Landmark on Robson | Completed

[240glt]

Originally Posted by Changing City

It has been explained on here several times why it's being replaced, but those who don't like the idea of the 'landmark' being demolished effectively ignore the reason.

A 44 year-old, and older building is most likely to be "close to the end of its serviceable lifespan". That's because the new building code recognizing seismic issues came into effect in the early 1970s. (more detail in this article). The Empire Landmark - Sheraton Landmark when it opened - obtained its Building Permit in 1971, and took over two years to complete, opening in 1974. So it was not built to those updated seismic codes - which since then have been strengthened even more. It might have been possible to upgrade the existing structure to meet code, but it's likely that it would have been prohibitively expensive, and not cost effective. A change of use permit triggers a requirement to bring the building up to meet current codes. An additional factor is the fact that the building has a lower density than the towers that will replace it. The replacement will be built to contemporary seismic and energy codes.

It's been a while (since I lived in Vancouver) that I dealt with seismic codes (and then my scope of work had more to do with seismic restraints for equipment) but my understanding is that seismic codes do not differentiate between building use classes. I know a number of buildings have undergone seismic upgrades.. probably not cheap, but not impossible. I don't accept that a 45 year old 40-some story cast in place concrete high rise building is functionally at the end of it's lifespan.. even if it did require seismic upgrades, the replacement cost of that building alone in 2018 dollars is likely pushing well over $150 million.

It just boggles my mind that it's actually feasible to invest capital in demolishing that building, or that the building is at the point where there is no other option. It just seems like the market in general is running amuck

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Changing City

It has been explained on here several times why it's being replaced, but those who don't like the idea of the 'landmark' being demolished effectively ignore the reason.

A 44 year-old, and older building is most likely to be "close to the end of its serviceable lifespan". That's because the new building code recognizing seismic issues came into effect in the early 1970s. (more detail in this article). The Empire Landmark - Sheraton Landmark when it opened - obtained its Building Permit in 1971, and took over two years to complete, opening in 1974. So it was not built to those updated seismic codes - which since then have been strengthened even more. It might have been possible to upgrade the existing structure to meet code, but it's likely that it would have been prohibitively expensive, and not cost effective. A change of use permit triggers a requirement to bring the building up to meet current codes. An additional factor is the fact that the building has a lower density than the towers that will replace it. The replacement will be built to contemporary seismic and energy codes.

You're right about Ciao Bella - it's on the only block of Denman Street that allows residential towers (because it's also on Alberni Street at this location). The rest of Denman doesn't permit tall buildings or residential uses, (to the annoyance of some who visit here), so there should be an opportunity for the restaurant to find a new home nearby, if the owners choose to keep going. There will be a retail unit in the new building, but obviously the restaurant isn't going to wait until that's available, even if they wanted to stay here. There's a new Italian restaurant just opened only three blocks away called Centro - the relocated Pronto restaurant (which had to close because its Cambie Street location was being redeveloped).

And yet the Coast Plaza on Denman is being converted to apartments...:

I do enjoy your insights on the forum, but many tines you come across as an apologist for developers. Let’s be honest we all know why this hotel is coming down.l

[Abii]

Originally Posted by Changing City

It has been explained on here several times why it's being replaced, but those who don't like the idea of the 'landmark' being demolished effectively ignore the reason.

A 44 year-old, and older building is most likely to be "close to the end of its serviceable lifespan". That's because the new building code recognizing seismic issues came into effect in the early 1970s. (more detail in this article). The Empire Landmark - Sheraton Landmark when it opened - obtained its Building Permit in 1971, and took over two years to complete, opening in 1974. So it was not built to those updated seismic codes - which since then have been strengthened even more. It might have been possible to upgrade the existing structure to meet code, but it's likely that it would have been prohibitively expensive, and not cost effective. A change of use permit triggers a requirement to bring the building up to meet current codes. An additional factor is the fact that the building has a lower density than the towers that will replace it. The replacement will be built to contemporary seismic and energy codes.

