Downtown Vancouver Updates

[domusile]

Originally Posted by Feathered Friend

http://dailyhive.com/vancouver/nelson-on-the-park-1059-1075-nelson-street-vancouver-pixelated-tower

Henderson is not involved

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by domusile

Henderson is not involved

It's Henson, not Henderson. Any idea who they are?

[Doodler]

Originally Posted by Changing City

It's Henson, not Henderson. Any idea who they are?

Same developer as before - just a name change

[city guy]

uh-oh, Butterfly owners won't be too happy about this

[Metro-One]

One would have little remorse for people not even bothering to research potential future projects in the surrounding area (especially one as publicized as this project) while spending millions of dollars on a unit.

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

Well that just made my Friday.

Hopefully the design is similar to the fantastic renders we saw a few years ago.

Also hopping that the general design is unchanged.

No need to fix what isn’t broken.

Also have some doubts about the height. Says 551 feet (168m) in reference to the old design, but at 60 floors and that crown it must be pushing over 180 metres. Would be nice for it to top 200 metres. Perfect location and design to be the pinnacle of the Vancouver Skyline.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

you can never buy a unit for a view, that is unless it is waterfront.

[djh]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Also hopping that the general design is unchanged.

No need to fix what isn’t broken.

The crown is architecturally interesting and unique. But if you were to remove that from the current design, you're left with a just-slightly-better-than-average tower. The crown won't be visible from ground level, so the pedestrian view would be of an "ok-ish" tower.

The Higher Buildings Review policies should kick-in here to ensure a more notable revision of the general design. I mean, taking the degraded cube metaphor further into the general structure would help. Currently it metaphorically looks like a fancy crown stuck on a paper bag princess tower, so there's little connection between the two.

[jollyburger]

Same architect did something an earlier 1400 Alberni design with Perkins + Will



http://chrisdoraystudio.com/#

[Cypherus]

Glad to hear the tower got resurrected and no design changes.



It's almost a 600 footer being 586 feet, and as per the article it appears to start excavating probably by early 2020. Should be a nice companion tower to watch rise along with The Butterfly and 601 Beach Crescent.

[jollyburger]

Scaffolding going up around 1090 West Pender

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by Cypherus

Glad to hear the tower got resurrected and no design changes.



It's almost a 600 footer being 586 feet, and as per the article it appears to start excavating probably by early 2020. Should be a nice companion tower to watch rise along with The Butterfly and 601 Beach Crescent.

So now 3 different heights for this tower that I have heard:

168 metres, 179 metres and 182 metres while the renders give it a feel of being around 200 metres.

Will be interesting to see what the real height is.

[osirisboy]

I know floor count doesn't tell how tall it is but it says it's 60 floors. More than the butterfly plus it has that huge rooftop so if they say it's not as tall as the butterfly it has to be pretty close to it, I would think

[Klazu]

I just hope Butterfly and Pixel will be different height in order to appear more pleasing in the skyline. Even Shangri-La and Trump appear a bit stupid, being so similar in height and close to each other.

[skisk8er00]

I dont know about the pixel building at this height. I do feel there is merit for this building at 60 stories but I'm pessimistic that COV will allow this height to be anywhere near 60 stories as alot has changed with COV since this was discussed a couple of years ago. COV's has been standing firm on their "no shadows on a park" policy which has already reduced height on a number of ongoing rezoning developments all throughout downtown. In particular you can see this with the 1040 Barclay St. rezoning which has maximized their building height to eliminate any shadows on Nelson Park. This site(1075 Nelson - Pixel) in particular has major shadow issues from early morning till about 11am on Nelson Park. I estimate the building height would need to be cut in half or possibly even more to eliminate any building shadows on Nelson Park.

Anyone else agree or am I way off the mark?

[officedweller]

Yeah - there may be shadowing implication on Robson Street - but it seems like it can go to 550ft (?).

Here is an excerpt from the Barclay St. towers application by Buro Ole Scheeren.
The pixel building is also shown.

PS - that'll be one crowded block!

Originally Posted by officedweller

Here are excerpts from the reports under "Site Context".

View cones don't really factor in
- as you probably know, it's the shadowing of the north sidewalk of Robson street (stupid in my view as street trees do the same thing).
Seems like the "future tower" west of The Butterfly can still go to 550 ft. (i.e. no shadowing).
They'll be almost 20 metres (about 50 ft) taller than Patina.


http://rezoning.vancouver.ca/applications/1040-1080_barclay/documents/03-sitecontext.pdf


http://rezoning.vancouver.ca/applications/1040-1080_barclay/documents/03-sitecontext.pdf


http://rezoning.vancouver.ca/applications/1040-1080_barclay/documents/03-sitecontext.pdf

More renderings from the report:


http://rezoning.vancouver.ca/applications/1040-1080_barclay/documents/14-renderings.pdf

[skisk8er00]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Yeah - there may be shadowing implication on Robson Street - but it seems like it can go to 550ft (?).

Here is an excerpt from the Barclay St. towers application by Buro Ole Scheeren.
The pixel building is also shown.

PS - that'll be one crowded block!

e

[Metro-One]

Except that those diagrams are actually wrong. The Butterfly is 586 feet, not 550.

The Butterfly was “grandfathered” this extra height apparently and I wonder given the time of the original proposal of this tower the same may be true again?

Maybe that is why so far it seems that they may be keeping the same design?

I also wonder if the crown being somewhat transparent also changes shodowing restrictions somewhat?

Because I honestly do not see how you can fit 60 stories plus that crown into 550 feet. Unless Vancouver is having a surge of investment from Hobbiton.

[phesto]

The Pixel tower was 550 ft. to the top of habitable floors, 610 ft. to top of roof apurtenance. The site itself is about 10-15 feet higher than Butterfly so it would've appeared noticeably taller on the skyline.

I had heard grumblings that the height is no longer supportable due to shadowing on Robson Street, which was a new policy put in place after the West End Plan was approved. Butterfly was grandfathered to allow shadows on Robson and was also allowed to shadow Nelson Park.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by phesto

I had heard grumblings that the height is no longer supportable due to shadowing on Robson Street, which was a new policy put in place after the West End Plan was approved.

So lame...and dumb.

[Doodler]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

So lame...and dumb.

there has been a lot of discussion about this pixel building, but I believe this site will have a re-design yet again.