Downtown Vancouver Updates

[osirisboy]

It's nice but i hope to God it's not clear glass. Its bad enough that we got the canacord tower reclad abortion.

[officedweller]

Nice.

It's by Hariri Pontarini which did 7 St. Thomas in Toronto.
If this is to the same standard, it should look spectacular.

https://hariripontarini.com/projects/7-st-thomas/


https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threads/to...5330/page-30#lg=attachment158952&slide=0


https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/attachments/img_1295-jpg.158950/

[rofina]

Originally Posted by bc2mb

New renderings of 1166 West Pender by Reliance.. former CRA site

Wow, this is nice! Hope it turns out close to this!

[trofirhen]

One reason I like 1166 is - and this is no doubt Politically Incorrect - that it mitigates the sight impact of The Stack, which I personally find jarring. Also, that it is sleek in its own right.

[jollyburger]

I don't know but it seems like any solar gain will be minimal with all the buildings south of it.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Structurally?

Yes, as I would think that's the only logical or sane reason it is coming down.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Vin

Yes, as I would think that's the only logical or sane reason it is coming down.

I think profit is a more likely explanation. Right now they're getting around $5m a year in rent. It's not a big building - 130,000 sq. ft. with 162 units. They're old and tired, so not cheap to maintain. They were last refurbished in 2002. So after taxes and management etc. they're not getting a great return.

They'll incur costs getting to an approved scheme, but not massive amounts of money. Those will only be payable when they get to paying out the tenants, losing rent, and paying for the CAC and construction costs. If they can't sell enough of the 185 condos at the right prices, they can wait - they still have an income stream, and no difficulty finding new tenants (on demolition clause tenancies) until they're ready to develop.

When it's finished they have a brand new, higher value, energy efficient and more attractive rental building which could easily be mostly paid for by the profits earned from the condos. Those should have some good views, so might be a more attractive proposition than some of the other schemes we've seen.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Changing City

I think profit is a more likely explanation. Right now they're getting around $5m a year in rent. It's not a big building - 130,000 sq. ft. with 162 units. They're old and tired, so not cheap to maintain. They were last refurbished in 2002. So after taxes and management etc. they're not getting a great return.

They'll incur costs getting to an approved scheme, but not massive amounts of money. Those will only be payable when they get to paying out the tenants, losing rent, and paying for the CAC and construction costs. If they can't sell enough of the 185 condos at the right prices, they can wait - they still have an income stream, and no difficulty finding new tenants (on demolition clause tenancies) until they're ready to develop.

When it's finished they have a brand new, higher value, energy efficient and more attractive rental building which could easily be mostly paid for by the profits earned from the condos. Those should have some good views, so might be a more attractive proposition than some of the other schemes we've seen.

Exactly. If you've ever looked at the numbers on renovating a seismically and environmentally not-up-to-date building of any size... the rational decision on so many levels is just to tear it down. Even heritage homes are gutted and almost nothing is original. Any major renovation of this building would trigger major and costly upgrades.

[GenWhy?]

I mean... I'm helping someone renovate their heritage house and we can't touch the exterior due to the Code triggers and costs upgrades that pretty much forces the owner to practically build a new house while "saving" the heritage home.

The upgrades on this building don't make sense to save it. Tearing it down is more economical for all the new standards they'd need to comply with.

[officedweller]

FYI - the floorplans show an offset core
- so this area circled will be spandrel panel.

[phesto]

Originally Posted by officedweller

FYI - the floorplans show an offset core
- so this area circled will be spandrel panel.

Those will be the bathrooms in behind there. Would be a cool feature if the panels were only partially translucent to let some natural light in.

[ericmacm]

Originally Posted by officedweller

FYI - the floorplans show an offset core
- so this area circled will be spandrel panel.

You can see that side using opaque spandrel in this rendering:



Hopefully it doesn't stand out too terribly much.

[scryer]

Originally Posted by phesto

Those will be the bathrooms in behind there. Would be a cool feature if the panels were only partially translucent to let some natural light in.

