The Ultimate Vancouver Rumour Thread!

[Feathered Friend]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Typo in the tweet: 525 Seymour

But it's heritage so doesn't that limit the "interesting" aspect of this property? Aquilini owns it.

Thanks for the catch!

Assuming that this LOE would also include the adjacent properties, it might make something possible, as the height allowed here should be similar to 525 Granville across the lane.

[officedweller]

Model in the window of Busby & Associates on Homer St.

Probably an old model for an old proposal to replace the Evergreen Building?

The streets are labelled Hastings and Jervis.

By me today.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Model in the window of Busby & Associates on Homer St.

Probably an old model for an old proposal to replace the Evergreen Building?

The streets are labelled Hastings and Jervis.

By me today.

Seems like it. I think the old owner John Laxton (now owned by QuadReal?) was trying to do something to maximize the value of the land (glass addition on top along with converting it to residential or new office tower) and then the city dropped a heritage designation on the property. Busby also helped on the design of the flatiron building across the street. Think 300 feet was the possible height of the new tower.

https://council.vancouver.ca/20050331/pe3.htm

http://heritagevancouver.org/top10-watch-list/2005/3-evergreen-building-1980-saved/

http://heritagevancouver.org/top10-watch-list/2005/7-percy-underwood-office/

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Seems like it. I think the old owner John Laxton (now owned by QuadReal?) was trying to do something to maximize the value of the land (glass addition on top along with converting it to residential or new office tower) and then the city dropped a heritage designation on the property. Busby also helped on the design of the flatiron building across the street. Think 300 feet was the possible height of the new tower.

My memory of the episode is slightly different. The owner did want to add four extra floors and convert to residential, and there was no policy to limit the conversion at the time. The DP Board however, to some surprise at the time, found the addition to alter the Erickson design too much, and turned the extra space down. That's when the building faced demolition and replacement with the project shown in the model - which was actually approved by the DP Board as it met all the zoning requirements.

The Director of Planning managed to negotiate a deal that would allow one of two options to preserve the building, and designate it (so protecting it as a Heritage Building) either as a residential conversion, or retain as office with a larger 'bonus' density to reflect the difference between residential and commercial value. (The City can't force an HRA onto an owner, only offer a big enough carrot to go that route). Fortunately the conversion had all sorts of issues, which meant it was then sold, with the bonus density, to Quadreal (under its earlier name as Bentall), and they carried out the seismic upgrades and restoration. Interestingly, most of the bonus density is still unused in the Heritage Density 'Bank'

[jollyburger]

Something about the HRA for Evergreen

https://council.vancouver.ca/20060418/documents/ph6complete.pdf

And the 2006 purchase of Evergreen by Bentall:

While Bentall will build a new office tower in downtown Calgary, the 25-year old Evergreen building at 1285 West Pender in Vancouver couldn't be more different. Built by renowned architect Arthur Erickson, the 10-storey building is considered by Heritage Vancouver to be a modern landmark because of its irregularly shaped pyramid structure, broad stepped terraces, planted balconies that reflect the local mountain topography, and prominent saw-tooth profile.

The former owner, John Laxton, had applied for and received the option of converting the Evergreen Building to residential or staying commercial. Yardley McNeill, heritage planner for the City of Vancouver, says that, because the building would be saved from demolition and restored, Mr. Laxton was also given a 177,000-square-foot transferable density bonus. Basically, that bonus is imaginary space that cannot be used to extend the Evergreen Building, but can be applied to other sites or be sold to other developers.

The transferable density bonus acknowledges that there is a cost involved in restoring heritage buildings and that these sites typically are underbuilt. The site of the Evergreen Building is currently zoned for a 300-foot-tall building -- whereas the actual building is only 130 feet high.

With the purchase of the Evergreen Building, Bentall also gains this transferable density bonus. Mr. Astles says that translates into 11 additional floors, which may be used to build another office building in the downtown area or divided between different projects.

Chris Clibbon, senior research analyst at CB Richard Ellis in Vancouver, says it's a smart investment for Bentall.

