Downtown Vancouver Updates

[GenWhy?]

It's less of a guise and more of a legal or management / finance reason. This happens all the time - hence why you wouldn't see a building run by Loblaws... it would be something like NorWest Holdings Ltd.

Two "locals" sold this anyway.

[GenWhy?]

Westbank created Barclay Thurlow Property Inc. as they bought condo units at this site.

[officedweller]

Looks great!
Do you think those balconies are precast and bolted on (thernal separation)?
The sculptural aspect reminds me of the 'fungi' balconies at Oakridge.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Westbank created Barclay Thurlow Property Inc. as they bought condo units at this site.

Bosa too.

Of the 36 units in the building, 34 belong to two corporations, Barclay Thurlow Property Inc. (BTPI) and Shepstone Investments Inc., referred to as the majority owners. BTPI is affiliated with Westbank Corporation and Shepstone with Bosa Properties Ltd.

https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news...cm/04fa699c-c918-4967-9833-539bc48f3ad1/

Earliest move out date for tenants is September 2022. Website says Pacific Northern bought the property in May 2018.

I guess someone can do a corporate lookup on the new company and see if they have the same corporate address. The new holding company was incorporated in October 2017.

[Migrant_Coconut]

1294 Granville Street
GBL Architects


https://development.vancouver.ca/1294granville/index.htm

IMO while hardly anybody's going to miss the 7/11, it'd be mildly annoying to have it turn into a fourth A&W.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

1294 Granville Street
IMO while hardly anybody's going to miss the 7/11, it'd be mildly annoying to have it turn into a fourth A&W.

Even if is rental, seems doubtful they would want a 7/11 or A&W below their building.

[scryer]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

1294 Granville Street
GBL Architects


https://development.vancouver.ca/1294granville/index.htm

IMO while hardly anybody's going to miss the 7/11, it'd be mildly annoying to have it turn into a fourth A&W.

This is yet another example of under-building on the downtown peninsula. We see 6 floor buildings being constructed on arterials outside of the downtown peninsula such as the Cambie corridor or the recent proposal for Arbutus and W.20th and it boggles my mind that there is supposedly no "business case" for developing denser than a 6 floor midrise on an intersection that is directly in the downtown peninsula.

This should have easily been at least 8fl+ for its prime location. And you can't tell me that the demand for rental isn't there, leading me to believe that restrictive city policies are choking the potential for more density where it makes sense - such as the downtown peninsula.

Thank you for the find, Migrant!

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by scryer

This is another example of under-building on the downtown peninsula. We see 6 floor buildings being constructed on arterials outside of the downtown peninsula such as the Cambie corridor or the recent proposal for Arbutus and W.20th and it boggles my mind that there is supposedly no "business case" for developing denser than a 6 floor midrise on an intersection that is directly in the downtown peninsula.

This should have easily been at least 8fl+ for its prime location. And you can't tell me that the demand for rental isn't there, leading me to believe that restrictive city policies are choking the potential for more density where it makes sense - such as the downtown peninsula.

Thank you for the find, Migrant!

So adding two more floors would make you happy?

Do you think anyone honestly would want to live on this corner vs anywhere on Cambie or Arbutus? Want more density go look at almost any block in the West End.

[scryer]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

So adding two more floors would make you happy?

Do you think anyone honestly would want to live on this corner vs anywhere on Cambie or Arbutus? Want more density go look at almost any block in the West End.

So you would rather under-develop the downtown peninsula than use the land to its best potential, causing more sprawl?

8 floors is a respectable compromise for a mid-rise in lieu of its PRIME location and in lieu of the unintelligible NIMBYs in this city. Personally, I would rather see 15-30fl+ for its location on the downtown peninsula. I figure that demanding relaxations on city policies that harm denser developments (mind you during an office space and residential space shortage/emergency) on the downtown peninsula comes with compromises; especially with this kind of unfriendly attitude towards denser developments downtown.

And 2/8 floors could serve as retail or office space. It's all about using the land to its best potential. Just because you couldn't imagine living there doesn't mean that there isn't a demand for it hence why our vacancy is less than 1%. And if you work downtown, which is the largest employment centre in the city (let me remind you) then living on this particular corner could be a great way to cut transit costs and cut carbon emissions because you would either take a reduced amount of transit or you would walk to work. One of the best ways to combat environmental destruction and the plethora of social problems plagued by this city is through dense city planning where it makes sense; this location makes sense to go taller and denser.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by scryer

This is yet another example of under-building on the downtown peninsula. We see 6 floor buildings being constructed on arterials outside of the downtown peninsula such as the Cambie corridor or the recent proposal for Arbutus and W.20th and it boggles my mind that there is supposedly no "business case" for developing denser than a 6 floor midrise on an intersection that is directly in the downtown peninsula.

