B6 (1090 W Pender) | 123m | 31Fl | Completed - Page 7

Metro-One · #**121** Posted **Nov 14, 2018, 5:25 AM**

I have to echo this sentiment as well.

I remember admiring it about 10 years ago and thinking, “well it is decently large and seems to have some architectural heritage value to it, should be safe” Guess I was wrong.

The only saving grace is that at least it is being replaced with something decent (unlike the Landmark Tower).

But... I wish this new tower’s height was about 30 to 50 metres taller. The location and design seem to be calling for it.

VancouverOfTheFuture · #**122** Posted **Nov 14, 2018, 5:25 AM**

i doubt many people would have fought for it. i do think it is worth saving architecture from these time periods, especially one that is this intricate. i am not in love with it, but it is very different and that i do like.

Changing City · #**123** Posted **Nov 14, 2018, 6:18 AM**

From the Report to Council on the rezoning

"The building at 1090 West Pender, designed by Gerald Hamilton & Associates and constructed in 1970-1971, is a twelve-storey commercial building listed on the Recent Landmarks Inventory (but is not listed on the Heritage Register). It was designed in the Formalism style and features pre-cast concrete patterned cladding. The building is valued for its association with the modern development of Vancouver’s Central Business District. A Statement of Significance (SOS) was provided as part of the application and is included in Appendix D.

The applicant has explored the possibility of retaining this building. However, there are a number of issues that make this a challenging option, including seismic and building code issues. Further, the building is no longer in keeping with the requirements of Class A office tenants. A heritage review of the building determined that the elements of possible interest are the precast units that are a component of the office facades which have heritage value and are design features of interest. The applicant has committed to explore the re-use of some of these elements during design development."

trofirhen · #**124** Posted **Nov 14, 2018, 6:32 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Changing City

From the Report to Council on the rezoning

"The building at 1090 West Pender,...... was designed in the Formalism style and features pre-cast concrete patterned cladding. ........
...... A heritage review of the building determined that the elements of possible interest are the precast units that are a component of the office facades which have heritage value and are design features of interest.....
The applicant has committed to explore the re-use of some of these elements during design development."

How could this be done in the new design, which appears to be all glass?

officedweller · #**125** Posted **Nov 14, 2018, 7:07 AM**

I suppose they could clad an interior wall in side the lobby with it.

I think that the best of the formalist buildings in the area is East Asiatic House.

LeftCoaster · #**126** Posted **Nov 14, 2018, 8:30 PM**

East Asiatic is indeed a sharp building.

My favourite of the formalist has to go to 900 W Hastings though. I've always loved this building:

http://www.uptownpropertygroup.com/p...west-hastings/

Vin · #**127** Posted **Nov 14, 2018, 8:35 PM**

With our awful zoning policy that encourages the demolition of the post-war office buildings, not surprised if the East Asiatic House will also come down in a couple of years' time.

trofirhen · #**128** Posted **Nov 14, 2018, 9:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vin

With our awful zoning policy that encourages the demolition of the post-war office buildings, not surprised if the East Asiatic House will also come down in a couple of years' time.

Pray not !!! Give it Heritage designation!

Klazu · #**129** Posted **Nov 16, 2018, 5:56 AM**

I have been living here for almost 7 years but only few weeks ago did I discover the vast underground world of Bentall Center. I have just never wandered through any of the doors leading there and I have to say it is not very well signed from the street level.

It felt so strange to find such a large space and it felt very similar to Toronto's PATH system. I would think the new building will also be connected to the underground system? Why was Bentall 5 not connected or did I just not find the corridor leading there?

Changing City · #**130** Posted **Nov 16, 2018, 6:29 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Pray not !!! Give it Heritage designation!

East Asiatic House is already on the Post 40s register as a 'B' - but so is 1090 West Pender. They were both designed by the same architect, but East Asiatic is seven years older. Being designated as a heritage building doesn't protect the building; the City of Vancouver have no powers to require most buildings to remain standing. They can offer incentives to encourage an owner to designate a building to protect it through a Heritage Revitalization Agreement, but that's only through a transfer of additional density either on site or to another site, and there's still quite a bit of unused banked 'space' that's been hard to find a home for. Unlike some parts of the world where the local planners carry a big stick, in Vancouver they only have carrots, and not all developers like carrots enough to try to save a building.

Having said that, East Asiatic's site might be a tough one to build a really big building to make the exercise worthwhile, and although it's in a part of the Downtown that allows residential, there's already a residential tower on the adjacent lot that is pretty close to East Asiatic, so another residential tower probably wouldn't fit there. If a residential tower could easily be slotted in, it would have probably have been proposed already. (East Asiatic is under 4FSR, so quite underbuilt for today's densities).

s211 · #**131** Posted **Nov 16, 2018, 5:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Klazu

I have been living here for almost 7 years but only few weeks ago did I discover the vast underground world of Bentall Center. I have just never wandered through any of the doors leading there and I have to say it is not very well signed from the street level.