"It is very valuable to have that kind of density, it's like shares almost," he says. "This is a very tight office market and there aren't a lot of opportunities for developers to build. Buying an existing office building is a very smart move --especially a building with the status of the Evergreen Building. Architecturally, it's significant and it is a fairly large-size, class A building."

Mr. Astles says there will be a "significant amount" of capital spent on renovating the building, including restoring the mechanical and electrical systems, upgrading the elevator, replacing the roof and windows and fixing up the lobby area. "It will be a lot of work and will go on for some time."

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-o...eives-some-welcome-relief/article711488/

[LeftCoaster]

Reliance hinting at a 46 storey tower on the MacBlo Parking structure behind the waffle building.

It's a very tight site, so while I'm not usually a fan of residential in the financial district, this is one instance where it does make sense, as it's not replacing a potential commercial development site.

https://vancouversun.com/opinion/columni...s-to-clearing-backlog-of-rental-projects

[jollyburger]

I wonder if any of the view cones would impact the height of the building.

Stack's view cones

https://rezoning.vancouver.ca/applications/1133melville/documents/view-analysis.pdf

[dleung]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

Reliance hinting at a 46 storey tower on the MacBlo Parking structure behind the waffle building.

It's a very tight site, so while I'm not usually a fan of residential in the financial district, this is one instance where it does make sense, as it's not replacing a potential commercial development site.

https://vancouversun.com/opinion/columni...s-to-clearing-backlog-of-rental-projects

Gonna miss that ivy wall.





Ideally they'd put a 175m hotel/office tower on the Royal centre parkade - do a new mid-block plaza connecting with Burrard Station, and stick only enough building (up to about 10 stories - cultural/flagship-retail?) at the Thurlow corner to cover up a reconfigured loading area for the MacMillan Bloedel building, so that we're not concealing this landmark. That building always wanted to land at some ground level even if on a raised plaza (2nd blue arrow branching towards Thurlow), rather than buried next to another building's podium.

[city guy]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

Reliance hinting at a 46 storey tower on the MacBlo Parking structure behind the waffle building.

It's a very tight site, so while I'm not usually a fan of residential in the financial district, this is one instance where it does make sense, as it's not replacing a potential commercial development site.

https://vancouversun.com/opinion/columni...s-to-clearing-backlog-of-rental-projects

I'll be interested see how they can possibly situate a building there and deal with the Erikson Building's window proximity in terms of privacy

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

It's a very tight site, so while I'm not usually a fan of residential in the financial district, this is one instance where it does make sense, as it's not replacing a potential commercial development site.

What makes you say that? Is this site any more constrained than the super-tight space between the Guinness Building and the Marine Building, where the MNP Tower--an extremely successful commercial office project--was built? Indeed, to the naked eye, the MNP Tower site looks even tighter.

Furthermore, recent history has shown that building residential towers in the heart of the CBD do not just preclude vital future commercial redevelopment of one site alone; they also can create adverse limitations on any future commercial redevelopment of surrounding sites by the new residents who cry they now have a god-given right to their views in perpetuity and the city politicians who out of political expediency acquiesce to them.

This site is situated within the very core of Vancouver's commercial financial district and has strategic importance to the future economic growth and health of the city. Cannibalizing this important commercial site in the heart of Vancouver's Central Business District with a residential tower, in my opinion, would be shortsighted and unwise.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

i really hope they dont build any residential by the MacBlo building... it is nice on its own plus there is no way should there ever be residential in the CBD.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

What makes you say that? Is this site any more constrained than the super-tight space between the Guinness Building and the Marine Building, where the MNP Tower--an extremely successful commercial office project--was built? Indeed, to the naked eye, the MNP Tower site looks even tighter.

Furthermore, recent history has shown that residential projects in the heart of the CBD do not just preclude vital future commercial redevelopment of one site alone; they also can create adverse limitations on any future commercial redevelopment of surrounding sites by the new residents who cry they now have a god-given right to their views in perpetuity and the city politicians who out of political expediency acquiesce to them.

This site is situated within the very core of Vancouver's commercial financial district and has strategic importance to the future economic growth and health of the city. Cannibalizing this important commercial site in the heart of Vancouver's Central Business District with a residential tower, in my opinion, would be shortsighted and unwise.

