Downtown Vancouver Updates

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by whatnext

WTF? Seriously, why even bother? Whatever context the historical building had is lost in this. Just tear it down.

As long as these old brick rectangles aren't getting in the way of real development, doesn't seem like a big deal. Looks like they're completely gutting it and leaving the front and alley facade's just as art pieces anyway. Can't imagine that'll leave the alley any less grungy than it currently is, but at least fake heritage isn't in the way for this one.

[rofina]

Originally Posted by chowhou

As long as these old brick rectangles aren't getting in the way of real development, doesn't seem like a big deal. Looks like they're completely gutting it and leaving the front and alley facade's just as art pieces anyway. Can't imagine that'll leave the alley any less grungy than it currently is, but at least fake heritage isn't in the way for this one.

I agree. But this Cities idea of "heritage" is pretty damn ridiculous.

Heritage is apparently maintaining non descript brick facades - in this case, I actually like the finished look, but heritage? Come on.

The other embarrassing example is those 4 houses on stilts in mount pleasant.

They're being left because "heritage."

Reality is its a few old 2/4's left and some shiplap. The entire structures will be rebuilt anyway the whole notion is laughable and a waste of human effort.

[GenWhy?]

It is odd they are not fixing the main entrance to the original 1925 version.

[officedweller]

They say they will:

• reinstate the symmetrical configuration of the
front facade along Cambie street based on
archival documentation;

Can't tell if there will be a transom above a glass door like in the drawing.

[Feathered Friend]

In news sure to be welcomed by many West End parents, the new Coal Harbour Elementary School has won the unanimous approval of Vancouver’s Development Permit Board. In contrast, 13 members of the public were opposed, 1 was in support, & another desired more bike lanes.

Those against questioned if a new school will be needed after the pandemic, as Lord Roberts Annex is only 31 students over capacity. 1 admitted opposing a school is like opposing Christmas, but believed this was the wrong location for what others described as noisy kids.

The preference of of some was that taxpayers money could be better used for a new, or at least an expanded community centre instead. That said, the biggest concern was that rush hour traffic volumes might become even worse.

https://twitter.com/City_Duo/status/1374164398122573830?s=20

[Migrant_Coconut]

Those against questioned if a new school will be needed after the pandemic, as Lord Roberts Annex is only 31 students over capacity. 1 admitted opposing a school is like opposing Christmas, but believed this was the wrong location for what others described as noisy kids.

(sigh) Coal Harbour, don't ever change.

[mcminsen]

Originally Posted by mcminsen

Jan.27 '21, my pics

Progress on the townhouses base.




March 20 '21, my pics

[officedweller]

Richards & Smithe Park

Pics by me March 22, 2021:

[Feathered Friend]

Vancouver’s Diagrid Dilemma Pits The Energy Of The Future Against The Shadows Of The Past

526 Granville St
Considering recent events, this meeting really highlighted how our city’s rules often conflict with each other. At first glace, the Official Downtown Development Plan seems to allow this office building to reach 450 feet tall, nestle up to the block’s other towers, and shape its own appearance. However, city staff explained, three view cones limit it to 335 feet, an unwritten policy requires at least 50 feet between these buildings, and the Urban Design Panel’s thoughts would influence its look.

Given all of those conditions, it’s not surprising that nearly three years have passed since Hannah and I first saw its conceptual model. Some were surprised we could so easily identify the Leckie Block, yet one doesn’t have to frequently shop for business-wear to recognize the 120 year old style of this former Imperial Bank of Canada. That necessitated an examination by the Vancouver Heritage Commission, and their failure to support it left many on this panel quite confused.

https://cityduo.wordpress.com/2021/03/23...-future-against-the-shadows-of-the-past/

[Vin]

I'm really glad they have decided to go with the 1900 or original version of the Leckle Building facade. It's the best looking one out of the three. Good job!

[officedweller]

What, exactly, is the reason for this determination?

"As the city has determined the properties to the immediate south will never be suitable for redevelopment, ..."

Spacing between buildings?
It seems perfectly reasonable (in any other city) that the 2 lots to the south could be consolidated and a tower built there.
This screams of favouritism to Bonnis (unless Bonnis also owns them) and placing a roadblock for redevelopment of the parcels to the south.
PS - I think Bonnis developed the other 2 towers in that aerial snip- Bower Block I and Bower Block II.


https://www.google.com/maps/place/526+Gr...50d6d8f37!8m2!3d49.284187!4d-123.1154082

[rofina]

an unwritten policy requires at least 50 feet between these buildings,

Was this written as a joke?

What the f*ck is an unwritten policy?

Hold up...

Eject everyone on council because they are inept morons, reason; unwritten policy.

