Downtown Vancouver Updates

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

You’re like the zweisystem of towers.

That's a bingo!

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

You’re like the zweisystem of towers.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by misher

How I imagine it would look.

I was thinking bigger flat panels more like the soccer ball.

[MetroYVR]

Does anyone know if The Thurlow and The Harwood by Intracorp have started construction? What about Bosa/BlueSky's Harwood x Thurlow?

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Vin

Building itself looks nice, but you should see its relationship with the surrounding buildings: a table-topping disaster, once again.

See it here:

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/601-west-pender-street-vancouver-office-tower

When that part of the CBD is fully built-out, it will be one whole lump of inserted blocks. City planners better review the aesthetics of the skyline and change the viewcone policies before it's too late to remedy the potential ugliness.

As for the building proposed: this would be another waste of great architecture.

In response, yes, very much so. I immediately turned to the tower at Granville and Cordova, (couldn't find thread, but it's '62something') across from Waterfront Station.
This is a striking Kohn Pedersen, Fox (and you can't really "go wrong" with them, their work being so solidly great) wavy, beautiful, tallish, ... but "dumbed down" in height.
IMO what the viewcone aficionados and their subsequent laws are doing is putting the whole future of the CBD and West "under their thumb," making it hard to develop adequately.


Large corporations need floor space, and if the city wants to attract more major branches (already Microsoft & Amazon: Vancouver branches of Seattle Headquarters) we gotta go higher*!
I'm not saying 90-storey supertowers, I'm just saying Higher. And mainly in the CBD/ Viewcones: eliminate or at least "tweak" them.
The viewcones themselves may be"dumbing down" the entire city. This has not only an architectural impact, but also a possible $$$ one, corporations unwilling to locate here, too little space. Or am I wrong?

To stay on topic, yes, this could have - and should have - been the opportunity to go taller, perhaps totally "bigger, sleeker," whatever, but it is fine in design, very acceptable as is.
I just cited the other building as a complementary point to reinforce your statement, and add another example for "academic justification." Viewcones ... Something's gotta give!

[Migrant_Coconut]

Both Microsoft's Vancouver headquarters and Amazon's don't even fill up the "low" towers. They share with other tenants. For now, height is a purely aesthetic concern and does not limit the branches or HQs we get.

[Hourglass]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Both Microsoft's Vancouver headquarters and Amazon's don't even fill up the "low" towers. They share with other tenants. For now, height is a purely aesthetic concern and does not limit the branches or HQs we get.

That may be so, but downtown Vancouver’s office vacancy rate is 1.8% (Oct 2019). This is causing rental rates to increase — which in turn is problematic for businesses in the downtown core both in terms of growth and cost. So no, I don’t think it’s purely an aesthetic concern.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Hourglass

That may be so, but downtown Vancouver’s office vacancy rate is 1.8% (Oct 2019). This is causing rental rates to increase — which in turn is problematic for businesses in the downtown core both in terms of growth and cost. So no, I don’t think it’s purely an aesthetic concern.

That's a timing issue though; nobody anticipated the huge surge in demand for office space that occurred in the past three years. That's heavily driven by demand by US tech businesses who are expanding here. Depending on the outcome of the US election, and rules about immigration opportunities for tech workers, that demand may dissipate somewhat.

There are over 5 million square feet of new space being built Downtown between now and 2024 (80% already under construction - the most ever), and only a third of that was preleased by mid 2019, so there will be more available soon. Some space with no current signed tenants should complete in about a year's time. That's no help to existing tenants facing a lack of current space, but it shouldn't be a long term problem. There's also another 2 million square feet under construction or approved in Mount Pleasant and on the False Creek Flats.

If the current construction program were (for the sake of argument) happening in half the number of buildings, but each of them was twice as tall, then the delay would be much greater as they would not complete as soon.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by Changing City

If the current construction program were (for the sake of argument) happening in half the number of buildings, but each of them was twice as tall, then the delay would be much greater as they would not complete as soon.

Or put another way (for sake of argument), if previous waves of office construction had been permitted twice the density, then the current capacity would be twice as great and the need half as dire.

The bottome line is that the efficiency of land use--and the maximum amount of jobs on the downtown peninsula when fully built out--would be twice as great than under the current policy, which is half as wise.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Or put a fourth way, a previous wave with twice the density would only be finished sometime around now and we'd still have a crunch. Not sure why this forum turns into AlternateHistory.com every time there's a new office tower.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Or put a fourth way, a previous wave with twice the density would only be finished sometime around now and we'd still have a crunch. Not sure why this forum turns into AlternateHistory.com every time there's a new office tower.

Or put a fifth way, we could uncritically accept current policy choices regarding land use so as not to upset or confuse certain forum members.

Yes, we could continue to utilize the remaining amount of limited land in our downtown (and elsewhere) far less efficiently than we otherwise could and pretend that doing so is perfectly sensible.

[Hourglass]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Or put a fourth way, a previous wave with twice the density would only be finished sometime around now and we'd still have a crunch. Not sure why this forum turns into AlternateHistory.com every time there's a new office tower.

I don’t think anyone is trying to re-litigate history. The point I’m trying to make is that, with the downtown peninsula being space-constrained and in the middle of very low vacancy rates, shouldn’t there be a debate about artificial caps on height and density in certain areas of downtown?

It’s noteworthy that Vancouver has 30% less commercial space than Calgary — a city with less than half of the population. Yes, part of the difference is that Calgary has far more corporate headquarters. But maybe city policy is also contributing to that too?

