General Vancouver Updates

[officedweller]

On Burrard at 5th:


Posh @rollsroycecars takes the ground floor of new building in the heart of the Burrard Auto District
https://twitter.com/GranvilleStreet

[BodomReaper]

Originally Posted by rofina

The Duke might go down in my books as the ugliest new building in Van in years.

I literally cant think of one redeeming feature, other than it providing more units than what was there.

Visually its awful from every angle.

I don't mind the aesthetics, but it looks like the retail units are only half the depth (or less) of the site. This is a terrible trend seen in many new projects that severely limits the amount of spaces suitable for restaurants and pubs, green grocers, and cafes that want to offer more than a pittance of seating. Guarantees that long retail stretches will be dominated by less-animating uses, and have things like banks and dentists consume double the frontage that they would otherwise need - further deadening the street.

[retro_orange]

Originally Posted by rofina

The Duke might go down in my books as the ugliest new building in Van in years.

I literally cant think of one redeeming feature, other than it providing more units than what was there.

Visually its awful from every angle.

It looks impressive at night when going down Kingsway from 12th, especially the open courtyard lit up.

I like the dark framed zig zag windows and the brick, though I wish the brick was a bit darker buff tone.

That spandrelled top part though... who said that was a good idea.

Vya next door is so underbuilt and the hotel next door to it is already over 20 years old. Eventually Vya will be sandwiched between 2 taller buildings

[mcminsen]

Originally Posted by officedweller

On Burrard at 5th:

Posh @rollsroycecars takes the ground floor of new building in the heart of the Burrard Auto District
https://twitter.com/GranvilleStreet

A few that I took on Monday.



Nov.27 '17, my pics

[Jebby]

That's not hideous, but damn is it bland.

[rofina]

Originally Posted by Jebby

That's not hideous, but damn is it bland.

Agree.

Its pretty "meh" for that area - figured something more unique could possibly have been justified, but perhaps not.

[rofina]

Originally Posted by retro_orange

It looks impressive at night when going down Kingsway from 12th, especially the open courtyard lit up.

I like the dark framed zig zag windows and the brick, though I wish the brick was a bit darker buff tone.

That spandrelled top part though... who said that was a good idea.

Vya next door is so underbuilt and the hotel next door to it is already over 20 years old. Eventually Vya will be sandwiched between 2 taller buildings

Admittedly I made a mistake.

I'm not familiar with the area - when I saw the Duke and the awful, awful Vya next door I had assumed Vya was a podium for Duke.

The two next to each other, wow, don't know if I'm in more shock or less now.

Pretty dreadful combo. All that needs to be added is another bland thing on the left and you have a case study in what not to do.

Just a caveat - I'm a huge fan of building, fast approvals, etc. I'm a fan of this in the sense that its up and done.

But I think for same costs and minimal effort much superior visions can be assembled.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by rofina

The Duke might go down in my books as the ugliest new building in Van in years.

I literally cant think of one redeeming feature, other than it providing more units than what was there.

Visually its awful from every angle.

I really like the Duke, but find Vya awful, only because I am biased against woodframes: they just look cheap and rickety. Duke is awesome and solid, possibly the best looking building in that corner of town. Independent would come a close second.

[GenWhy?]

The City's new Housing Strategy was voted on and passed yesterday:
http://vancouver.ca/news-calendar/ambiti...egy-to-shift-the-future-of-our-city.aspx

Opens up a lot more and for low-rise development.

[BodomReaper]

Originally Posted by Jebby

That's not hideous, but damn is it bland.

Totally agreed. The initial proposal was much more befitting of the site's high-visibility location, but the city killed it for being a bit taller than allowed. So we ended-up with the squat box (albeit one with high quality materials).

Original proposal:


Source

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by BodomReaper

Totally agreed. The initial proposal was much more befitting of the site's high-visibility location, but the city killed it for being a bit taller than allowed. So we ended-up with the squat box (albeit one with high quality materials).

Original proposal:


Source

wow, doesn't even look close to the same building. know how much taller it was then allowed? I'm curious how much we are talking.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

wow, doesn't even look close to the same building. know how much taller it was then allowed? I'm curious how much we are talking.

It was a lot - the Guidelines suggest a maximum height of 13.7m (45’-0”) while the parapet on the sixth floor of the cantilevered design was at 22.5m (73’-9”). The 'as built' was allowed to go over the Guideline height, but only by 2.7m (8’-8”), so 20 feet shorter than the projecting box version.

There were also issues with the fifth and sixth floors encroaching ten feet into the rear setback with balconies full against the property line, and a (10’-0”) deep corner over the length of the east face of the 6th storey encroaching into the Burrard St. View Corridor. There was also limited weather protection along Burrard Street, and questions about the sustainability strategy, especially with
respect to the third box that was clad in glass curtain walls

The first version got a unanimous thumbs down from the Urban Design Panel in 2014, and the revised was supported six months later in December.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by Changing City

It was a lot - the Guidelines suggest a maximum height of 13.7m (45’-0”) while the parapet on the sixth floor of the cantilevered design was at 22.5m (73’-9”). The 'as built' was allowed to go over the Guideline height, but only by 2.7m (8’-8”), so 20 feet shorter than the projecting box version.

There were also issues with the fifth and sixth floors encroaching ten feet into the rear setback with balconies full against the property line, and a (10’-0”) deep corner over the length of the east face of the 6th storey encroaching into the Burrard St. View Corridor. There was also limited weather protection along Burrard Street, and questions about the sustainability strategy, especially with
respect to the third box that was clad in glass curtain walls

The first version got a unanimous thumbs down from the Urban Design Panel in 2014, and the revised was supported six months later in December.

cool, thanks, no wonder it was drastically changed then.

