320 Granville St |115m | 32Fl | Completed

[Klazu]

From the website. It's pretty sad that it will be shorter than the 70s office towers around it.

[rofina]

Does the city have any long term plan for land use in the downtown core?

There is a finite, and already limited amount of sites to build on downtown.

I would suggest some of these sites should be kept for taller builds for when there is no availability of land to build on.

Seems like we are rather narrow sighted with the current zoning - we build out downtown in 30 story towers and in 20 years take them down for supertalls?

Or do we build out downtown with 30's and only build outside of downtown, save for a few small infill projects in the core?

What's the vision?

[SFUVancouver]

Originally Posted by rofina

Does the city have any long term plan for land use in the downtown core?

There is a finite, and already limited amount of sites to build on downtown.

I would suggest some of these sites should be kept for taller builds for when there is no availability of land to build on.

Seems like we are rather narrow sighted with the current zoning - we build out downtown in 30 story towers and in 20 years take them down for supertalls?

Or do we build out downtown with 30's and only build outside of downtown, save for a few small infill projects in the core?

What's the vision?

That last piece of policy work was the 2007 Metro Core Jobs & Economy Land Use Plan:

http://vancouver.ca/docs/planning/metro-core-jobs-and-economy-study.pdf

The City also has a "dashboard" web page tracking office development in the Metro Core:

http://vancouver.ca/doing-business/downtown-office-development.aspx

[Vin]

At least BOSA is pretty honest about the building's diminutive and stunted stature. Most developers would just show a close-up shot or even a view from the street looking up. Perhaps this is done on purpose as a subtle hint of protestation?

The word "regressive" is all I can think of when I see this.


One thing wrong with this picture is that the seaplane has landed way too far from the seaplane marina/terminal.

Originally Posted by rofina

Does the city have any long term plan for land use in the downtown core?

There is a finite, and already limited amount of sites to build on downtown.

I would suggest some of these sites should be kept for taller builds for when there is no availability of land to build on.

Seems like we are rather narrow sighted with the current zoning - we build out downtown in 30 story towers and in 20 years take them down for supertalls?

Or do we build out downtown with 30's and only build outside of downtown, save for a few small infill projects in the core?

What's the vision?

I have been lamenting about the loss of many of our potential heritage buildings for a while now. I'm sure the loss of previous heritage structures was also a result of inflexible building/zoning policies that only allow certain sites to go high-density, resulting in the under-appreciated old buildings of that era getting demolished to make way for the newer towers. No one seems to be protesting such regressive City policies. Viewcones is one of the worst among the lot.

[rofina]

Originally Posted by Vin

At least BOSA is pretty honest about the building's diminutive and stunted stature. Most developers would just show a close-up shot or even a view from the street looking up. Perhaps this is done on purpose as a subtle hint of protestation?

The word "regressive" is all I can think of when I see this.


One thing wrong with this picture is that the seaplane has landed way too far from the seaplane marina/terminal.




I have been lamenting about the loss of many of our potential heritage buildings for a while now. I'm sure the loss of previous heritage structures was also a result of inflexible building/zoning policies that only allow certain sites to go high-density, resulting in the under-appreciated old buildings of that era getting demolished to make way for the newer towers. No one seems to be protesting such regressive City policies. Viewcones is one of the worst among the lot.

Indeed, the heritage comment is onpoint.

We are fortunate to have MNP tower and Exchange willing to incorporate the old with the new.

However, the lack of land in the core, coupled with Gastown and its heritage status, West End all residential, Yaletown residential, save for low rise, and you are not exactly left with a large selection of commercial building sites.

That being said - one office tower is able to accommodate a lot more bodies than the same does for residential, but I can see a future where availability of commercial space in the downtown core is a real issue.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by rofina

Indeed, the heritage comment is onpoint.

We are fortunate to have MNP tower and Exchange willing to incorporate the old with the new.

However, the lack of land in the core, coupled with Gastown and its heritage status, West End all residential, Yaletown residential, save for low rise, and you are not exactly left with a large selection of commercial building sites.

