Downtown Vancouver Updates - Page 854

dleung · #**17061** Posted **Mar 19, 2019, 6:51 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by City Of Rain

Compared to the other new towers in this image, this one is way too thick and too unremarkable to deserve that kind of density.

osirisboy · #**17062** Posted **Mar 19, 2019, 7:09 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

Vancouvermarket.ca is reporting on a tower proposal for the former gas station at Burrard and Davie.

http://www.vancouvermarket.ca/2019/03/18/47-storey-proposed-for-burrard-and-davie/

The design rationale discusses automated exterior solar shades on the west facade that will unfurl with direct sunlight to add animation and reduce solar gain. I am... skeptical those will make it into the final design. Maintenance would be a nightmare.

Lol and sounds gimmicky and expensive. Don't know why more buildings don't use proper glass that will take care of the solar gain issue on their own without the need for all this other stuff

fredinno · #**17063** Posted **Mar 19, 2019, 8:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by officedweller

Yes, that's why the top is stepped like that.

Wait, why is Vancouver concerned about road shadowing again?

officedweller · #**17064** Posted **Mar 19, 2019, 9:24 PM**

Retail promenade...

Vin · #**17065** Posted **Mar 19, 2019, 9:47 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by fredinno

Wait, why is Vancouver concerned about road shadowing again?

My answer: Planners and Nimbys have nothing better to oppose, so they have to make up something.

retro_orange · #**17066** Posted **Mar 19, 2019, 9:49 PM**

Gotta light up those empty storefronts i guess.

Feathered Friend · #**17067** Posted **Mar 21, 2019, 10:43 PM**

Quote:

Granville Street set to Experience Office Building Boom – Major Revitalization Hinges on One Small Step

950 Granville Street (Consolidation of 950, 958 and 968 Granville)
Much like the good people of the SkyscraperPage Forum, I knew there was something odd about this development the moment I saw it. After all, why would anyone demolish a pair of 2 and 3 storey buildings they constructed less than 13 years ago, to build a 4 storey structure at the same location. By the end of this meeting of the Urban Design Panel, I had an answer to this question, and insight into the future of Downtown Vancouver.

In their introduction, the applicant revealed the fourth floor will provide office space, which will crown three floors of retail space. Though the applicant team refused to name the future tenants, they revealed that floors 2 and 3 are being designed for full floor retailers. While Hannah has a theory as to who they are, like me, the panel remained clueless.

Instead, the applicant described how the building’s setbacks relate to its neighbours, the former home of Tom Lee Music the Vogue and the Roxy, and generally to the eclectic nature of the Granville Strip. They explained Bonnis Properties owns several lots in the area, including the aforementioned Wilson Block, as well a proposed office tower at 600 Robson Street, and are looking to grow their other lands in Vancouver’s office market.

Still, it seems the desire is this 4 storey building is never built. Instead, the hope is that city staff will update a deeply flawed decades old policy that allows for taller building heights on Granville, yet prohibits the density required to achieve them.

Far more detail at: https://cityduo.wordpress.com/2019/03/21...revitalization-hinges-on-one-small-step/

SpongeG · #**17068** Posted **Mar 21, 2019, 10:45 PM**

Interesting. So is the plan to demolish what is there now and build new or will they be able to construct the new floors on top of the existing?

Feathered Friend · #**17069** Posted **Mar 21, 2019, 11:01 PM**

The existing structures will be coming down. The plan/hope is for the updated guidelines to be in place before construction starts on the new building.

officedweller · #**17070** Posted **Mar 22, 2019, 2:21 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Feathered Friend

[
Far more detail at: https://cityduo.wordpress.com/2019/03/21...revitalization-hinges-on-one-small-step/

Just a note that the floorplans show a single tenant taking both 2nd and 3rd floor (so not a relocation of both Best Buy and Winners).
A larger Winners / Homesense locations could justify the size of the pace, but there's already a successful Homesense on Robson at L'Hermitage.

I suppose it could be a larger Winners only store, but I would more think a new to market retailer like Nordstrom Rack.

SpongeG · #**17071** Posted **Mar 22, 2019, 5:01 AM**

Yea I would vote for Nordstrom Rack, they seem to like downtown locations for them.

officedweller · #**17072** Posted **Mar 22, 2019, 7:40 AM**

Quote:

Vancouver Heritage Commission critical of Holy Rosary Cathedral reno proposal

Naoibh O'Connor
Vancouver Courier
March 15, 2019 03:58 PM

It’s unclear what will happen to a Holy Rosary Cathedral proposal to seismically and structurally upgrade the church,
located at 646 Richards St., after the Vancouver Heritage Commission raised concerns about the project during a recent review.
Holy Rosary’s renovation plan includes building a 23-storey tower on the portion of the property behind the cathedral,
for office and church uses, to help fund the upgrading work.
...
The commission concluded, among other things, based on the minutes of the meeting, that it couldn’t support plans to redevelop
the non-church portion of the Holy Rosary site where the rectory and Rosary Hall are located.

It passed a resolution with several clauses, including that the applicant “explore means by which at least partial retention
of the rectory, the Rosary Hall and the elevations along Richards Street can be retained.”

