Downtown Vancouver Updates

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by TheTerminalCity

Tower could be an interesting one...would love to see a better-resolved rendering of the tower and a clear idea of what the street-level experience would be like...retail, at a minimum, I would hope

There was some ground level retail in the concept.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Kind of interesting design for 1380 Burrard that might let them break into the viewcone.

Originally Posted by scryer

Let me help this one not get skipped over... Yes please! Break the density/environment-crippling view cones!

Originally Posted by jollyburger

It was described as a high-end hotel. So another possible reason to let it creep into the view cone.

Really, guys? Are you dreaming or something? The extreme southwest corner of this site, i.e., precisely where the tower is being proposed, doesn't have any viewcones (other than the Queen Elizabeth Park viewcone, which can be ignored under downtown higher building policy).

Looking at the following map, you can see clearly why the proposed tower's east side doesn't run parallel to Burrard Street but is cut at a sharp angle:



My guess is that this is the 150+ metre tower LeftCoaster referred to in the rumours thread.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Really, guys? Are you dreaming or something? The extreme southwest corner of this site, i.e., precisely where the tower is being proposed, doesn't have any viewcones (other than the Queen Elizabeth Park viewcone, which can be ignored under downtown higher building policy).

I included the view cone study for another building and there was a view cone (look back in the thread a few pages) Though the angle of the building sort of matches the shadowing in the Higher Building diagram.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

is the central business really that tiny now????

[Vin]

That lux hotel is a twig beside a rock. How are they going to squeeze sizable hotel rooms into that skinny thing? Stop this nonsense with the viewcones already and build us a proper hotel building with some girth!

QUOTE=VancouverOfTheFuture;8737444]is the central business really that tiny now????[/QUOTE]

Haven't you noticed we dig tiny stuff?

[jollyburger]

It was 400,000 or 450K square feet of you think it's tiny.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

is the central business really that tiny now????

Only the "central" CBD that can exceed 600 feet; the CBD overall (page 3, 8) goes all the way to Bute, Beatty and Nelson, but can't exceed 375' overall.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Only the "central" CBD that can exceed 600 feet; the CBD overall (page 3, 8) goes all the way to Bute, Beatty and Nelson, but can't exceed 375' overall.

Still tiny. Downtown Vancouver is officially a bedroom community. As for the area that allows office towers to reach 600' or more, once its built out, there's no chance of Vancouver building newer tall office towers, like what we are experiencing now. How lame is that. No wonder we are getting all the dwarf office buildings, and this zoning methodology is certainly why we have a shortage of office spaces. We are also cannibalizing older heritage buildings as a result.

Vancouver: a city planned for yesterday.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Vin

Still tiny. Downtown Vancouver is officially a bedroom community. As for the area that allows office towers to reach 600' or more, once its built out, there's no chance of Vancouver building newer tall office towers, like what we are experiencing now. How lame is that. No wonder we are getting all the dwarf office buildings, and this zoning methodology is certainly why we have a shortage of office spaces. We are also cannibalizing older heritage buildings as a result.

Vancouver: a city planned for yesterday.

City activity is tied directly to building height, as exemplified by such bedroom communities such as Amsterdam, Berlin and Barcelona. They really need 70-floor towers, otherwise people might forget they exist at all.
Oh wait, no, that's what Lougheed's doing - can't be left out, can't touch the NIMBYs in their actual bedroom communities, and hardly any views to cone, so build, baby, build.

By contrast, the CoV understands that some vistas are worth keeping, that city integration is important too, and that quantity (specifically, four million sq ft of office space) has a quality of its own. We can always knock down and replace today's 375-footers decades from now, like we're doing with the Empire Landmark - isn't "out with the old, in with the new" kind of your thing?

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Looking at the following map, you can see clearly why the proposed tower's east side doesn't run parallel to Burrard Street but is cut at a sharp angle:

Agreed.

The tower is probably condos with one suite per floor and the hotel would be in the lowrise.

Daily Hive has picked it up too:
https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/1380-burrard-street-vancouver

The one issue that could arise is that the corner site for the tower could overlap with the Burrard Place tower
and disrupt the focal point of the "Burrard Gateway".

It'll be interesting to see whether the height of the tower is shortened and the massing redistributed to the podium.
The view cone permits a taller podium than depicted.


Artistic rendering of the One Burrard Place residential tower. (Burrard Place)
https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/1380-burrard-street-vancouver

Originally Posted by officedweller

Thanks.