That being said - one office tower is able to accommodate a lot more bodies than the same does for residential, but I can see a future where availability of commercial space in the downtown core is a real issue.

West End should start to embrace mixed use in certain areas. The same residential densities can still be attained by letting the newer buildings to go taller. I don't see too many heritage structures to be preserved there, unless people truly truly love the form of the 3-storey boxy walkups.

New commercial zones can also be established along the Broadway corridor or even Olympic Village area. Also, that huge vacant site on the east side of Cambie bridge would've been a great mini Commercial centre. I can envision tall glass towers put there that will look spectacular from the bridge (perhaps the new Amazon campus?). Too bad it's left derelict for that low-density school that never gets built. Sadly the vision of having a new commercial centre on the south side of Cambie bridge will never happen, since new entitled residents living there will all be up in arms to fight it even if the City decides to rezone it. I call it horrible planning when it comes to the OCP.

[wrenegade]

The amended zoning bylaw in the Mount Pleasant industrial zone (2nd to Broadway between Yukon and Main) as well as the new False Creek flats plan make it unnecessary to put commercial between Columbia and the Cambie bridge next to the Olympic Village. That huge vacant site will not be a "low density school" (the school site already exists immediately east of Hinge Park next to Canada House), but another residential neighbourhood. Yes, there will be another park in the plan along the seawall (a programmable soccer field was included) and a fair amount of density in buildings ranging from 6-10 storeys. This was all included in the original plan for SEFC. As someone involved in the original consultation and then a buyer and resident in one of the buildings (the James) I would be quite disappointed and annoyed if that changed. While I no longer live or own in the neighbourhood, I think it has been extremely successful. I look forward to seeing the build-out and hope it is consistent with the original vision. Amazon is pretty much the only company that could build-out a site like that in its entirety with a tech campus, and they aren't bringing HQ2 to Vancouver. We're not "friendly" enough and aren't going to provide free land or tax incentives.

All that being said, I fully agree with others saying that sites like 320 Granville could/should have more density on them. I don't think the view cones are necessarily a bad thing, although they need to be reviewed, especially in relation to the CBD and potential high-density commercial sites.

[queetz@home]

This was posted in the Office Market Discussion thread but its so relevant here!

Originally Posted by Monolith

Vancouver office tower sells out at $2,000 per square foot
Bosa Waterfront Centre strata sale blitz launches city's downtown office market into a whole new stratosphere

So even if the BC NDP do its worse to the economy, it looks like this project will still push through for sure!

[Vin]

Originally Posted by wrenegade

The amended zoning bylaw in the Mount Pleasant industrial zone (2nd to Broadway between Yukon and Main) as well as the new False Creek flats plan make it unnecessary to put commercial between Columbia and the Cambie bridge next to the Olympic Village. That huge vacant site will not be a "low density school" (the school site already exists immediately east of Hinge Park next to Canada House), but another residential neighbourhood. Yes, there will be another park in the plan along the seawall (a programmable soccer field was included) and a fair amount of density in buildings ranging from 6-10 storeys. This was all included in the original plan for SEFC. As someone involved in the original consultation and then a buyer and resident in one of the buildings (the James) I would be quite disappointed and annoyed if that changed. While I no longer live or own in the neighbourhood, I think it has been extremely successful. I look forward to seeing the build-out and hope it is consistent with the original vision. Amazon is pretty much the only company that could build-out a site like that in its entirety with a tech campus, and they aren't bringing HQ2 to Vancouver. We're not "friendly" enough and aren't going to provide free land or tax incentives.

All that being said, I fully agree with others saying that sites like 320 Granville could/should have more density on them. I don't think the view cones are necessarily a bad thing, although they need to be reviewed, especially in relation to the CBD and potential high-density commercial sites.

Personally, the "amended bylaws" of many areas in Vancouver are not ambitious enough to make this a truly world class city. South side Cambie bridge is the last large area in the Falsecreek neighbourhood to hold a secondary financial/business/retail centre of Vancouver. To have a low-density school and park (they never get built) is a huge waste. Planners here don't think long-term.

