1444 Alberni | 138M | 48fl, 43fl | Proposed

[vanman]

dp

[vanman]

I'm really looking forward to these. I like a lot of Robert Stern's buildings. Especially One St Thomas in Toronto.

http://dylandonovan.ca/luxury-condos...as-residences/

Also we fucking dodged a bullet with this proposal.
Here's the previous one.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/urbanyv...alberni-st/amp

[a very long weekend]

I was thinking something looked off compared with at the Robert Stern towers in NYC, and then I realized it's the balconies. I know that the code encourages balconies, and that people in Vancouver seem to like them, but they really make buildings a lot less attractive.

[Galaxy]

I am still hoping that Burnaby will get a Robert Stern tower or two that are really tall. Maybe in the future!

[retro_orange]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

I am still hoping that Burnaby will get a Robert Stern tower or two that are really tall. Maybe in the future!

Economy of scale can definitely benefit in this situation.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by Changing City

That's an interestingly selective aerial view. There are a couple of new towers slipped in behind the Stern towers, but the Bosa Ole Scheeren and Westbank Kengo Kuma towers are missing, even though those are already underway and will be much more dramatic architecturally. There are a couple of others that would be in front too; the replacement for Georgian Towers, if it goes ahead, and the James Cheng tower site on West Georgia (which is shown in the background on the first render).

The Landmark Hotel replacement towers are probably only there because they are also by MCMP.

[Feathered Friend]

1444 Alberni Street - DP-2018-01175
Musson Cattell Mackey Partnership has applied to the City of Vancouver for permission to develop this site with two residential towers, 43- and 48- storeys, including the 6-storey podium, consisting of:

• 580 residential units, containing 129 rental units;
• 56-space childcare facility located on level 7;
• approximately 681,041 sq. ft. (63,271 m²) of floor area;
• a maximum building height of approximately 442 ft. (134.7 m); and
• all over 6 levels of underground parking, providing 547 stalls accessed from the lane.

Under the site’s Council approved CD-1 zoning, the application is “conditional” so it may be permitted; however, it requires the decision of the Development Permit Board.

This application has been scheduled for the Development Permit Board on Monday, May 27, 2019 at 3:00 p.m. in the Town Hall Meeting Room (1st Floor, City Hall, 453 West 12th Avenue)

https://development.vancouver.ca/1444alberni/index.htm

Updated stats from the development application

[kaitoe]

Originally Posted by Feathered Friend

https://development.vancouver.ca/1444alberni/index.htm

Updated stats from the development application

Oh thank goodness -- they made the shorter tower symmetrical. The asymmetry of the short tower from the rezoning application renders was bothering me. It also looks like they either added more or lowered some of the setbacks.

[bc2mb]

Some photos of the new building models... lots of detail, the project looks great!







More pics: https://urbanyvr.com/new-models-1444...reet-vancouver

[officedweller]

Nice, thanks.

Not sure about the "reeded" or "scratch mark" texture on the podium though.
Looks like the texture on some brutalist concrete buildings.


http://manchesterhistory.net/archite...averhouse.html

[dleung]

Sigh. If the city had been so prescriptive in the past about glass colour and facade/roof textures, why can't they be like "no faux historic shit here". This city used to have a more unique coastal look. This is going in the direction of a giant Hollywood set of other cities.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by dleung

...why can't they be like "no faux historic shit here". ...

Even the actual "historic" building in Vancouver were "faux historic" in that they copied older designs.

[rofina]

These are phenomenal, I love them.

I hope there is enough juice left in the market to move sell them and build.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Even the actual "historic" building in Vancouver were "faux historic" in that they copied older designs.

I love "faux historic" buildings, as long as they are tastefully designed. Europe is not Europe if they didn't emulate all the ancient structures from the Athenian, Roman periods, etc. Same thing applies to many of our Canadian government buildings and institutions of higher learning. Neo-classical looks will never be outdated.

As for this proposal, an art-deco design is simply the new neo-classics: as long as they appeal to the senses, they will be graciously embraced.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by dleung

Sigh. If the city had been so prescriptive in the past about glass colour and facade/roof textures, why can't they be like "no faux historic shit here". This city used to have a more unique coastal look. This is going in the direction of a giant Hollywood set of other cities.

Why have one King Kong perched on the roof top swiping at bi-planes when we can have two?

And you do have a point about being a Hollywood set. Vancouver IS a Hollywood set, so why fret?

[officedweller]

Good point - this project will be a MAGNET for film productions set in NYC.

[dleung]

If there is one reason for me to advocate the crackdown on Chinese investment, it would be to deprive this market of the tacky, Hennessy-sipping, Lambo-wrecking, LV bag people that make these designs sellable. Of course, we wouldn't get Bjarke Ingels and Kengo Kuma buildings either...

[Max.]

Originally Posted by dleung

If there is one reason for me to advocate the crackdown on Chinese investment, it would be to deprive this market of the tacky, Hennessy-sipping, Lambo-wrecking, LV bag people that make these designs sellable. Of course, we wouldn't get Bjarke Ingels and Kengo Kuma buildings either...

wow, what a racist comment

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

i don't get why people don't like this building. it is finally some different, and it brings in an elegant design seen in some of the most famous, large metropolitan cities. these towers also do it quite well i think; they do look like they would be found in a place like NYC, which seems like the point. "fake" heritage, most things are "fake" heritage. Gothic isn't from the 1800s and neoclassical goes back well over 1,000 years.

i am anti-foreign investment but i hope this building survives!

[SpongeG]

the top looks like city hall, how can the city say no to that.