Downtown Vancouver Updates

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Exciting... would be nice to have a new tallest office tower.

Newest tallest office tower? Have you recently hit your head, Metro-One? Do you have amnesia? Have you forgotten where you are?

With the exception of the award-wining Arthur Ericson building on the northeast corner of Georgia and Thurlow (which is obviously going nowhere), the entire block (just like 99% of Vancouver's CBD) is suffocated by the city council's artificial viewcone restrictions.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Just wondering how they squeeze in a tower if they demolish one of the parkades.

There has already been talk that it is going to be the parkade on Pender, where the city council's viewcone restrictions limit a new building to approximately 122 metres.

Interestingly though, a sliver of the ivy-covered parkade on Thurlow, directly behind the Erickson building, falls outside of the city's viewcone limitations. But is that enough to do anything interesting with it?

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Newest tallest office tower? Have you recently hit your head, Metro-One? Do you have amnesia? Have you forgotten where you are?

With the exception of the award-wining Arthur Ericson building on the northeast corner of Georgia and Thurlow (which is obviously going nowhere), the entire block (just like 99% of Vancouver's CBD) is suffocated by the city council's artificial viewcone restrictions.

Lol. Amnesia certainly helps mask the pain.

[GenWhy?]

350 ft office buildings at 9 FSR downtown still work on many levels. View cones or not. CBD is not "suffocated".

[phesto]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Interestingly though, a sliver of the ivy-covered parkade on Thurlow, directly behind the Erickson building, falls outside of the city's viewcone limitations. But is that enough to do anything interesting with it?

There are plans already in the works for this site for a new office tower. Likely ~35-storey range.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

350 ft office buildings at 9 FSR downtown still work on many levels. View cones or not.

1090 West Pender (B6) on the same block is 122m high, 31 storeys, and 18 FSR. It's 564,000 sq. ft. so a significant investment. 1166 W Pender, on the next block is 121m, and 19.37 FSR.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

350 ft office buildings at 9 FSR downtown still work on many levels. View cones or not. CBD is not "suffocated".

Numbers speak otherwise. Read "extremely low vacancy rate".

https://www.vancourier.com/real-estate/m...ps-to-lowest-level-since-2008-1.23617173

[logan5]

Our office district is confined to a very small area because in the last 3 decades the city has allowed almost all of downtown to be developed with residential towers, leaving very little room for office development, so I would have to say that office development is suffocated to a certain extent.

There would appear to be a market for office towers much taller than what the height restrictions dictate, as Vancouver office space costs almost as much as Toronto office space. Occupancy costs in Vancouver are rising faster than any city in Canada, and if current trends continue, we will surpass Toronto as the most expensive office market Canada in short order.

Height restrictions are fine for residential, but for office we need to loosen, or better yet, abolish height restrictions

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

350 ft office buildings at 9 FSR downtown still work on many levels. View cones or not. CBD is not "suffocated".

Beyond the solid points countering this above, aesthetically it would also be nice to have a little more height variation in our CBD. We currently already have 3 office towers moving forward at the 121 to 123 metre range, which adds to a boring table top skyline.

It’s obvious that there is currently the appetite to build taller office towers in Vancouver, so it would be nice to add a couple signature office towers while we have the chance.

Also seems to be wise and environmental to maximize the density in the CBD given its proximity to mass transit and the face that building such towers also involves the wasteful activity of demolishing substantial existing buildings / towers.

Two office towers have already been artificially reduced in height for essentially nonsense reasons.

[Klazu]

I really wish 1090 West Pender would be built 15 floors taller. The surrounding streetscape would benefit so much from a taller building in there.

I will be amazed if they will really cram another building on that same block, as it is tiny. Do they own any of the lots around B5? There is a lot of prime real estate to develop there...

[Deepstar]

Couldn't agree more. It would be nice to have a couple of office towers over the 200m range....maybe one at 200m and another at 250m just to add some variation to the skyline.

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Beyond the solid points countering this above, aesthetically it would also be nice to have a little more height variation in our CBD. We currently already have 3 office towers moving forward at the 121 to 123 metre range, which adds to a boring table top skyline.

It’s obvious that there is currently the appetite to build taller office towers in Vancouver, so it would be nice to add a couple signature office towers while we have the chance.

Also seems to be wise and environmental to maximize the density in the CBD given its proximity to mass transit and the face that building such towers also involves the wasteful activity of demolishing substantial existing buildings / towers.

Two office towers have already been artificially reduced in height for essentially nonsense reasons.

[Deepstar]

High rents and low vacancy don't always equate to new office towers. You can have low vacancy rates and that will push up the rent rates, but not necessarily a need for a big new tower. There needs to be demand for a lot of office space, generally an anchor tenant that wants a large chunk of space. Toronto's market is different than Vancouver having dozens of large corporate head offices.