It’s now up to the church whether to incorporate the commission’s advice or proceed with an application. City staff only make
recommendations and do a full review of a project once a formal application is received.
...

https://www.vancourier.com/real-estate/v...osary-cathedral-reno-proposal-1.23665438

Vin · #**17073** Posted **Mar 22, 2019, 5:20 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpongeG

Yea I would vote for Nordstrom Rack, they seem to like downtown locations for them.

Only problem is that the area is horribly sketchy at the moment. A lot more buildings need to be redone or rebuilt to renew the shopping/entertainment neighbourhood. The massive number of SROs in the area isn't helping either. However, at least steps are being taken by brave developers right now to renovate and/or densify their properties

Vin · #**17074** Posted **Mar 22, 2019, 5:25 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by officedweller

https://www.vancourier.com/real-estate/v...osary-cathedral-reno-proposal-1.23665438

I concur with the City this time. The Rosary hall and Rectory building is a heritage structure and must be protected. This is different from St Andrew`s or the Burrard baptist church where the back area used to be a parking lot that was ripe for redevelopment.

What the City can allow is for the church to build a narrower but taller structure behind the Rosary Hall building to help pay for the seismic upgrade of the church buildings. There is another structure behind the heritage building that can come down since it does not have a heritage facade.

Front:
https://www.google.com/maps/@49.281861,-...kpmqbdSq5cXDIh8RfrQ_A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Back:
https://www.google.com/maps/@49.2815611,...rRv70KVxiP5B07dzZlPzg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

They can even create a new entrance from the back alley and redo the landscaping of the lane: cobblestone paving perhaps?

Galaxy · #**17075** Posted **Mar 22, 2019, 6:49 PM**

Couldn't they just do what the Jamieson House project did with keeping the Rosery Hall and Rectory and build on that smaller lot and then have part of the new building cantilevered over the Rosery Hall and Rectory? The core and entrance to the building would be where that older building would be. If that smaller building is a heritage building maybe just keep the facade and create a new interior with the cantilever. In any case, I think there is a lot of options to allow for keeping the Rosery Hall and Rectory...

Vin · #**17076** Posted **Mar 22, 2019, 8:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Couldn't they just do what the Jamieson House project did with keeping the Rosery Hall and Rectory and build on that smaller lot and then have part of the new building cantilevered over the Rosery Hall and Rectory? The core and entrance to the building would be where that older building would be. If that smaller building is a heritage building maybe just keep the facade and create a new interior with the cantilever. In any case, I think there is a lot of options to allow for keeping the Rosery Hall and Rectory...

Yeah they can do that too. Trick is to have a significant setback from the heritage facade even though it is "cantilevered" over the old building. The entire heritage building should be kept, and not just the facade (like at the Exchange or Jamieson House: Otherwise it's just a sham preservation of a heritage structure.

fredinno · #**17077** Posted **Mar 22, 2019, 8:19 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Feathered Friend

Far more detail at: https://cityduo.wordpress.com/2019/03/21...revitalization-hinges-on-one-small-step/

Is there any indication that they're going to rezone the Granville Entertainment District, or that they should? Otherwise it seems pretty risky and dumb.

Feathered Friend · #**17078** Posted **Mar 22, 2019, 10:01 PM**

Regarding the Holy Rosary, aside from the church, it's really only the Richards face of the Rectory and Hall that could be said to have heritage elements. The laneway is pretty bland, and the interior has been completely gutted over the years and is in very poor condition.

Currently, wheelchair access is only off the lane, and washroom access requires even the most able bodied person to leave the building. Of note is that the commission felt the new wheel chair ramp would infringe on the gardens too much, and felt it needed more design development.

Not said in the article was the chair's opinion that the motion was one of a "heritage purist," that they personally would have been happy to see it fail, and that one member abstained while another voted against. Councillor Hardwick, though officially not allowed to vote, still raised her hand as a no vote.

You can guess who tipped the Courier off.

Had the applicant displayed renderings in the room, or allowed me a look at their project book, City Duo would have done something instead.

officedweller · #**17079** Posted **Mar 23, 2019, 12:30 AM**

Nice one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vin

Yeah they can do that too. Trick is to have a significant setback from the heritage facade even though it is "cantilevered" over the old building. The entire heritage building should be kept, and not just the facade (like at the Exchange or Jamieson House: Otherwise it's just a sham preservation of a heritage structure.

Cantilevering shouldn't be an issue, I wouldn't think.

As you (Vin) identified in your earlier post, the big problem is that both heritage facades occupy the entire frontage on Richards Street and both have skinny front doors and both have elevated entrances (ie stairs) - not not easily accessible for a new building entrance without facadectomizing the building (which may be possible for the red brick one).

The other option (not favoured these days) is to preserve the red brick facade in another location, like inside the new building lobby.

You can also see that the old Oberti Oberti proposal (NOT current AFAIK) preserved the garden and the rectory:

http://obertiarchitecture.com/portfolio/holy-rosary-cathedral-tower/

BodomReaper · #**17080** Posted **Mar 23, 2019, 9:34 PM**

I actually think residential would be the better pick for the site. Our downtown is interesting and lively because of the relatively high % of residential mixed-in with the office towers - I worry we've swung the pendulum too far in the opposite direction by cracking down on CBD-adjacent (even on quite peripheral sites like this) residential development. Most North American downtowns are dominated by office towers, and frankly, they suck.