That's a lot of bathrooms .

I'm sure that would also be an ideal location for the elevator shafts.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Changing City

I think profit is a more likely explanation. Right now they're getting around $5m a year in rent. It's not a big building - 130,000 sq. ft. with 162 units. They're old and tired, so not cheap to maintain. They were last refurbished in 2002. So after taxes and management etc. they're not getting a great return.

They'll incur costs getting to an approved scheme, but not massive amounts of money. Those will only be payable when they get to paying out the tenants, losing rent, and paying for the CAC and construction costs. If they can't sell enough of the 185 condos at the right prices, they can wait - they still have an income stream, and no difficulty finding new tenants (on demolition clause tenancies) until they're ready to develop.

When it's finished they have a brand new, higher value, energy efficient and more attractive rental building which could easily be mostly paid for by the profits earned from the condos. Those should have some good views, so might be a more attractive proposition than some of the other schemes we've seen.

That's the most ungreen thing ever to do. If that's the logic, I don't see why we even bother to recycle everyday stuff and having bike lanes because those would pale in comparison to the damage caused by taking down good buildings all around town. All the facade of pretending to be a green city: it's so disgusting.

[mcminsen]

Here's a look at the building presently at 1166 West Pender. You can see the demolition for The Stack peeking through from behind.




Nov.12 '18, my pics

[Metro-One]

Is it not a waste to demolish such a tower (doesn't even look that old too me) for another with only a marginal increase in height?

Although I am happy with our current office boom, it is sad to see some of these existing structures with their more varied tints in glazing and textures begin demolished.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Is it not a waste to demolish such a tower (doesn't even look that old too me) for another with only a marginal increase in height?

Although I am happy with our current office boom, it is sad to see some of these existing structures with their more varied tints in glazing and textures begin demolished.

Totally agree. They should build a new tower on a site which is currently low density. The world won't come to an end to expand the CBD outwards. Key is that they have to increase the allowable heights in other areas.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Vin

Totally agree. They should build a new tower on a site which is currently low density. The world won't come to an end to expand the CBD outwards. Key is that they have to increase the allowable heights in other areas.

Who are 'they' who should be building the proposed tower somewhere else? If you mean the developers of this tower, are you suggesting that land owners shouldn't be allowed to apply for rezonings for bigger office buildings in the CBD? Or just specific bits of the CBD?

Reliance own an extensive portfolio of office buildings Downtown, and several are lower density than the West Pender example so maybe there's a particular factor at play here. It's not a cheap project - although as they're more than doubling the size, and the height, it should be a financially successful one. Interestingly, the Assessed value says the land is worth $42m, and the building $30m, which reflects the $71m the site sold for in 2016.

[jollyburger]

The parking lot next to the White Spot on West Georgia has been converted into a dog park.

[Feathered Friend]

UDP Embraces Competently Handled Duality of Stanley Park Inspired Robson Street Tower
1555 Robson Street
There are many reasons to love Vancouver’s West End, some are drawn by its urban living, others by its diversity, and some just want to be close to Stanley Park. This building draws inspiration from all of those, and incorporates them into both its aesthetic design, and its very form. It also clearly has a dual sense of identity- a dark side inspired by the western Redwood Cedar and Arbutus trees, and a lighter side that the applicants describe as being drawn from our provincial “flower”, the Pacific Dogwood, as well as the peeling bark of Yew trees.

Though, like most works of art, it’s hard to say if that justification actually inspired the design, or if it was just a story created after the design was already complete. That said, the Kengo Kuma building across the lane did heavily impact the project, as it will be built right up to its property line. As city policy requires an 80 foot separation between towers, city staff allowed a small relaxation of the floor plate size of this building from the normal 80 foot width to 84, to avoid limiting this proposal. Both the city staff and the applicant team seemed a little nervous when broaching that subject, but no one on the Urban Design Panel appeared to have any problem with it.

https://cityduo.wordpress.com/2018/11/13...anley-park-inspired-robson-street-tower/