wrong even along W. Georgia street to have a 60 storey building with 20 stories of hotel and 40 stories of office space, do you? Even if its residential/commercial, why not?

With that aside, we're talking about Melville Street, not W. Georgia. Even on W. Georgia, Shangri-la and Trump, the tallest towers, are both mixed residential/commercial developments. Do you see anything wrong with that or find these towers offensive? I certainly don't! They are in fact the jewels of our city.


There are no other candidates for those exceptions that you talked about because no other developers want to build a purely office-only tower along West Georgia. No flexibility, no development. Simple as that.

When it comes to city development, I don't get why so many people are a stickler to certain non-sensical "rule", real or otherwise. Open up, have fun in designing our city to make it more interesting and liveable!

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Mixing residential with major office projects is something I though we are trying to avoid now, after seeing how such practices decades prior were eroding away our commercial heart.

It's not just that, developers avoid it when possible as well. The conflicting ownership stratas, the structural gymnastics, and most of all the prestige hit an office building takes when it is shared with a condo.

Given the choice a developer will almost always build the office and residential separate this day in age. Take a look at the 16 York / Ice Condo project in Toronto that was originally envisioned as a stacked use but separated horizontally in the end to avoid the difficulties that stacked use brings.

Stacked uses are difficult to do right in the development stage and often even more of a headache to run once operational.

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

Chicken and egg. Large companies don't rent 20,000 sq ft at a time spread over multiple floors or even multiple buildings as they have to do in Vancouver. You need to have the capacity to attract and house them. Besides we're only talking about an extra 200,000 or so sq ft. That amount will likely get absorbed over time anyway even if it doesn't attract a large company.

We hurt ourselves and our tax base in the name of esthetics.

In this case it's not a chicken and egg scenario at all. Plenty of development sites have the capacity to develop much higher office densities but do not because there is not the demand. There is no 500,000 sf tenant waiting to take space in Vancouver but doesn't because the floorplate is not available. If there were someone would build them an office, plain and simple.

An extra 200,000 sq ft is not *only* it's a huge number. For a developer to overbuild that much space it's going to cost them roughly 85 million dollars in hard and soft costs alone, all for the privileged of finding even more tenants to pre-lease your space, a task that's not easy in a right sized building. That's a huge amount to just bet just so you can look at a bigger building.

And absorbed over time?? That's not a phrase a board want's to hear when it's approving a half billion plus investment.

[s211]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

It's not just that, developers avoid it when possible as well. The conflicting ownership stratas, the structural gymnastics, and most of all the prestige hit an office building takes when it is shared with a condo.

Given the choice a developer will almost always build the office and residential separate this day in age. Take a look at the 16 York / Ice Condo project in Toronto that was originally envisioned as a stacked use but separated horizontally in the end to avoid the difficulties that stacked use brings.

Stacked uses are difficult to do right in the development stage and often even more of a headache to run once operational.



In this case it's not a chicken and egg scenario at all. Plenty of development sites have the capacity to develop much higher office densities but do not because there is not the demand. There is no 500,000 sf tenant waiting to take space in Vancouver but doesn't because the floorplate is not available. If there were someone would build them an office, plain and simple.

An extra 200,000 sq ft is not *only* it's a huge number. For a developer to overbuild that much space it's going to cost them roughly 85 million dollars in hard and soft costs alone, all for the privileged of finding even more tenants to pre-lease your space, a task that's not easy in a right sized building. That's a huge amount to just bet just so you can look at a bigger building.

And absorbed over time?? That's not a phrase a board want's to hear when it's approving a half billion plus investment.

Thanks for having the patience to write that all out. Echoed 100%!

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Vin

So who makes these rules? Are those people better than you or me? Mixed developments can include OR exclude residential. I don't see anything wrong even along W. Georgia street to have a 60 storey building with 20 stories of hotel and 40 stories of office space, do you? Even if its residential/commercial, why not?

With that aside, we're talking about Melville Street, not W. Georgia. Even on W. Georgia, Shangri-la and Trump, the tallest towers, are both mixed residential/commercial developments. Do you see anything wrong with that or find these towers offensive? I certainly don't! They are in fact the jewels of our city.


There are no other candidates for those exceptions that you talked about because no other developers want to build a purely office-only tower along West Georgia. No flexibility, no development. Simple as that.


When it comes to city development, I don't get why so many people are a stickler to certain non-sensical "rule", real or otherwise. Open up, have fun in designing our city to make it more interesting and liveable!

I don't have LeftCoaster's patience to explain everything to you, especially as past experience suggests you'll stick to believing what you want to believe, whatever evidence is offered.

So who makes these rules? They're called City Council. They're elected to run the city. In 2007 they were alerted to the concerns of the city planners that if mixed use projects kept being built in the CBD there was a medium term development capacity problem for more office, retail and hotel space, and a bigger problem long-term (as condo buildings generally don't redevelop in the way medium sized offices or hotels can become bigger offices or hotels). After a nearly two year research and policy program, the Metro Core Policy Plan recommended changes to the zoning to limit residential uses. (You can mix any commercial uses - office, hotel, retail, institutional - whatever). By the way, that wasn't a Vision led Council, it had an NPA majority under Mayor Sam Sullivan.

Interestingly, Shangri La included a heritage component - the Coastal Church next door which had extensive (and expensive) seismic upgrades. Trump Tower (as we now have to call it) was one of the schemes that rang the planners' alarm bells. If the Metro Core Plan hadn't been adopted it's almost certain that this thread wouldn't even exist, as 1133 Melville wouldn't have been bought by Oxford to develop as office space.

Development economics is why mixed use isn't necessarily appropriate everywhere, why 'flexibility' isn't always a good idea, and why Westbank have recently bought a site on West Georgia to build a "purely office-only tower" on a site that wouldn't have made any economic sense if the zoning for the site allowed mixed use.

[truenorth44]

Redesigned scheme for 1133 Melville:

http://dailyhive.com/vancouver/1133-melville-street-vancouver-office-tower-redesign

[Feathered Friend]

Doesn't seem that there's anything new there, Daily Hive is just covering what we discussed back in June. Thanks for taking the initiative to post though.

[truenorth44]

Originally Posted by Feathered Friend

Doesn't seem that there's anything new there, Daily Hive is just covering what we discussed back in June. Thanks for taking the initiative to post though.

Oops, I looked back, but not quite far enough.

Edit: Or carefully enough, it seems - not sure what I was looking at, but I thought I went a couple of pages back! Oh well.