Downtown Vancouver Updates

[osirisboy]

Originally Posted by Changing City

How do you know that? Maybe there was an inquiry for a tower here, and the City said it was perfectly OK. The Development Board can't turn down a project because it isn't as big as someone wishes it was. FeatheredFriend already posted that the limitations here are the length of the lease that the bank has, and the site imitations because of what's already underground. They're building a steel-framed structure to the maximum the engineering allows.

Lol ok. Just going out on a limb and saying the city would not be encouraging a tower here because they don’t like towers too close together. Also, I never said anything about a tower.

[osirisboy]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

The city of Vancouver is the bogeyman living under the bed on this forum, always an easy target, with or without any factual basis.

So even with factual basis one can’t blame the city?! Lol. But Yes. You’re right. It’s an easy target. Mainly because they have policies such as view cones, tower spacing, arbitrary height limits, low fsr limits, limits on size of floor plates, or it’s not “human scale” enough that seem to more often than not effect what gets built

When you see things like what the city allowed on Broadway and Cambie for example it kind of suggests what their position is. In general. I think sometimes the boogeyman on this forum is anyone questioning a 4-5 storey building versus something larger

(I don’t know why there is an angry face on my post. I have no idea how to even do that Lol )

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

Lol ok. Just going out on a limb and saying the city would not be encouraging a tower here because they don’t like towers too close together. Also, I never said anything about a tower.

Unless you're hoping for a multi storey underground bunker, the only way to add more space than they're proposing is in a tower. If they wanted to do a complicated and very expensive redevelopment here they could have a tower, although one of the existing towers is a hotel, so there might be an issue with tower separation from that one. There are no rules about commercial towers being too close together. That's why the Dunsmuir Cadillac Towers are only 14m apart. The rules are for residential towers, to ensure a degree of privacy. All the rules you don't like are about liveabilty - shadows; views; privacy; an improved public realm.

[osirisboy]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Unless you're hoping for a multi storey underground bunker, the only way to add more space than they're proposing is in a tower. If they wanted to do a complicated and very expensive redevelopment here they could have a tower, although one of the existing towers is a hotel, so there might be an issue with tower separation from that one. There are no rules about commercial towers being too close together. That's why the Dunsmuir Cadillac Towers are only 14m apart. The rules are for residential towers, to ensure a degree of privacy. All the rules you don't like are about liveabilty - shadows; views; privacy; an improved public realm.

Well that all makes sense. Thanks

[jollyburger]

Actually back in 2009 Phesto posted this here:

Brookfield had held informal discussions with the City to determine how receptive they would be to allowing rezoning for a new tower circa 2007.

Note the preliminary plans from 2007-ish showed a 26 storey, 350 foot tower on the corner. As mentioned, this is likely limited by view cones. The tower would be around 300,000 square feet.

This is not even really a proposal at this point, they probably drew up these plans to see if they could sell it off to a developer. Also RBC isn't going anywhere as they are paying dirt cheap rates from several years ago both in the tower and bank podium.

Sorry guys, but this is another Sears building type situation where we won't likely see anything happen for a really long time..

http://www.skyscraperpage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=4601631&postcount=499

[mcminsen]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

...

(I don’t know why there is an angry face on my post. I have no idea how to even do that Lol )

Try going back into edit mode and click on "Go Advanced". It should bring up the title box that the frown smiley somehow got into.

As for the proposal on the Royal Bank corner, it would be nice to have something... memorable?

[officedweller]

For the short term - ie no underground redevelopment allowing a tower - the density shown is probably not unexpected for a placeholder.
It's the boxy massing and curtain wall finishing worthy of a suburban business park that I think is the issue here. I think it's a given that the block won't match the existing towers in the complex, so the architects would have a variety of options.
The Hermes facade across the street has much more style than this block.
This is as bad as the Simpson Tower reclad in Toronto (and the big flat canopy seems to be cut and pasted from the new CIBC Square in Toronto).

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by mcminsen

Try going back into edit mode and click on "Go Advanced". It should bring up the title box that the frown smiley somehow got into.

As for the proposal on the Royal Bank corner, it would be nice to have something... memorable?

Underneath the editing box you can change the Post Icons to "No icon"

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Is there not enough room for a full tower there?

In other progressive cities, it would've been. But as we all know, this is Vancouver. Count your blessings it's over 3 storeys high.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by officedweller

For the short term - ie no underground redevelopment allowing a tower - the density shown is probably not unexpected for a placeholder.
It's the boxy massing and curtain wall finishing worthy of a suburban business park that I think is the issue here. I think it's a given that the block won't match the existing towers in the complex, so the architects would have a variety of options.
The Hermes facade across the street has much more style than this block.
This is as bad as the Simpson Tower reclad in Toronto (and the big flat canopy seems to be cut and pasted from the new CIBC Square in Toronto).

Just look at the awful street level podium at 745 Thurlow from MCMP. The most flattering thing that can be said for the project is that it looks like they started building an office tower and ran out of money at the 5th floor.

http://www.mcmparchitects.com/projects/745-thurlow/

While the rotunda design is just out of Apple's design book, it will be interesting to compare the two corners once both projects wrap up.

[officedweller]

At least the Apple store addresses the corner.

- the Best Buy Winners building on Granville does a better job - it has an atrium with a 'prow' on the corner.
- the Sportchek former Chapters at Infinity (Robson and Howe) also does a better job.
- L-Aria on Robson (H-Mart) also does a better job at addressing a corner.
- even Vancouver Centre (London Drugs) is better.

[Feathered Friend]

My photos


From Oak & 7th


From Choklit Park


From Choklit Park


From Choklit Park

To walk the streets of Vancouver’s Fairview Slopes is to realize we don’t need to choose between the beauty of nature, or a great urban environment, we can have both. We’ve seen many dark days from these hills, but they always remind us to keep striving for a brighter future.

https://twitter.com/City_Duo/status/1287563500538097665?s=20

[jollyburger]

I personally think they should do something like MNP Tower and have the new building relate in some geometric form with the towers. Is it worth the effort in the end to just house RBC at dirt cheap rent? Probably not.

[mcminsen]

I noticed the renovations seem to have begun at 1770 Davie. They have demolished some ground level stuff. I think there used to be some parking on a second level.

Here are some links to a news article and some previous posts about this building:

https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news...west-end-rental-building-berkeley-towers

https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?p=7479099#post7479099

https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?p=8434160#post8434160

https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?p=8565830#post8565830




July 26 '20, my pics

[osirisboy]

There was only just surface parking. What they demolished was an over hang that went along davie street. Happy to see this start.

[rofina]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

There was only just surface parking. What they demolished was an over hang that went along davie street. Happy to see this start.

The location of that tower is unreal. What a buy.

That's a trophy asset in the making for sure.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

i always hated that building; hideous thing and never in great shape. thank god it is gone.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

i always hated that building; hideous thing and never in great shape. thank god it is gone.

It isn't going anywhere.

[jollyburger]

Maybe they'll paint it a nice discreet shade of gray.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Maybe they'll paint it a nice discreet shade of gray.

The Berkeley Tower was built in 1958, and in the 1960s it was indeed painted off-white and charcoal grey - so if they go back to the original colour schems that's what it would look like.