Here are the applicable view cones over the Kilborn Building (Anchor Point office) - View cone 12 - from Granville Bridge.
You can see the existing office building with the Lululemon logo in the pics.


https://vancouver.ca/home-property-development/granville-bridge-protected-view.aspx


https://vancouver.ca/home-property-development/granville-bridge-protected-view.aspx

and for reference:

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

City activity is tied directly to building height, as exemplified by such bedroom communities such as Amsterdam, Berlin and Barcelona. They really need 70-floor towers, otherwise people might forget they exist at all.
Oh wait, no, that's what Lougheed's doing - can't be left out, can't touch the NIMBYs in their actual bedroom communities, and hardly any views to cone, so build, baby, build.

By contrast, the CoV understands that some vistas are worth keeping, that city integration is important too, and that quantity (specifically, four million sq ft of office space) has a quality of its own. We can always knock down and replace today's 375-footers decades from now, like we're doing with the Empire Landmark - isn't "out with the old, in with the new" kind of your thing?

I'm certainly a proponent of "Out with the crappy old thing (like those fire-hazard walk-ups), and in with the new better thing", but definitely do not wish to destroy anything worth keeping, like the Empire Landmark building and a host of other fine office structures around the CBD.

Don't bring in Amsterdam, Berlin and Barcelona to the discussion simply because their compactness is only what we can dream of, but never ever be able to achieve. If we can be half as compact as they are, I wouldn't mind having 6 to 10 storey buildings throughout the city, really. However, that also means Strathcona, Shaughnessey, Kitsilano, Mount Pleasant would have to be upzoned in totality.

[officedweller]

Missed this earlier from UrbanYVR:

2001 Beach Avenue
(at Chilco)

Major renovation planned for Beach Ave. apartment tower
https://urbanyvr.com/west-end-beach-ave-apartment-tower


https://urbanyvr.com/west-end-beach-ave-apartment-tower


https://urbanyvr.com/west-end-beach-ave-apartment-tower


https://urbanyvr.com/west-end-beach-ave-apartment-tower

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Vin

I'm certainly a proponent of "Out with the crappy old thing (like those fire-hazard walk-ups), and in with the new better thing", but definitely do not wish to destroy anything worth keeping, like the Empire Landmark building and a host of other food office structures around the CBD.

Don't bring in Amsterdam, Berlin and Barcelona to the discussion simply because their compactness is only what we can dream of, but never ever be able to achieve. If we can be half as compact as they are, I wouldn't mind having 6 to 10 storey buildings throughout the city, really. However, that also means Strathcona, Shaughnessey, Kitsilano, Mount Pleasant would have to be upzoned in totality.

"Worth keeping" is subjective - given the amount of noise generated to try and save the Birks Building or Rio Theatre as compared to the ELH, it's evident that most people gave as much of a damn as I did about that Brutalist eyesore.

Okay, then I'll bring in Stockholm, Kiev, Prague, Munich, Liverpool, Baltimore and D.C. All of Europe and the East Coast was like us right now at some point in time.

As it is, we're seeing 6-15 floor developments throughout the city, especially on Cambie and Broadway - even Kerrisdale's getting in on the action. We're getting closer and closer to half that compactness every week... and every single time one of those six to fifteens reaches the forum, you say "not tall enough." Can't have the argument both ways.

[jollyburger]

How the building interacts with the viewcone.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

"Worth keeping" is subjective - given the amount of noise generated to try and save the Birks Building or Rio Theatre as compared to the ELH, it's evident that most people gave as much of a damn as I did about that Brutalist eyesore.

Okay, then I'll bring in Stockholm, Kiev, Prague, Munich, Liverpool, Baltimore and D.C. All of Europe and the East Coast was like us right now at some point in time.

As it is, we're seeing 6-15 floor developments throughout the city, especially on Cambie and Broadway - even Kerrisdale's getting in on the action. We're getting closer and closer to half that compactness every week... and every single time one of those six to fifteens reaches the forum, you say "not tall enough." Can't have the argument both ways.

It's funny you wrote this when the posting by Officedweller above you is about "RENOVATION".

We're not anywhere near the desired "compactness". Not even close.

[giallo]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Missed this earlier from UrbanYVR:

2001 Beach Avenue
(at Chilco)

Major renovation planned for Beach Ave. apartment tower
https://urbanyvr.com/west-end-beach-ave-apartment-tower


https://urbanyvr.com/west-end-beach-ave-apartment-tower


https://urbanyvr.com/west-end-beach-ave-apartment-tower


https://urbanyvr.com/west-end-beach-ave-apartment-tower

My friends live in this building. They moved in last July, and got a good price due to the renovation in the coming year.

