The Ultimate Vancouver Rumour Thread! - Page 92

whatnext · #**1821** Posted **Dec 18, 2019, 7:45 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prometheus

The HBC parkade site is currently limited by city policy to a mere 90 metres (viewcone, of course). However, there has been talk on here about something happening (e.g. the new Broadway Corridor Plan or city hall moving or a viewcone review, etc.) that might nullify the viewcone over this site. But then we would just be back to the city arbitrarily limiting the height to a conservative level anyway through zoning, in accordance with its small town instincts.

I hear the viewcones cause cancer.

whatnext · #**1822** Posted **Dec 18, 2019, 7:52 PM**

Is it this?

17-storey wood tower with LGBTQ community centre proposed for downtown Vancouver

A 17-storey, mixed-use wood tower with the new home of QMUNITY and 139 units of social housing will help bookend downtown Vancouver’s Davie Village at its eastern boundary.

Non-profit housing developer New Commons Development and ZGF Architects have submitted a rezoning application to redevelop 1190 Burrard Street — the northeast corner of the intersection of Burrard Street and Davie Street, currently occupied by low-storey commercial buildings dating as far back as 1912...
https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/1190-bur...T-1W4A2IJ_YGWxubBRPCVOl6_vyS3XxyWypPY2TI

Prometheus · #**1823** Posted **Dec 18, 2019, 8:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bb1510

Here it is again and it will be deleted by the end of the week if it doesn't show up at the city:

Lots of past rumours/discussion a few years back in the threads, starchitect "ABC", very tall, originally would've had a public amenity that was recently demolished but that's axed, new public space

I think that's the most that can be said at this time

and yes, prepare for this rumour to be completely deflated because I can see the city completely rejecting this and cutting it in half heightwise

Quote:

Originally Posted by bb1510

Rezoning inquiry to be submitted, idk if it will show up publicly; maybe the cityduo blog will talk about it

about the public amenity, there's multiple but the part about "something recently demolished" was another one in addition to the others but seems to be axed for more economic programs

either way, if one is familiar with the project, then you'll be disappointed given the original cladding proposal by the architects but if it's to the public eye, then I believe you'll be surprised but eventually disappointed by the city's rejection but who knows, they could turn 180.

All in all, everyone will be both excited and disappointed to be completely honest, it just depends on which stage you were introduced to the project at.

Thanks for all the information. Now that’s an exciting rumour for a change!

jlousa · #**1824** Posted **Dec 18, 2019, 8:20 PM**

The market is pretty dead right now for a marquee tower. Surprised anyone would be proposing anything of substance. If I'm going to guess I'd go with the plaza of nations site finally going ahead, with my second guess being a rejigging of international village with an additional Tower.

s211 · #**1825** Posted **Dec 18, 2019, 8:22 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by whatnext

I hear the viewcones cause cancer.

But they halt global warming. Catch 22?

Prometheus · #**1826** Posted **Dec 18, 2019, 8:42 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlousa

If I'm going to guess I'd go with the plaza of nations site finally going ahead...

With respect, that doesn’t seem to be a good guess, since the development application for that site was publicly submitted a little while ago and that well-known, not-tall, official plan-conforming, James Cheng-designed project hardly matches the rumour’s parameters of a not-publicly-known, very tall, starchitect-designed project that’s likely to be shot down by the city for being too tall for its liking.

rofina · #**1827** Posted **Dec 18, 2019, 9:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bb1510

rezoning inquiry to be submitted, idk if it will show up publicly; maybe the cityduo blog will talk about it

about the public amenity, there's multiple but the part about "something recently demolished" was another one in addition to the others but seems to be axed for more economic programs

either way, if one is familiar with the project, then you'll be disappointed given the original cladding proposal by the architects but if it's to the public eye, then I believe you'll be surprised but eventually disappointed by the city's rejection but who knows, they could turn 180.

All in all, everyone will be both excited and disappointed to be completely honest, it just depends on which stage you were introduced to the project at

Another interesting project to keep an eye out for is on Alberni, closer to Stanley Park but nearby the other current starchitect projects. Very interesting as well but DP will be in 2023. Different developer but has other projects nearby. This will be later down the road.