320 Granville should be a landmark tower. This is just another waste of a very noticeable lot smack in the financial district.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Vin

Personally, the "amended bylaws" of many areas in Vancouver are not ambitious enough to make this a truly world class city. ....
.......320 Granville should be a landmark tower. This is just another waste of a very noticeable lot smack in the financial district.

Very true, and very unfortunate. Imagine, if allowedto go to 45 storeys, the impression this building would make on cruise ship passengers arriving in the city, not only for Vancouverites.

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Very true, and very unfortunate. Imagine, if allowedto go to 45 storeys, the impression this building would make on cruise ship passengers arriving in the city, not only for Vancouverites.

Luckily no city makes plans dependent on the impressions the skyline will make on cruise ship passengers.

[goldenboi]

Lol ^^^

[wrenegade]

Originally Posted by Vin

Personally, the "amended bylaws" of many areas in Vancouver are not ambitious enough to make this a truly world class city. South side Cambie bridge is the last large area in the Falsecreek neighbourhood to hold a secondary financial/business/retail centre of Vancouver. To have a low-density school and park (they never get built) is a huge waste. Planners here don't think long-term.

Well it did take a while, but the school in International Village did get built. But as I said before, the remaining site has nothing to do with a school, although the park will be part of a new residential neighbourhood.

What's wrong with expanding Central Broadway as the secondary core? It already has a critical mass, and while Skytrain isn't there (yet), it is far better served by transit that 1st & Wylie/Crowe/Cook.

Also, if we are talking about a secondary office core for the metro area, Metrotown or even Central City probably make more sense.

320 Granville should be a landmark tower. This is just another waste of a very noticeable lot smack in the financial district.

No argument from me there.

[LowerLonsdaleMike]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Very true, and very unfortunate. Imagine, if allowedto go to 45 storeys, the impression this building would make on cruise ship passengers arriving in the city, not only for Vancouverites.

This should be the site of Vancouvers next tallest tower based on proximity to the transit hub. What a shame. I emailed the city about this and they basically told me that the developer didn't submit an application to increase the height limit. Well, I wonder why? Cough cough... Viewcones?!!!

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Jebby

Luckily no city makes plans dependent on the impressions the skyline will make on cruise ship passengers.

Thank you, Jebby; I'm aware of that. I was simply using it as one example among many of how disappointing it is to have this building as short as it is ... or as it will be. Lost potential.

[KPELLY]

Originally Posted by LowerLonsdaleMike

This should be the site of Vancouvers next tallest tower based on proximity to the transit hub. What a shame. I emailed the city about this and they basically told me that the developer didn't submit an application to increase the height limit. Well, I wonder why? Cough cough... Viewcones?!!!

Has anyone ever made a change.org petition for removing all (or certain) viewcones?

(not that I think most people care about such things generally)

[djmk]

whatever happened to the Central Waterfront Hub Framework? Was this lot supposed to be apart of this?

(or am I dating myself?)

[retro_orange]

Originally Posted by KPELLY

Has anyone ever made a change.org petition for removing all (or certain) viewcones?

(not that I think most people care about such things generally)

I feel the general public doesn't really understand the correlation between certain viewcone policies and their negative impacts.

Most people have a very rosy view of viewcones, though I have met people who have no idea what a viewcone is in the first place.

[KPELLY]

Originally Posted by retro_orange

I feel the general public doesn't really understand the correlation between certain viewcone policies and their negative impacts.

Most people have a very rosy view of viewcones, though I have met people who have no idea what a viewcone is in the first place.

I agree, although a well written, succinct explanation may go a long way to convincing others.

I was able to get about 15 of my friends, who don't take transit (or have any interest in it) to sign the "Change the Proposed Surrey LRT to Skytrain" petition.

[SFUVancouver]

Originally Posted by djmk

whatever happened to the Central Waterfront Hub Framework? Was this lot supposed to be apart of this?

(or am I dating myself?)

To the best of my knowledge, it's still alive as a long-range planning initiative and with the success of the office market over the last decade, and the market traction of 320 Granville, I suspect that there's going to be a move from back burner to front burner sometime soon.