Fifteen Fifteen (1500 W Georgia) | 134m | 43fl | U/C

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Vin

Those present should take the photos of those NIMBYs (and perhaps their names) and post them on social media, or here. We can label them the "anti-talls". When enough photos are shown, perhaps we can see a trend of some of the usual suspects.

Ya, that's a really reasonable way to engage in public dialog. Nothing bad could ever come of it.

[LeftCoaster]

Great idea Vin, maybe get your tiki torch out as well?

No surprise Ray Spaxman is at the forefront of the opposition. He is really losing his grasp on reality and needs to realize that the City he was planner of back in the 80s has changed (for the better IMO) and nothing is going to bring it back. Just an FYI for most of the formers here not in the industry he was the chief planner of the City 30 odd years ago and is now one of the most detrimental critics of the city. He led the charge against AS+GGs Waterfront Tower, 8x on the park and many other buildings in the city.

I will be writing a letter and I strongly urge all of you to do the same. I've had it with the 80+ year olds being the only ones who voice their opinions.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

Spaxman led the charge against AS+GGs Waterfront Tower...

Which the city capitulated to.

[officedweller]

Ugh.
On the one hand you have oeple opposing "non-Westcoast" towers like the Passive House towers,
and on the other hand you have people opposing more daring architecture.

... boring is right!

PS - I think the tower Rofina posted would have a better chance of being approved (notwithstanding height)
because it doesn't project as much from the core (i.e. less view blockage).

[Vin]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Ya, that's a really reasonable way to engage in public dialog. Nothing bad could ever come of it.

And I'm sure the status quo works really well, so nothing else should be done as nothing bad has ever comes of it, right?

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

Great idea Vin, maybe get your tiki torch out as well?

Yup, don't get me started....

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Vin

And I'm sure the status quo works really well, so nothing else should be done as nothing bad has ever comes of it, right?

Yup, don't get me started....

Uhhh... you do know what the Tiki torch reference was, don't you?

Perhaps you should post your picture, real name, age, and place of employment here so we can know who insists malls and tall towers are the solutions to all of Vancouver's problems.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Uhhh... you do know what the Tiki torch reference was, don't you?

Perhaps you should post your picture, real name, age, and place of employment here so we can know who insists malls and tall towers are the solutions to all of Vancouver's problems.

Pffffft like I care about your hyperboles?

[Metro-One]

It passed! Unanimous support

Glad to see that maybe our comments helped in the end.

[Feathered Friend]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

It passed! Unanimous support

Glad to see that maybe our comments helped in the end.

Yes it was great to see that!

I have no doubt the letters from the members here helped a lot!!
In their vote, a lot of Councillors highlighted how the comments, speakers and community are now demanding better architecture and designs, instead of just glass boxes. If that doesn't echo the forum, what does?

[excel]

Awesome news! SSP Vancouver for the win.

[Klazu]

Nice job guys! I didn't even notice this battle was coming, so props to you all!

[trofirhen]

So does that mean we're getting the tower as in the renders on the previous page? Are those renders of the revised building? (pls' pardon my questions) But if so ... yippee !!

[rofina]

This is a win. Good work all!

[Vin]

Great news, although the final product is a shorter version of the original design right?

[LowerLonsdaleMike]

Originally Posted by Vin

Great news, although the final product is a shorter version of the original design right?

I just read through the 2017 revised submission and the height seems have been lowered to 133.98m. Disappointing whenever a buildings height is reduced in this darn city.

http://rezoning.vancouver.ca/applica...ntent-2017.pdf

[Vin]

Originally Posted by LowerLonsdaleMike

I just read through the 2017 revised submission and the height seems have been lowered to 133.98m. Disappointing whenever a buildings height is reduced in this darn city.

http://rezoning.vancouver.ca/applica...ntent-2017.pdf

I guess UDP wants to keep the city dome intact.

[LowerLonsdaleMike]

Originally Posted by Vin

I guess UDP wants to keep the city dome intact.

Yeah pretty lame eh. I would love to see it similar to the shapes of our mountains... super tall areas mixed in with lower zones. The damn dome shape is incredibly boring for a skyline.

[Metro-One]

The height reduction was unfortunate but it has been known for a long time on here already (it is just the thread title that hasn't been changed)

In the end it will still stand out at 134 meters in this neighbourhood and it will still add some great architectural variety.

[trofirhen]

The height here is very much within the range, +/- of the CBD "plateau" and that includes The Royal Centre, TD tower, Park Place, MNP, Scotia, Bentall IV & V ....
Nothing super tallish at all. However, given the location much westward to the CBD, it will still stand out as noticeable and "tall," given the lower heights of its immediate neighbors.

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by Vin

I guess UDP wants to keep the city dome intact.

UDP had nothing to do with this height reduction and often advocates for higher buildings.

You really need to do some more homework on the UDP.

Maybe read some minutes of meeting rather than just reacting.