It felt so strange to find such a large space and it felt very similar to Toronto's PATH system. I would think the new building will also be connected to the underground system? Why was Bentall 5 not connected or did I just not find the corridor leading there?

Bentall 5 is across the street, and also had a different ownership group when developed. There was no economic sense to connect the two.

Nor will 1090 be connected to Bentall Centre. You will note that the neighbouring 1050 W. Pender is also not connected. Again, different ownership groups, and also physical issues (e.g. parkades and roadways separating the various sites).

EastVanMark · #**132** Posted **Nov 16, 2018, 7:00 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by s211

Bentall 5 is across the street, and also had a different ownership group when developed. There was no economic sense to connect the two.

Nor will 1090 be connected to Bentall Centre. You will note that the neighbouring 1050 W. Pender is also not connected. Again, different ownership groups, and also physical issues (e.g. parkades and roadways separating the various sites).

Bentall 5 was developed by the same company. It was only sold off years later.
Originally, Tower 5 was supposed to be connected to the other 4 (it was also supposed to be taller), but when they were looking into connecting them, they found that there are a large amount of utility lines (including a large water line if I recall) that would require the connection to Tower 5 across the street to be at a lower level than the rest of the existing mall (think Pacific Centre when you go under Dunsmuir). It still could have been easily done, (the PATH in Toronto is at various levels from deep under ground to walkways 2 floors above ground), but you would lose existing retail space (in this case the Bank of Montreal which occupies 2 floors of Tower 3) and not gain much on the other side as Tower 5 has a limited footprint.

Finally, the last reason why they never connected the two was that the Centre side is unionized in its operation staff while Tower 5 is not, and connecting the two would have increased operation costs.

DesignerBunny · #**133** Posted **Nov 16, 2018, 8:18 PM**

The developers will be saving a small section of the pre-cast concrete panels and it will indeed be installed on the back lane side near the parkade entry.

Vin · #**134** Posted **Nov 16, 2018, 9:02 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Changing City

East Asiatic House is already on the Post 40s register as a 'B' - but so is 1090 West Pender. They were both designed by the same architect, but East Asiatic is seven years older. Being designated as a heritage building doesn't protect the building; the City of Vancouver have no powers to require most buildings to remain standing. They can offer incentives to encourage an owner to designate a building to protect it through a Heritage Revitalization Agreement, but that's only through a transfer of additional density either on site or to another site, and there's still quite a bit of unused banked 'space' that's been hard to find a home for. Unlike some parts of the world where the local planners carry a big stick, in Vancouver they only have carrots, and not all developers like carrots enough to try to save a building.

Having said that, East Asiatic's site might be a tough one to build a really big building to make the exercise worthwhile, and although it's in a part of the Downtown that allows residential, there's already a residential tower on the adjacent lot that is pretty close to East Asiatic, so another residential tower probably wouldn't fit there. If a residential tower could easily be slotted in, it would have probably have been proposed already. (East Asiatic is under 4FSR, so quite underbuilt for today's densities).

Maybe it's time to change that?

Vin · #**135** Posted **Nov 16, 2018, 9:08 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Klazu

I have been living here for almost 7 years but only few weeks ago did I discover the vast underground world of Bentall Center. I have just never wandered through any of the doors leading there and I have to say it is not very well signed from the street level.

It felt so strange to find such a large space and it felt very similar to Toronto's PATH system. I would think the new building will also be connected to the underground system? Why was Bentall 5 not connected or did I just not find the corridor leading there?

The original Bentall was designed in the 70s, when the vision for pedestrian connectivity of the city was a lot more advanced than it is today. Same thing can be said about Pacific Centre mall region. No concerted was made after that time to ensure that newer buildings would benefit from underground connections. I believe that if there's a will, there's always a way.

trofirhen · #**136** Posted **Nov 17, 2018, 12:47 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vin

The original Bentall was designed in the 70s, when the vision for pedestrian connectivity of the city was a lot more advanced than it is today. Same thing can be said about Pacific Centre mall region. No concerted was made after that time to ensure that newer buildings would benefit from underground connections. I believe that if there's a will, there's always a way.

Very much agreed. The argument about not connecting things up was perhaps partly practical - wiring, piping, etc - but a lot of people said "OH, but it will kill street life....."
Half the year Vancouver is lashed by intermittent squalls and monsoons, parallel to the way Montreal has metres of snow, and Toronto freezing rain and ice.
If not a vast system like PATH or Ville Marie, at least some more connectivity could be made underground, surely, for connectivity and shelter from the notorious winter rains.

GlassCity · #**137** Posted **Nov 17, 2018, 5:22 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DesignerBunny

The developers will be saving a small section of the pre-cast concrete panels and it will indeed be installed on the back lane side near the parkade entry.

On the backlane? That's not very good...you'd think a little more effort could have been put into maintaining the panels' visibility. I'm even fine with it being fairly token, but at least something that's noticeable, and definitely from the front.