You're right about Ciao Bella - it's on the only block of Denman Street that allows residential towers (because it's also on Alberni Street at this location). The rest of Denman doesn't permit tall buildings or residential uses, (to the annoyance of some who visit here), so there should be an opportunity for the restaurant to find a new home nearby, if the owners choose to keep going. There will be a retail unit in the new building, but obviously the restaurant isn't going to wait until that's available, even if they wanted to stay here. There's a new Italian restaurant just opened only three blocks away called Centro - the relocated Pronto restaurant (which had to close because its Cambie Street location was being redeveloped).

Lots of great points here.

And the whole argument about loss of culture is so ridiculous. As you said, one Italian restaurant closes here, another one pops up somewhere else. And if it doesn't get replaced, is it a net loss? Every generation has different expectations. On top of that Vancouver's population is super heterogeneous these days. Expectations are all over the place. You can't make everybody happy.

The affordability issue is all about supply. Greater Vancouver is a sea of detached homes built on ridiculous plots of land. And in downtown buildings are handicapped by insane height restrictions. Even if a small percentage of those ridiculous wooden house of cards (the North America specials) are converted into town homes and towers, the issue will be fixed. Right now the supply is being lowered artificially, so no wonder prices are where they are.

[Tetsuo]

Originally Posted by whatnext

And yet the Coast Plaza on Denman is being converted to apartments...:

I do enjoy your insights on the forum, but many tines you come across as an apologist for developers. Let’s be honest we all know why this hotel is coming down.l

And the former Pacific Palisades up one block from Landmark were converted into apartments (PaPa)

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Tetsuo

And the former Pacific Palisades up one block from Landmark were converted into apartments (PaPa)

You're right! And I also forgot the old Plaza 500 at Cambie and 12th being converted to apartments. So the argument about seismic upgrading and not being economic is obviously BS.

[Graham_Yvr]

[QUOTE=whatnext;8170273]And yet the Coast Plaza on Denman is being converted to apartments...:

While the upper part of the tower is converting to rental apartments the lower floors, including the lobby, meeting rooms, bar, restaurant, and Denman fitness gym are being converted to a new boutique hotel. No word on the operator as yet.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by whatnext

And yet the Coast Plaza on Denman is being converted to apartments...:

I do enjoy your insights on the forum, but many tines you come across as an apologist for developers. Let’s be honest we all know why this hotel is coming down.l

The Coast Plaza presumably has greater structural integrity and so doesn't require the same level of potential upgrades. The same would seem to be true of the Pacific Pallisades, converted from hotel to apartments a few years ago. The Plaza 500 on W12th Avenue saw a similar change, but took a very long time to complete because the building needed a lot more remediation and cash than the owners had anticipated would be needed to bring it up to code.

This hotel is coming down because there's more money to be made from redeveloping it. The owners bought it, and ran it as a hotel, for over a decade. The West End Plan allowed them to develop condos, and that's worth more, especially as a conversion from hotel has all sorts of additional problems associated with the seismic performance of the existing structure. It was explained in the press last year - including in The Guardian in the UK. If Burnaby condos now sell at over $1,200 per square foot, and Downtown Vancouver has a significant premium over that, it's not so surprising that even large buildings are seen as potential redevelopment opportunities.

If explaining why development happens the way it does on an internet forum for skyscraper hobbyists and enthusiasts is viewed as being an apologist for developers, then so be it. We haven't actually offered an opinion on whether the Landmark is a loss or not. Obviously it's prominent in the skyline, but assuming the property market doesn't collapse, there are at least five taller towers planned nearby that will more than fill the gap. The design doesn't really inspire us that much. The Blue Horizon, which is earlier, is by the same architect for the same developer.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Changing City

The Coast Plaza presumably has greater structural integrity and so doesn't require the same level of potential upgrades. The same would seem to be true of the Pacific Pallisades, converted from hotel to apartments a few years ago. The Plaza 500 on W12th Avenue saw a similar change, but took a very long time to complete because the building needed a lot more remediation and cash than the owners had anticipated would be needed to bring it up to code.