This should have easily been at least 8fl+ for its prime location. And you can't tell me that the demand for rental isn't there, leading me to believe that restrictive city policies are choking the potential for more density where it makes sense - such as the downtown peninsula.

Thank you for the find, Migrant!

It's a small lot and the building is going right to the lot line. Maybe some set back on the alley side, but it is still higher density than it looks.

Paris is built with 6 story buildings, and it's plenty dense.

[osirisboy]

Originally Posted by logan5

It's a small lot and the building is going right to the lot line. Maybe some set back on the alley side, but it is still higher density than it looks.

Paris is built with 6 story buildings, and it's plenty dense.

It seems to have a relatively large set back on the laneway to have surface parking spots. Yes it a small lot but it can easily be 10-15 floors.

It's fsr 3 something. That's pretty low

[cov]

Originally Posted by logan5

It's a small lot and the building is going right to the lot line. Maybe some set back on the alley side, but it is still higher density than it looks.

Paris is built with 6 story buildings, and it's plenty dense.

Paris is dense because all the rooms can fit at most a full bed and nothing else. Paris is nice for tourists only.

[Marshal]

Guess I've been to a different Paris. But then, Paris is a pretty big and complex place.

[BodomReaper]

Originally Posted by scryer

This is yet another example of under-building on the downtown peninsula. We see 6 floor buildings being constructed on arterials outside of the downtown peninsula such as the Cambie corridor or the recent proposal for Arbutus and W.20th and it boggles my mind that there is supposedly no "business case" for developing denser than a 6 floor midrise on an intersection that is directly in the downtown peninsula.

This should have easily been at least 8fl+ for its prime location. And you can't tell me that the demand for rental isn't there, leading me to believe that restrictive city policies are choking the potential for more density where it makes sense - such as the downtown peninsula.

Thank you for the find, Migrant!

The problem isn't really the height, it's the pitiful 1300 sq. ft. commercial space (on a 6000 sq. ft. lot in the downtown entertainment district). This development is a loss of retail space compared to the tiny old building previously on the site, while adding population to the area.

Why on earth is there a building amenity room at street level in the downtown entertainment district!? Only in Vancouver. I wonder if it was forced on the developer by the City planners.

[a very long weekend]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Source: https://www.barclaythurlow.com/proposal-information

Cool, looks sort of like Heatherwick.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by BodomReaper

The problem isn't really the height, it's the pitiful 1300 sq. ft. commercial space (on a 6000 sq. ft. lot in the downtown entertainment district). This development is a loss of retail space compared to the tiny old building previously on the site, while adding population to the area.

Why on earth is there a building amenity room at street level in the downtown entertainment district!? Only in Vancouver. I wonder if it was forced on the developer by the City planners.

That end of Granville already has plenty of vacant apparently unwanted retail units, so having a slightly smaller one here doesn't seem to be a big loss in this case. I'm pretty sure it's the developer's choice to put the amenity space on the ground floor - the zoning just says there has to be a room, not where it goes.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by Changing City

That end of Granville already has plenty of vacant apparently unwanted retail units, so having a slightly smaller one here doesn't seem to be a big loss in this case. I'm pretty sure it's the developer's choice to put the amenity space on the ground floor - the zoning just says there has to be a room, not where it goes.

The area is basically a dump right now. Sure if you go a few blocks in either direction it's slightly better but everything down there is like the bottom end of retail in Vancouver or up for lease.

[s211]

Originally Posted by Changing City

That end of Granville already has plenty of vacant apparently unwanted retail units, so having a slightly smaller one here doesn't seem to be a big loss in this case. I'm pretty sure it's the developer's choice to put the amenity space on the ground floor - the zoning just says there has to be a room, not where it goes.

You beat me to it.

Not every site need be multi-use, nor does every site need retail. Even the ULI, the fundamentalists of urbanism, recognizes that.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

The area is basically a dump right now. Sure if you go a few blocks in either direction it's slightly better but everything down there is like the bottom end of retail in Vancouver or up for lease.

Yes, yes and yes. Even three-floor redevelopment would stimulate the area.

[scryer]

Originally Posted by BodomReaper

The problem isn't really the height, it's the pitiful 1300 sq. ft. commercial space (on a 6000 sq. ft. lot in the downtown entertainment district). This development is a loss of retail space compared to the tiny old building previously on the site, while adding population to the area.

For the most part I think that we agree with each other. But the real problem is that space (in general) on the downtown peninsula continues to be underused in these redevelopments.

Originally Posted by jollyburger

The area is basically a dump right now. Sure if you go a few blocks in either direction it's slightly better but everything down there is like the bottom end of retail in Vancouver or up for lease.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Yes, yes and yes. Even three-floor redevelopment would stimulate the area.

Basically the sentiment that I am understanding here is that because Granville street is in decline that we shouldn't be redeveloping lots to reach their full potential on the downtown peninsula? I'm sensing some stealth-NIMBYism here.

We have people renting closets for goodness sake.