The Ultimate Vancouver Rumour Thread!

[rofina]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

What page is the silhouette on?

No idea. The whole thing is redacted. Its somewhat comical, actually.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

What page is the silhouette on?

I assume page 5 for the cover letter since that's the only silhouette.

[bb1510]

Anyone know the reasoning behind all the redacted content?

Basically, do they consent with the developer on what can be exposed or not or anything that’s not released to the public can be redacted

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by bb1510

Anyone know the reasoning behind all the redacted content?

Basically, do they consent with the developer on what can be exposed or not or anything that’s not released to the public can be redacted

It's very troubling that the city responds to a FOI request with this kind of mockery. What could be so sensitive that its citizens are not allowed to see?

[ericmacm]

The sections are redacted under reference to specific sections of BC's Freedom of Information Act. Just about everything relevant is redacted under S.21(1), which is a section that determines if a disclosure is harmful to the business interests of a third party. Revealing such information could potentially harm the competitive or negotiating position of the developer, result in undue financial loss, or result in similar information no longer being provided to the public when it is needed to be. If the city were to provide all of the information prematurely ahead of the appropriate release while negotiations are still happening, it could possibly put them in the position to be sued.

The information about this development will come out publicly when it needs to. Some private information is meant to be private, regardless of our FOI laws. It doesn't guarantee you access to whatever information you want.

[officedweller]

Thanks!

If the proposal exceeds view cone requirements, then I could see it being detrimental to the project to have a premature disclosure.

Interesting bits:

Apart from the obvious - that there will be hotel, office, residential and a childcare facility (as well as retention (?) of the heritage Dunsmuir Hotel). I doubt the new hotel would be in the old heritage building, but there's no mention specifically of "social housing".

As mentioned - "The Forum".
There are also podium terraces and "Activated Soffits (i.e. lighted?).

The're the obligatory view cones section, but there are also "Skyline Studies". Since the view cones limit height to the 300ft-ish range (which probably wouldn't warrant separate skyline studies), they must be proposing an exceedance of the view cones.

I see no heading for a direct connection to Granville SkyTrain Station concourse ticketing hall - although that could be under "Community Benefits".


https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/2020-120-release.pdf

[Klazu]

Is there ANY chance that the earlier wild vision would be back on the drawing board? I never truly understood where that video came from. It would have been amazing.

[bb1510]

Originally Posted by Klazu

Is there ANY chance that the earlier wild vision would be back on the drawing board? I never truly understood where that video came from. It would have been amazing.

Close to zero, original proposal was probably a submission from a competition from the developer; if it was contracted by the developer, it would not have been released by the developer or architect as they would be bound by NDAs.

Another possibility could be that the design architect MAD and the rendering firm did not have an NDA hence why the video was released by the rendering studio and not the design architects. Either way, Holborn would not be happy.

With that said, while the older form was much more 'complex', you could easily see it be value engineered with cheaper glazing and cladding akin to the Aquilini towers by Rogers Arena. There's no way the developer would use double curvature glazing the 'tall' tower whereas with this proposal, given it's more simplistic massing, there's a very high chance the city will mandate higher quality cladding and glazing for the project.

Actually looking at the release, the city staff was actually trying to redact the building silhouette as well but was unable to do so with the text as another similar silhouette was redacted on the title page

[jollyburger]

They had a new model up at the Granville Island workshop and they stuck pieces of paper to various parts of the building. I assume it'll get covered up at night now

[Feathered Friend]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

They had a new model up at the Granville Island workshop and they stuck pieces of paper to various parts of the building. I assume it'll get covered up at night now

Thanks for the tip. We popped by today, and grabbed a couple pictures of one of these twin towers. Unfortunately, like most tall things, they're not meant for Vancouver, they're going to take off to Seattle. There's a really cool element that we were unable to get a shot of, but it responds well to that region.


We'll post the photos we did get to the right regional section later, but here's the link to the project.

http://www.benaroya.com/1200-stewart

[jollyburger]

More fantasy than rumour.

If SAP is like other companies and mostly working remotely, I wonder at what point they might consider redeveloping this site? It probably just sits under the View Cone 9.1 so it's probably a similar 300 ft ceiling on the site.

[officedweller]

SAP just rents the space and I hear they renewed their lease recently.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by officedweller

SAP just rents the space and I hear they renewed their lease recently.

Still probably owned by Joe Segal/Kingswood Capital. It used to be a Hudsons Bay warehouse and he got the building when he bought Zellers.

https://changingvancouver.wordpress.com/2020/03/16/910-mainland-street/

[officedweller]

Thanks!

[jollyburger]

Two glassy condo models up at the Granville Island model shop. Nothing that impressive except that there are two of them. Maybe 30-40 stories tall with strong banding around the entire structure. Sort of looked like these Royal Towers minus the black cladding:



https://www.urbanyvr.com/royal-towers-re...40-storeys-proposed-for-new-westminster/

[goodcitywhenfinished]

https://www.unstudio.com/en/page/13956/vancouver-mixed-use-tower

Anyone have more info on this proposal? I have never seen it before.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by goodcitywhenfinished

https://www.unstudio.com/en/page/13956/vancouver-mixed-use-tower

Anyone have more info on this proposal? I have never seen it before.

Hi. Welcome! As I read the webpage, it was a competition project , so unless it won it may not become a proposal. The building next to their scheme appears to be 1668 Alberni, so they're presumably located somewhere next to that. It's possible that the towers proposed on West Georgia were the ones that won.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Hi. Welcome! As I read the webpage, it was a competition project , so unless it won it may not become a proposal. The building next to their scheme appears to be 1668 Alberni, so they're presumably located somewhere next to that. It's possible that the towers proposed on West Georgia were the ones that won.

It's the next block down across the street from 1727 Alberni. From 1738 all the way to the Bidwell corner. Strata condos

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

It's the next block down across the street from 1727 Alberni. From 1738 all the way to the Bidwell corner. Strata condos

Thanks. So another West End Plan project, and if it's 1738 Alberni, presumably another group of low rise 1980s condo building owners have agred to sell to a developer for redevelopment.

[jollyburger]

I guess 735 Bidwell is also included.

The studio is giving a virtual talk for the Interior Design Show this fall.

https://vancouver.interiordesignshow.com/en/schedule/october-6.html

They won a Melbourne skyscraper competition beating out BIG, OMA..



https://www.archdaily.com/900217/unstudio-named-winner-landmark-melbourne-southbank-project