This hotel is coming down because there's more money to be made from redeveloping it. The owners bought it, and ran it as a hotel, for over a decade. The West End Plan allowed them to develop condos, and that's worth more, especially as a conversion from hotel has all sorts of additional problems associated with the seismic performance of the existing structure. It was explained in the press last year - including in The Guardian in the UK. If Burnaby condos now sell at over $1,200 per square foot, and Downtown Vancouver has a significant premium over that, it's not so surprising that even large buildings are seen as potential redevelopment opportunities.

If explaining why development happens the way it does on an internet forum for skyscraper hobbyists and enthusiasts is viewed as being an apologist for developers, then so be it. We haven't actually offered an opinion on whether the Landmark is a loss or not. Obviously it's prominent in the skyline, but assuming the property market doesn't collapse, there are at least five taller towers planned nearby that will more than fill the gap. The design doesn't really inspire us that much. The Blue Horizon, which is earlier, is by the same architect for the same developer.

Got it - Offshore Owner - Offshore Developer - Suites to be Sold to Offshore Buyers. If you're comfortable defending it, so be it.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Got it - Offshore Owner - Offshore Developer - Suites to be Sold to Offshore Buyers. If you're comfortable defending it, so be it.

I haven't defended anything. Like many developments in the city in the past 30plus years - like Cathedral Place, or the Lions on Georgia, or Nelson Square, this has a developer based outside Canada. Are you suggesting that is it was a Bosa or a Westbank development it would be OK, with you, and it's just the 'offshore developer' that you have a problem with?

[osirisboy]

[QUOTE=Graham_Yvr;8170375]

Originally Posted by whatnext

And yet the Coast Plaza on Denman is being converted to apartments...:

While the upper part of the tower is converting to rental apartments the lower floors, including the lobby, meeting rooms, bar, restaurant, and Denman fitness gym are being converted to a new boutique hotel. No word on the operator as yet.

I think it's only the podium that will be the hotel

[osirisboy]

Why would the coast or palisades have greater structural intergrity? They all would have been built to the same codes

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

Why would the coast or palisades have greater structural intergrity? They all would have been built to the same codes

That's a good question - and perhaps one that an engineer might explain far better. If you think about it, even though something was built to an inferior code in the 1970s, it might still be perfectly OK (or at least with minor additional work). On the other hand, it might have very poor performance. While some buildings would exceed the seismic performance of the day, because of their structural design, others would be entirely inadequate. It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with scale; my limited understanding of the topic is that it has to do with anticipated performance in the case of an earthquake. Modeling and understanding how buildings would perform has got much better in the past few years.

For example, the Westcoast Transmission Building on West Georgia was completed in 1970 under the same code as the Sheraton Landmark. However, it was designed specifically with seismic performance in mind. When it was converted to residential use in 2006, and became Qube, it had minimal structural work; it met or exceeded the code 30 years later. On the other hand, the east wing of City Hall, completed in 1968 under the same code was so compromised in terms of seismic performance that the City of Vancouver demolished it last year. Even buildings completed after the mid 1970s aren't necessarily viewed as good enough today; the west wing of City Hall (the VanCity building) has just had some expensive seismic struts added to strengthen the structure, even though it was completed in 1977.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Changing City

I haven't defended anything. Like many developments in the city in the past 30plus years - like Cathedral Place, or the Lions on Georgia, or Nelson Square, this has a developer based outside Canada. Are you suggesting that is it was a Bosa or a Westbank development it would be OK, with you, and it's just the 'offshore developer' that you have a problem with?

Haven't you heard, Bosa and Westbank don't build anything in the CoV anymore, they just resell to Offshore Developers?

What we have seen is that Offshore Developers will bid up land prices by insane amounts, because they know they can flog the units to buyers bringing in money from outside Canada. That should be very alarming to anyone who actually has to earn a living and live in Vancouver.