Here's a photo a took form the roof.

up high by Andrew Rochfort, on Flickr

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Vin

It's funny you wrote this when the posting by Officedweller above you is about "RENOVATION".

We're not anywhere near the desired "compactness". Not even close.

And unlike 2001 Beach, which is both serviceable and the most efficient use of the current zoning, Asian Standard Americas obviously concluded that tearing down the Empire Landmark was more lucrative than a reno.

Hence "getting closer" - with the Broadway and Cambie plans, and growth on Arbutus/Oak/Hastings/Main/etc etc etc, we're on our way there. Rome wasn't built in a day. We certainly shouldn't expect Vancouver to be.

[scryer]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

And unlike 2001 Beach, which is both serviceable and the most efficient use of the current zoning, Asian Standard Americas obviously concluded that tearing down the Empire Landmark was more lucrative than a reno.

Hence "getting closer" - with the Broadway and Cambie plans, and growth on Arbutus/Oak/Hastings/Main/etc etc etc, we're on our way there. Rome wasn't built in a day. We certainly shouldn't expect Vancouver to be.

Well with the pace that we are going at, we are going to lose educated talent to other cities. Housing prices outpace anyone making under 100k and rentals are skyrocketing because the majority of the population makes under 100k.

In order to achieve a middle-density like Barcelona, that everyone keeps jacking off to, we need to upzone swaths of land AND have city-blocks-worth of proposals to achieve the density we fantasize about (within our lifetimes). And guess what? That just doesn't happen in Vancouver (and it's why we voted in the new city council since we were promised an update to the city-wide zoning). We rezone and develop one. building. at. a. time. My best example is the Cambie corridor. That whole corridor should have ALL been rezoned to 6-15 stories with higher densities zoned around the skytrain stations without question. But here we are, anxiously awaiting for the city to rezone/develop a 4-storey building every 2-3 years when the Cambie Corridor should have already been rezoned while the Canada Line was being built. It's no wonder why a 4 storey building along a major transportation corridor is disappointing and why a 30+ floor tower in the middle of downtown is underwhelming; we just don't have the quantity of mid-rises and taller highrises to keep up with the demand. <<- Nothing new though... this has been the same story for the last 15 years.

So yeah, we are getting "closer" as you say but it is only closer for those who make $80+k a year. Couples and young families are priced out of COV so it isn't like these projects are for future generations especially since half of the developers are selling to HK and mainland China (instead of Canadians) first anyways.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

And unlike 2001 Beach, which is both serviceable and the most efficient use of the current zoning, Asian Standard Americas obviously concluded that tearing down the Empire Landmark was more lucrative than a reno.

Hence "getting closer" - with the Broadway and Cambie plans, and growth on Arbutus/Oak/Hastings/Main/etc etc etc, we're on our way there. Rome wasn't built in a day. We certainly shouldn't expect Vancouver to be.

And yet the suburb downtowns are virtually built "in a day", because they are simply filling in the gap of Vancouver's inadequacies.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by scryer

Well with the pace that we are going at, we are going to lose educated talent to other cities. Housing prices outpace anyone making under 100k and rentals are skyrocketing because the majority of the population makes under 100k.

In order to achieve a middle-density like Barcelona, that everyone keeps jacking off to, we need to upzone swaths of land AND have city-blocks-worth of proposals to achieve the density we fantasize about (within our lifetimes). And guess what? That just doesn't happen in Vancouver (and it's why we voted in the new city council since we were promised an update to the city-wide zoning). We rezone and develop one. building. at. a. time. My best example is the Cambie corridor. That whole corridor should have ALL been rezoned to 6-15 stories with higher densities zoned around the skytrain stations without question. But here we are, anxiously awaiting for the city to rezone/develop a 4-storey building every 2-3 years when the Cambie Corridor should have already been rezoned while the Canada Line was being built. It's no wonder why a 4 storey building along a major transportation corridor is disappointing and why a 30+ floor tower in the middle of downtown is underwhelming; we just don't have the quantity of mid-rises and taller highrises to keep up with the demand. <<- Nothing new though... this has been the same story for the last 15 years.

So yeah, we are getting "closer" as you say but it is only closer for those who make $80+k a year. Couples and young families are priced out of COV so it isn't like these projects are for future generations especially since half of the developers are selling to HK and mainland China first anyways.

I can't say it any better than this, sir!