[BodomReaper]

Originally Posted by Changing City

It was a lot - the Guidelines suggest a maximum height of 13.7m (45’-0”) while the parapet on the sixth floor of the cantilevered design was at 22.5m (73’-9”). The 'as built' was allowed to go over the Guideline height, but only by 2.7m (8’-8”), so 20 feet shorter than the projecting box version.

There were also issues with the fifth and sixth floors encroaching ten feet into the rear setback with balconies full against the property line, and a (10’-0”) deep corner over the length of the east face of the 6th storey encroaching into the Burrard St. View Corridor. There was also limited weather protection along Burrard Street, and questions about the sustainability strategy, especially with
respect to the third box that was clad in glass curtain walls

The first version got a unanimous thumbs down from the Urban Design Panel in 2014, and the revised was supported six months later in December.

Thanks for the info. This isn't at all a dig at you, but I think it's tremendously sad that the difference between 5 floors and 6 floors is considered "a lot" when discussing a project so close to the downtown core, and at the intersection of two arterials. A reflection of the planning status quo drastically beating-down the ambitions of our city.

It would be more appropriate to be discussing the difference between 50 and 60 floors in this location.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by BodomReaper

Thanks for the info. This isn't at all a dig at you, but I think it's tremendously sad that the difference between 5 floors and 6 floors is considered "a lot" when discussing a project so close to the downtown core, and at the intersection of two arterials. A reflection of the planning status quo drastically beating-down the ambitions of our city.

It would be more appropriate to be discussing the difference between 50 and 60 floors in this location.

I get your point. Twenty feet (actually 28 feet) is 'a lot' more than 45 feet that the Guideline suggests, but the 45 feet is probably out of date, and may well get revisited if/when there's rapid transit nearby. For now it's the #2 bus going past, or four blocks up the hill to Broadway to more buses. It's also a pretty small site, and it looks like the two versions had about the same amount of space, just arranged differently.

The area will almost certainly see some difference of scale on the larger development sites when the Squamish Nation reveal their plans for beside Burrard Bridge, and we get a sense of what Concord Pacific hope to do with an industrially zoned former brewery. In the meantime this project seems to fit in pretty well with the other three or four new condo buildings on this stretch of Burrard.

[officedweller]

The Windsor
in Norquay Village


http://news.buzzbuzzhome.com/2017/12/windsor-views-north-mountains-vancouver.html

http://www.thewindsorliving.com

This is the rendering we've seen in the past:


http://www.imanidevelopment.ca/

[Feathered Friend]

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the General Manager of Planning, Urban Design and
Sustainability be instructed to direct staff to prepare a proposed application and staff
report in support of amendments to the Zoning and Development By-law and Parking
By-law to rezone Northwest Point Grey (NWPG) north of 4th Avenue and west of Blanca
Street and revise applicable policies and regulations in order to consider:
• Increasing the diversity of low-rise housing forms allowed in NWPG
B.2
- 2 -
• Continuing to allow single-family homes outright
• Allowing 6-storey multi-family buildings up to 3 FSR, provided they are any of
the following:
o Secured market rental housing
o Social housing
o Seniors supportive or assisted housing
• Reducing or eliminating parking minimums on parcels within 800 metres of a
frequent transit stop (defined as every 15 minutes or less on weekdays)
o Eliminating parking minimums for secure market rental housing, social
housing, or seniors housing. According to research by Metro Vancouver
renter households are more likely use public transit

http://council.vancouver.ca/20171212/documents/motionb2.pdf

This is a motion proposed by Counciller Bremner for the December 12th council meeting. I'm cynical when it comes to all politicians regardless of party so I'm not sure if this is posturing for a possible run at mayor next year, a political trap for the other parties, or if he actually was genuine is his campaign promise for more area wide rezonings.

Its funny, as almost every person I talked to at the pre-app event in Shaugnessy today was counting on an NPA victory to halt not only that specific rental project on Granville, but more rezoning applications period. I really wish I could have shown them this just to see the look on their faces.

If this is for real, and not just a ploy to get more people to attend a meeting with a new proposed budget, then, just wow, frankly. I'm not sure if the proposed density would make those lands viable as rental either, but this sure could be a wake-up call for those not expecting a new NPA vision for the party and the city.

[officedweller]

Ellsworth

By City of Rain @ SkyRise Cties November 25th:

I don't actually mind the randomness of the red spandrel.
But the large blocks of gray spandrel on the podium look out of place next to the random ones.

Originally Posted by City Of Rain, post: 1281627, member: 70034

IMG_1094 by City Of Rain, on Flickr

IMG_1096 by City Of Rain, on Flickr

IMG_1098 by City Of Rain, on Flickr

IMG_1100 by City Of Rain, on Flickr

Originally Posted by City Of Rain, post: 1281628, member: 70034

^^^^

IMG_1102 by City Of Rain, on Flickr

IMG_1105 by City Of Rain, on Flickr

[officedweller]

Across from Kingsgate Mall I think:

Originally Posted by Yellow Fever

Vancouver | Synchro

IMG_1085 by City Of Rain, on Flickr

IMG_1091 by City Of Rain, on Flickr

[a very long weekend]

Originally Posted by Feathered Friend

http://council.vancouver.ca/20171212/documents/motionb2.pdf

If this is for real, and not just a ploy to get more people to attend a meeting with a new proposed budget, then, just wow, frankly. I'm not sure if the proposed density would make those lands viable as rental either, but this sure could be a wake-up call for those not expecting a new NPA vision for the party and the city.

It's finally happening (maybe). Great policy, should have been implemented citywide a decade ago, but better now than never. Great news!