The Landmark redevelopment is concerning for many more reasons that architectural merit, though it's highrise brutalism-lite topped with the ultimate Seventies kitsch of the revolving restaurant made it worthy of preservation. It's the disappearance of permanent tourism jobs, the pricing out of the middle class tourist from Vancouver as well as the utter failure of Vision's West End policy all neatly tied up in one story.

[officedweller]

Playing devil's advocate, then there's the apparent nightmare that was the Sheraton Plaza 500 that has supposedly laden with asbestos (?)

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Playing devil's advocate, then there's the apparent nightmare that was the Sheraton Plaza 500 that has supposedly laden with asbestos (?)

Designed by the same architects as the Landmark (Lort & Lort) for the same developer (Ben Wosk).

That entire project was a nightmare. If you recall, initially it was staying as a hotel, (an Indigo), but the contract to rip out the bathrooms and carpets found mould so bad that the contractors had to wear Hazmat suits. They ended up suing for their greater expense, along with several other subcontractors.

Then "as a way to save money, Bulldog Demolition was directed to cover the asbestos in the hotel with steel bars, to which drywall would later be attached. He said a structural engineer halted the project because it was deemed the building wouldn't stand under the weight". [source]

So a similar dated building, (but much shorter), designed by the same architect for the same developer had structural and asbestos issues.

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by 240glt

I don't accept that a 45 year old 40-some story cast in place concrete high rise building is functionally at the end of it's lifespan.. even if it did require seismic upgrades, the replacement cost of that building alone in 2018 dollars is likely pushing well over $150 million.

It just boggles my mind that it's actually feasible to invest capital in demolishing that building, or that the building is at the point where there is no other option. It just seems like the market in general is running amuck

You shouldn't accept it because it isn't true. The Empire Landmark was nowhere near its end of lifespan. Any assertion that claims that is absurd. As you noted literally hundreds of buildings with varying ages, sizes, and uses have been seismically upgraded without having to be torn down.

The real reason for this demolition is money. Originally, the building was constructed on a pretty large plot of land (there's a whole story to the development of that building involving some pretty scandalous details), which required the then developers to take up the entire block. Nowadays you can fit 2 towers on that same plot of land according to current zoning bylaws. Couple that with the fact the City of Vancouver hates that building and loves the idea of it being no more. Much like if someone ever came up with a proposal to tear down Harbour Centre, the city would bend over backwards to make it happen. That plus the greed to make even more money = this building being torn down.

[Feathered Friend]

Thanks Changing City. I appreciate that you took the time to try and explain (again) the realities about this project. It's a shame that some chose not to listen. I'll miss the idea of being able to go to the revolving restaurant. However, in honesty I only went once, which was after I found out that it was closing.

[ssiguy]

If Vancouver was interested in making the city affordable to everyone {which it most definitely is not} they could simply state that any replacement of the building has to be rentals geared to income or at least affordable.

This kind of development where you tear down buildings and replace them with condos for flipping and/or for the Chinese to launder their money is the exact thing Vancouver doesn't need.

[Graham_Yvr]

[QUOTE=osirisboy;8170468]

Originally Posted by Graham_Yvr

I think it's only the podium that will be the hotel

Yes, that's what I was trying to say. Thanks.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by 240glt

It's been a while (since I lived in Vancouver) that I dealt with seismic codes (and then my scope of work had more to do with seismic restraints for equipment) but my understanding is that seismic codes do not differentiate between building use classes. I know a number of buildings have undergone seismic upgrades.. probably not cheap, but not impossible. I don't accept that a 45 year old 40-some story cast in place concrete high rise building is functionally at the end of it's lifespan.. even if it did require seismic upgrades, the replacement cost of that building alone in 2018 dollars is likely pushing well over $150 million.

It just boggles my mind that it's actually feasible to invest capital in demolishing that building, or that the building is at the point where there is no other option. It just seems like the market in general is running amuck

Of course it's all bogus! If one truly believes that, then he should also believe that the Empire States Building had actually collapsed decades ago, and what you see today is only a hologram in Manhattan.