When someone mentioned giving a leg up to competitors, it's funny because I can think of a few developers who have their children interning at Onni

maybe cause they think they're adept at value engineering projects lol

Was about to crack jokes about value engineering and learning how not to communicate/deal with sub trades/GC's.

bb1510 · #**1828** Posted **Dec 18, 2019, 10:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlousa

The market is pretty dead right now for a marquee tower. Surprised anyone would be proposing anything of substance. If I'm going to guess I'd go with the plaza of nations site finally going ahead, with my second guess being a rejigging of international village with an additional Tower.

completely forgot about that but how many towers would be the next question

yes, the market isn't great now but anything proposed now/early next year or submitted for a letter of inquiry/rezoning inquiry won't see a DP until 2023-2024. The market will change by then; developers know what they're doing

bb1510 · #**1829** Posted **Dec 18, 2019, 10:11 PM**

based on what is being discussed, I can say the PR team is doing a great job

bb1510 · #**1830** Posted **Dec 18, 2019, 10:15 PM**

there won't be a new revolving restaurant

alberni project and this project are two completely different ones

lets just say city policies are to be completely disregarded

very tall in vancouver's definition = how many stories?

jlousa · #**1831** Posted **Dec 18, 2019, 10:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prometheus

With respect, that doesn’t seem to be a good guess, since the development application for that site was publicly submitted a little while ago and that well-known, not-tall, official plan-conforming, James Cheng-designed project hardly matches the rumour’s parameters of a not-publicly-known, very tall, starchitect-designed project that’s likely to be shot down by the city for being too tall for its liking.

I have no clue if the plaza site is the one he's talking about or not, but what ends up getting submitted to the city for that site will be quite different from the original application...

bb1510 · #**1832** Posted **Dec 18, 2019, 10:40 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlousa

I have no clue if the plaza site is the one he's talking about or not, but what ends up getting submitted to the city for that site will be quite different from the original application...

maybe, who knows

Prometheus · #**1833** Posted **Dec 18, 2019, 10:46 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bb1510

Lets just say city policies are to be completely disregarded

So, under policy as it is written right now, it would be a non-conforming proposal? (If so, that would make the site very difficult to guess, since it could be almost anywhere.) Is the plan based on the idea that the proposal is at least consistent with an anticipated future change in policy?

bb1510 · #**1834** Posted **Dec 18, 2019, 10:52 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prometheus

So, under policy as it is written right now, it would be a non-conforming proposal? (If so, that would make the site very difficult to guess, since it could be almost anywhere.) Is the plan based on the idea that the proposal is at least consistent with an anticipated future change in policy?

site policy allows for such height but other policies in place would nullify the height at the same time

I have no idea why they would think it could be passed considering how some public amenities are already removed in the project and the main public amenity of why there should be such height is now gone

however, there is quite a bit of public amenity and benefits to be offered with the redevelopment of said site

site was mentioned before in this thread

Prometheus · #**1835** Posted **Dec 18, 2019, 11:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bb1510

site was mentioned before in this thread

But not today?

bb1510 · #**1836** Posted **Dec 18, 2019, 11:10 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prometheus

But not today?

cannot comment, but here is a recap of the CoV's higher building policy:

The highest buildings (i.e. ~550-700’) are located within the Central Business District.
Of these buildings, the tallest buildings (i.e. ~700’) should be located on one of Vancouver’s three primary streets: West Georgia, Burrard and Granville

rofina · #**1837** Posted **Dec 18, 2019, 11:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bb1510

there won't be a new revolving restaurant

alberni project and this project are two completely different ones

lets just say city policies are to be completely disregarded

very tall in vancouver's definition = how many stories?

I'm going to guess at 60. Something to rival Trump and Shangri-La.

For one, I would be enormously thrilled if Downtown Vancouver's crown isn't a window washing crane. But hey, that's me.

Metro-One · #**1838** Posted **Dec 18, 2019, 11:40 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bb1510

site policy allows for such height but other policies in place would nullify the height at the same time

I have no idea why they would think it could be passed considering how some public amenities are already removed in the project and the main public amenity of why there should be such height is now gone

however, there is quite a bit of public amenity and benefits to be offered with the redevelopment of said site

site was mentioned before in this thread

If it is a new tallest ( or even second tallest) and it also happens to be an office tower, I will be more than happy...

I am going to guess the 700’ site near Alberni and Burrard.

officedweller · #**1839** Posted **Dec 18, 2019, 11:53 PM**

Thanks -
So the Higher Buildings Policy allows it but the view cones chop it in half.

Could be either Four Seasons or Bay Parkade.
My guess is the Four Seasons site.
With the Four Seasons closing next month, Cadillac Fairview may want to do some damage control and announce the redevelopment before the closing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prometheus

I assume the amenity you are referring to is a revolving restaurant (or rooftop restaurant of some kind), as once existed at the top of the recently demolished Landmark.

Nice guess.
The only things I could think of were the VAG North Plaza fountain and the bandshell gazebo next to Science World(!)

jollyburger · #**1840** Posted **Dec 18, 2019, 11:55 PM**

There's 850 Burrard..