Well sticking a residential building across from an office tower probably has different dynamics than MNP/Marine Building.

It's a rental and they won't probably have much of a view anyways. It's also possible that the office floorplates that people want can't be achieved on that piece of land.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Well sticking a residential building across from an office tower probably has different dynamics than MNP/Marine Building.

I think you might be confused. The issue is not whether a residential development on this site has different dynamics than the MNP Tower site; it's wether a commercial development on this site has different dynamics than the MNP Tower site. If the economics of building a commercial tower on this site are not substantially different than the highly-constrained MNP Tower site, where an incredibly successful commercial tower was built, then the argument that a residential development here does not rob this site of important future commercial uses is unpersuasive.

[Klazu]

46 floors sounds the right kind of height for this central area but I am also disappointed by it being residential not to mention lower income rental in a prime office location.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

I think you might be confused. The issue is not whether a residential development on this site has different dynamics than the MNP Tower site; it's wether a commercial development on this site has different dynamics than the MNP Tower site. If the economics of building a commercial tower on this site are not substantially different than the highly-constrained MNP Tower site, where an incredibly successful commercial tower was built, then the argument that a residential development here does not rob this site of important future commercial uses is unpersuasive.

Yes it has different dynamics.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by dleung

Ideally they'd put a 175m hotel/office tower on the Royal centre parkade .

That's not a parkade - it's the Hyatt Ballrooms.

*************

A 46 storey residential tower would be about the same height at the Royal Tower.
This site lies within a view shadow behind the Royal Tower.
The pics in the report posted by Jollyburger for The Stack show a triangular building (surprise!) would fit in the view shadow.
A triangular building could also address overlook issues with fins (like The Exchange) and retain views of the MacBlo Building from Thurlow St.

Agreed, though, that the site should remain commercial. Maybe a hotel tower?

Originally Posted by jollyburger

I wonder if any of the view cones would impact the height of the building.

Stack's view cones

https://rezoning.vancouver.ca/applications/1133melville/documents/view-analysis.pdf

[vanman]

From the Dailyhive.

[officedweller]

Thanks.
Nothing special about that tower for such a prominent location.
The 2 sout corners appear to be chamfered - maybe due to the view cone on the SW corner and made symmetrical on the SE corner?

Looking at this aerial shot, what would be very cool is if they added a 3rd taller office slab to 1075 West Georgia,
linked in at each lower floor to the older tower and with a new elevator bank for higher floors, thereby reducing core requirements.


https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/1075-west-georgia-street-vancouver-rental-tower-proposal

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Thanks.
Nothing special about that tower for such a prominent location.

Looking at this aerial shot, what would be very cool is if they added a 3rd taller office slab to 1075 West Georgia, linked in at each lower floor to the older tower and with a new elevator bank for higher floors, thereby reducing core requirements.

If the tower was 100% commercial (a hotel and office, for example) the floorplate could probably be a bit bigger. There's no policy to support the idea of a stand-alone residential building here in the CBD.

The exceptions that allow residential in the CBD are the preservation of heritage or retention of existing non-market housing. There's none associated with this proposal, so it would set a precedent that would allow any developer to ignore the housing moratorium in the CBD and argue for a residential use.

Even where there has been a justification for residential - like the Hotel Georgia tower for example, the policy requires the existing base zoned commercial floorspace to be provided first - which is why there's 11 floors of office space under the Hotel Georgia tower, and a hotel under Shangri-La (which also preserved the Coastal Church) and the Trump Tower (where the original application pre-dated the moratorium on residential). This proposal doesn't even seem to be proposing the 11FSR Commercial minimum required.

Jon Stovell should know all about the new rules for the CBD introduced over a decade ago - he sat on the advisory committee that drew them up. The analysis that was done then about future demand was pretty accurate in predicting future demand for space, and to suggest it's out of date is disingenuous. We still have a relatively low vacancy rate, even when the pandemic is hitting demand in cities (probably temporarily). Half the available sites analyzed in the study of the CBD to provide additional space have now been developed, so the remaining opportunities to add more commercial space are more important in future, not less.

[csbvan]

This tower should not happen. The precedent should not be set.