I doubt we'll see that kind of demand fr office space here, even if the lease rate goes higher than Toronto.

What I envision for tall office towers here are mixed use towers, like Telus Sky or Stantec (though much nicer than Stantec)

Originally Posted by logan5

Our office district is confined to a very small area because in the last 3 decades the city has allowed almost all of downtown to be developed with residential towers, leaving very little room for office development, so I would have to say that office development is suffocated to a certain extent.

There would appear to be a market for office towers much taller than what the height restrictions dictate, as Vancouver office space costs almost as much as Toronto office space. Occupancy costs in Vancouver are rising faster than any city in Canada, and if current trends continue, we will surpass Toronto as the most expensive office market Canada in short order.

Height restrictions are fine for residential, but for office we need to loosen, or better yet, abolish height restrictions

[logan5]

Originally Posted by Deepstar

High rents and low vacancy don't always equate to new office towers. You can have low vacancy rates and that will push up the rent rates, but not necessarily a need for a big new tower. There needs to be demand for a lot of office space, generally an anchor tenant that wants a large chunk of space. Toronto's market is different than Vancouver having dozens of large corporate head offices.

I doubt we'll see that kind of demand fr office space here, even if the lease rate goes higher than Toronto.

What I envision for tall office towers here are mixed use towers, like Telus Sky or Stantec (though much nicer than Stantec)

It's true that Vancouver is not a corporate head office city, but at the same time, we have been building office towers at an unprecedented rate, and we still have a very low availability of office space. That necessitates a much more efficient use of the very limited amount of land left for development in the downtown peninsula. In other words, go taller.

At least give the developer the option of going taller. They would likely exercise that option.

[Deepstar]

Originally Posted by logan5

It's true that Vancouver is not a corporate head office city, but at the same time, we have been building office towers at an unprecedented rate, and we still have a very low availability of office space. That necessitates a much more efficient use of the very limited amount of land left for development in the downtown peninsula. In other words, go taller.

At least give the developer the option of going taller. They would likely exercise that option.

Hey I’d love to see them go taller, it’s just hard to build 50, 60 storey office towers without tenants wanting mounds of space.

[phesto]

Originally Posted by Klazu

I will be amazed if they will really cram another building on that same block, as it is tiny.

I've heard the plan is to place the fifth tower where the sunken plaza is along Dunsmuir. Tower height would be approx. same height as Bentall 3.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by Deepstar

Hey I’d love to see them go taller, it’s just hard to build 50, 60 storey office towers without tenants wanting mounds of space.

But that’s the thing, we have already had 2 office towers officially reduced in height by the city. 1133 Melville was originally 168, reduced to 161, and 1166 West Pender originally wanted to be similar height (around 170 meters) but was reduced for “shadowing” concerns before the official proposal was made. It is no coincidence that ever office tower project is maxing our their allowable height to the cm. There is an appetite for a 180 even 200 meter office tower of simply given the chance.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by phesto

I've heard the plan is to place the fifth tower where the sunken plaza is along Dunsmuir. Tower height would be approx. same height as Bentall 3.

Okay, seriously, if they are replacing that sunken plaza, which I consider to be quite iconic, with a tower then it better be the signature peak tower of the entire Bental complex. Nothing else will justify that loss.

[officedweller]

Sunken plaza seems like a small site unless it extends back into the Everleigh St. parkade.

Also, the Dunsmuir Tunnel is under the Everleigh St. parkade and along at least one edge of the sunken plaza (not an insurmountable problem, though).


https://council.vancouver.ca/20150203/documents/p4.pdf


https://www.google.com/maps/@49.2863237,-123.1199595,572m/data=!3m1!1e3

[Vin]

Originally Posted by logan5

It's true that Vancouver is not a corporate head office city, but at the same time, we have been building office towers at an unprecedented rate, and we still have a very low availability of office space. That necessitates a much more efficient use of the very limited amount of land left for development in the downtown peninsula. In other words, go taller.

At least give the developer the option of going taller. They would likely exercise that option.

That's because we don't build large for them to set up shop here. Simple.

Originally Posted by Deepstar

Hey I’d love to see them go taller, it’s just hard to build 50, 60 storey office towers without tenants wanting mounds of space.

I suppose by your logic tenants must somehow prefer office spaces in suburb town centres because those places are experiencing a boom in office construction. And they go tall: some taller than the recent ones built downtown.

[s211]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Sunken plaza seems like a small site unless it extends back into the Everleigh St. parkade.

A (dated?) scheme may have involved a sliver of that parkade.