Glad to hear otherwise positive comments. The building is gorgeous.

[Feathered Friend]

Originally Posted by officedweller

What, exactly, is the reason for this determination?

"As the city has determined the properties to the immediate south will never be suitable for redevelopment, ..."

Spacing between buildings?
It seems perfectly reasonable (in any other city) that the 2 lots to the south could be consolidated and a tower built there.
This screams of favouritism to Bonnis (unless Bonnis also owns them) and placing a roadblock for redevelopment of the parcels to the south.
PS - I think Bonnis developed the other 2 towers in that aerial snip- Bower Block I and Bower Block II.

As a "general rule" the city would have liked to see the corner of Hastings and Granville be redeveloped, but the heritage designation of 500 Granville meant such a plan was unlikely be supported.

The city's first recommendation here was for Bonnis to approach the neighbouring property owner to buy them out, but apparently "consolidation wasn't possible."

At that point, the city examined if rezoning for something similar was possible on the sites to the south to "guard against a 23 floor street wall." In the case of 540 Granville (the former Joe Fresh), the building was considered too new, and didn't offer any public benefit. 560 Granville did offer the preservation of a building that has similar value to the Leckie Block, but its proximity to 570 Granville was thought to violate best practices when it comes to tower separation.

Originally Posted by rofina

Was this written as a joke?

What the f*ck is an unwritten policy?

Hold up...

Eject everyone on council because they are inept morons, reason; unwritten policy.

Glad to hear otherwise positive comments. The building is gorgeous.

The city has more than a few case where best practices have essentially evolved into unwritten rules. There is a tower separation requirement of 80 feet between residential towers, and if memory serves that's influenced a desire for 50 feet between office buildings.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by Feathered Friend

As a "general rule" the city would have liked to see the corner of Hastings and Granville be redeveloped, but the heritage designation of 500 Granville meant such a plan was unlikely be supported.

The city's first recommendation here was for Bonnis to approach the neighbouring property owner to buy them out, but apparently "consolidation wasn't possible."

At that point, the city examined if rezoning for something similar was possible on the sites to the south to "guard against a 23 floor street wall." In the case of 540 Granville (the former Joe Fresh), the building was considered too new, and didn't offer any public benefit. 560 Granville did offer the preservation of a building that has similar value to the Leckie Block, but its proximity to 570 Granville was thought to violate best practices when it comes to tower separation.

I'm not sure what you mean by the Joe Fresh Building was "too new"?
Surely they could redevelop to some height without a requirement for a heritage tie-in?

[Feathered Friend]

Originally Posted by officedweller

I'm not sure what you mean by the Joe Fresh Building was "too new"?
Surely they could redevelop to some height without a requirement for a heritage tie-in?

Ya, that line puzzled me when I first heard it too. Originally I thought they meant that since it was so new, it wouldn't be sustainable to tear it down.

However, in hindsight I think they meant that as only one of these two property owners could do a rezoning, it was better to allow the proposal that would save an old building.

[officedweller]

I'm not an expert, but what's the requirement for a CD-1 rezoning? ie without a heritage retention component?

Anyways, the 'never' is overstepping, as zoning laws can change!

[logan5]

Maybe have another unwritten rule that allows a couple of these office tower/heritage retention at Hastings and Main. The area is gong nowhere fast, so maybe office would work better for certain sites.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by logan5

Maybe have another unwritten rule that allows a couple of these office tower/heritage retention at Hastings and Main. The area is gong nowhere fast, so maybe office would work better for certain sites.

would there even be any companies that would want to rent offices there? i doubt employees would like walking past people using their front door as a bathroom and a place to shoot up drugs.

as for unwritten rules... that doesn't even make any sense. either there's a rule, that's written, or there's no rule.

[phesto]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Spacing between buildings?
It seems perfectly reasonable (in any other city) that the 2 lots to the south could be consolidated and a tower built there.
This screams of favouritism to Bonnis (unless Bonnis also owns them) and placing a roadblock for redevelopment of the parcels to the south.
PS - I think Bonnis developed the other 2 towers in that aerial snip- Bower Block I and Bower Block II.

I think the Bower buildings were built and are still owned by Harwood Development Corp., the real estate company started by former mayor Tom Campbell and now run by his children.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by phesto

I think the Bower buildings were built and are still owned by Harwood Development Corp., the real estate company started by former mayor Tom Campbell and now run by his children.

I think you're correct; the Bower Building at 543 Granville was developed for the Campbell Family in 1995. It has that name because it replaced an earlier Bower Building developed by an Australian, George Bower. The similar building on the opposite side is just called 570 (or 580) Granville Street. Same designers, same owners, completed five years later. The only name it has these days (sometimes) is the Sophos Building, because of its lead tenant.