601 Beach Crescent | 202m | 67fl | Proposed - Page 18

Feathered Friend · #**341** Posted **Aug 3, 2021, 10:35 PM**

Quote:

Not Ready For Prime Time – Vancouver’s Gateway Dancer Stumbles Into A Four Month Delay

601 Beach Crescent (DP-2021-00162)
There’s nothing like the atmosphere of a “super” Urban Design Panel meeting, and even senior city staff admitted they were excited to present this proposal under the Higher Buildings Policy. Granted, its general shape wasn’t up for debate, as after three revisions, over three years and despite an ongoing lawsuit, city council approved that aspect last September (pg 7). Rather, this was to test whether this dancer-inspired form would fit within the significant height reduction, and “pile of conditions” (pg 28-54) placed upon it.

To aid that determination, internationally renowned architects, Laura Jiminez, and Robin Williams, were brought in as non-voting panellists. Known locally for their lead roles in designing Vancouver’s Waterfront Crystal, and Lululemon’s new headquarters respectively, they also participated in this project’s rezoning phase review. That’s why they appreciated the substantial work that been done to improve its gateway relationship with Vancouver House, and its other neighbours. However, neither these guests, nor regular members thought it was ready to join them.

https://cityduo.wordpress.com/2021/08/03...dancer-stumbles-into-a-four-month-delay/

Klazu · #**342** Posted **Aug 3, 2021, 10:59 PM**

Too bad about losing another 3 meters from the height but the podium has better massing now.

officedweller · #**343** Posted **Aug 4, 2021, 10:23 PM**

The podium seems to look more like the base of Pinnacle's One Yonge project in Toronto.
A clone of the first One Yonge tower would look good here.

scryer · #**344** Posted **Aug 5, 2021, 1:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Klazu

Too bad about losing another 3 meters from the height but the podium has better massing now.

Just because it is slightly unclear to me: did they just shave the 3 meters from the crown of this building? Because the floor count didn't change; am I right?

Vin · #**345** Posted **Aug 5, 2021, 7:43 PM**

Don't know why, but a certain angle of the latest design makes the tower look like the Febreeze spray can. Won't be surprised if people start calling this the Febreeze Building.

I actually like the old podium design better, although the newly added heights to the retail units is preferable.

officedweller · #**346** Posted **Aug 5, 2021, 8:47 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vin

Don't know why, but a certain angle of the latest design makes the tower look like the Febreeze spray can.

... then so does the MNP building.

Jimbo604 · #**347** Posted **Aug 6, 2021, 4:22 PM**

Is it just me or does Vancouver go into conniptions about approving a 53-storey tower (in the downtown core, no less)? Meanwhile Burnaby approves towers like this on a regular basis? And Surrey too?

Vin · #**348** Posted **Aug 6, 2021, 7:30 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by officedweller

... then so does the MNP building.

But not as much.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimbo604

Is it just me or does Vancouver go into conniptions about approving a 53-storey tower (in the downtown core, no less)? Meanwhile Burnaby approves towers like this on a regular basis? And Surrey too?

No surprise here. The insecure "planners" in Vancouver need to follow everything by the book and to the teeth to feel safe, knowing that their arbitrary or imaginary mountain views from the south side of the downtown peninsula are forever protected. I don't think anyone there is ever ready to step out of their comfort zone to challenge the status quo anytime soon.

whatnext · #**349** Posted **Aug 6, 2021, 9:43 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimbo604

Is it just me or does Vancouver go into conniptions about approving a 53-storey tower (in the downtown core, no less)? Meanwhile Burnaby approves towers like this on a regular basis? And Surrey too?

Burnaby and Surrey don't have any views worth preserving.

Feathered Friend · #**350** Posted **Oct 14, 2021, 3:54 AM**

Another bad day at the Urban Design Panel, one might assume another five month delay is in the cards.

MysteryQuest · #**351** Posted **Oct 14, 2021, 11:04 PM**

Any details on the UDP meeting, I noticed the minutes are not posted, just the agenda?

Why 5 months?

jollyburger · #**352** Posted **Oct 14, 2021, 11:09 PM**

I'm guessing it's something to do with the podium

Some photos from the meeting

https://twitter.com/CMRealty/status/1448453487537184773/photo/4

MysteryQuest · #**353** Posted **Oct 15, 2021, 7:49 PM**

Thanks for the pictures JollyBurger.

If I recall from the last meeting, the issue was the podium didn't take into consideration the continuity with the townhomes on Seymour Mews. It looks like a nice improvement on the mews side.

At what point is the UDP delaying just to delay?

seamusmcduff · #**354** Posted **Oct 15, 2021, 8:48 PM**

I really like the podium. At a certain point, it does feel like A/UDP panelists are intent inserting their own opinion into a project instead of determining if it meets certain urban design standards. Just because it's not your preference doesn't mean the project has actual issues.

Cypherus · #**355** Posted **Oct 15, 2021, 10:43 PM**

I think the podium looks good as well. In weather days like these, who is really noticing any issues? Sometimes I think the UDP is just a group of people trying to cajole the developer in improving something about their proposal in order to justify their time and existence.

GenWhy? · #**356** Posted **Oct 15, 2021, 11:29 PM**

UDP: "It doesn't look like the architecture has been refined enough"

Applicant: *shows same image just in higher resolution*

UDP: "The interaction with the public realm is much improved!"

Klazu · #**357** Posted **Oct 16, 2021, 3:22 AM**

I also think the podium has already improved and I like the sloped roof of the tower. If I would have to guess, the UDP would like the tower even shorter as it stands out too much from the world-renown Yaletown tabletop. Can't have that.

Feathered Friend · #**358** Posted **Dec 22, 2021, 12:37 AM**

Quote:

High-rise Dancer Once Again Leaves Vancouver’s Urban Design Panel Demanding An Encore

601 Beach Crescent (DP-2021-00162)
As another year draws to an end, this proposal under the Higher Buildings Policy was a stark reminder that almost four have passed since Hannah and I started City Duo. It was first revealed only a couple months after we began to recap our experiences at Vancouver’s civic meetings, and it’s hard to believe this review process still isn’t finished. Frankly, given its ongoing struggles at the Urban Design Panel, it may outlast us, as we can’t do this forever.

To be fair, as city council has already approved its height and general shape, it’s the finer details that have seen it falter at the development application stage. Those were largely absent from the concept presented earlier this year, and the lack of any information around the Seymour Mews earned it a well deserved motion of re-submission. As predicted, several months of delay followed, and now these volunteers were once again tasked to judge whether it met our city’s standards.

https://cityduo.wordpress.com/2021/12/21...-urban-design-panel-demanding-an-encore/

officedweller · #**359** Posted **Dec 22, 2021, 1:29 AM**

Hmmm - the "fish scale" cladding has morphed even more.
The seems to be even more of a disconnect between the vertical stacks of balconies and the curving form of the cladding.
I think they would do better with a cladding system like The Alberni, but that would reduce the window area, which is probbaly the prime selling point of this project (English Bay views).

Jimbo604 · #**360** Posted **Dec 23, 2021, 4:55 AM**

So is this moving ahead or what?