[mcminsen]

Originally Posted by mcminsen

Sept.16 '19, my pics

About nine weeks later...




Nov.19 '19, my pics


























[/URL]

[osirisboy]

That's turning out great! And so nice to not see depressing clear drab glass.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Hourglass

It’s noteworthy that Vancouver has 30% less commercial space than Calgary — a city with less than half of the population. Yes, part of the difference is that Calgary has far more corporate headquarters. But maybe city policy is also contributing to that too?

I don't think the two markets are really comparable. One is, as you say, home to a lot of large corporate headquarters. They're almost all oil and gas companies, hence the 24% vacancy rate for Calgary offices, and zero space currently under construction, or likely in the next several years.

Vancouver has a few headquarters (Telus for example) but they're generally occupying less space. On the other hand there's only a 4% vacancy rate across the entire region, and significant new construction - over 5 million square feet in the Downtown, and several more projects planned with several more million square feet of space.

If office building height were such a big deal I'd have expected the Burrard Building to redevelop, as it has no height limit. Instead we got some expensive retail makeovers that suggest it's going nowhere anytime soon. I'd also expect big office towers in Surrey, or Burnaby, but again, it's not happening. As we know, the current proposed office tower in Surrey was briefly delayed because Council didn't think it was tall enough, and the developer pushed back and is still proposing to develop it at a height very similar to Downtown projects.

The current wave of new office towers to complete Downtown started in 2015, with MNP, Telus Garden, 980 Howe and 745 Thurlow. They were all planned in the early 2010s, and all finished in the same year (as did the Sears retail to office conversion) and were expected to introduce enough space to the market to create an oversupply - but demand picked up, and so the next set of buildings went into planning and construction - which is why we have more under construction now than at any time in history. There are plenty more sites still available - next to the station, the Bentall 7 tower, 450 W Georgia for example.

Don't forget how the last wave of construction of office space occurred. Before the 2015 completions, there was virtually nothing built for ten years. Bentall Five completed in 2007 - but the developer was so cautious about developing all of the 33 storey building that they only built 22 storeys at first, and then added the last 11 storeys five years later when it became obvious that the market would take the additional space. That caution had nothing to do with viewcones - and everything to do with the market. Maybe in 20 years time we'll face a problem, but in the short to medium term we have sufficient opportunities to develop respecting policy and viewcones to still have space to meet likely demand.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Or put a fifth way, we could uncritically accept current policy choices regarding land use so as not to upset or confuse certain forum members.

Yes, we could continue to utilize the remaining amount of limited land in our downtown (and elsewhere) far less efficiently than we otherwise could and pretend that doing so is perfectly sensible.

Or put a sixth way, since the policy is appropriate outside of unexpected surges from the States (as kindly supplied by ChangingCity and our own tenancy trends), we could decide to not freak out like idiots and end up with a 20+ percent vacancy rate like Calgary.

As usual for office towers, this is an artistic argument poorly disguised as an economics argument. If we want to talk about height restrictions on residential towers, on the other hand (which is a completely different argument with completely different motives), then by all means.

[Metro-One]

Not every tower needs to be a new tallest, agreed, but it obvious that there is demand for at least a couple taller office towers since several have been shortened by the city after their initial proposals.

So if you think building tall towers for the sake of just being tall is silly, then wouldn’t one also think that cutting down the size of proposals for such arbitrary reasons as view cones is equally silly?

The CBD would benefit socially, economically and aesthetically by having at least a couple taller towers in the 150 to 250 m range, especially on locations directly next too or overtop of our major mass transit stations.

Vancouver has enough bulk in 20 to 30 story towers that a few more peaks wouldn’t create a jagged look that takes away from the skyline. I feel this only really happens when you have massive towers next too acres of surface parking lots or single floor buildings.

[SpongeG]

Hotel, 29-storey tower part of Amacon’s plans for Robson & Cambie

November 23, 2019 By Peter Meiszner



Six years after purchasing the former home of the Catholic archdiocese in Vancouver, Amacon is moving forward with plans to redevelop the property at Cambie and Robson with a residential tower and hotel.

Amacon has filed a development application for the property at 150 Robson, with a design by GBL Architects.

The design, which we first saw in 2017, has been refined, with less glazing on the tower and a façade of cementitious panels in an ivory finish. The architectural expression of the hotel building has been simplified as well.

...

https://urbanyvr.com/robson-and-cambie-amacon-2019

[Migrant_Coconut]

Sweet.

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Not every tower needs to be a new tallest, agreed, but it obvious that there is demand for at least a couple taller office towers since several have been shortened by the city after their initial proposals.

So if you think building tall towers for the sake of just being tall is silly, then wouldn’t one also think that cutting down the size of proposals for such arbitrary reasons as view cones is equally silly?

The CBD would benefit socially, economically and aesthetically by having at least a couple taller towers in the 150 to 250 m range, especially on locations directly next too or overtop of our major mass transit stations.

Vancouver has enough bulk in 20 to 30 story towers that a few more peaks wouldn’t create a jagged look that takes away from the skyline. I feel this only really happens when you have massive towers next too acres of surface parking lots or single floor buildings.

It's nearly unanimous on this forum that some viewcones need to be adjusted for the sake of a better skyline; the idea that taller office towers would've solved the present crunch or attracted a bunch more HQs, that's where we diverge.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

so does everyone think that the height limits proposed by the city just happens to be the economic height as well? i mean, what are the odds that almost every proposal is only a few feet under the limit? it sounds like a big coincidence to me... or that the market wants more, but cant have more so it is stuck pushing right up to the ceiling.