Downtown Vancouver Updates

[s211]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Gawd, what a load of hooey:

..“Density [on the site] has never increased since a hundred years ago and the conservative sturdy stone buildings interact less and less with the urban fabric of a young, dynamic metropolis and important gateway to Asia. Sitting near the edge of the Pacific, globalization has largely passed the Sinclair Centre by,” states the federal government’s rationale for the project...

What's truly sickening is that someone actually gets paid to write such drivel.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Gawd, what a load of hooey:

..“Density [on the site] has never increased since a hundred years ago and the conservative sturdy stone buildings interact less and less with the urban fabric of a young, dynamic metropolis and important gateway to Asia. Sitting near the edge of the Pacific, globalization has largely passed the Sinclair Centre by,” states the federal government’s rationale for the project...

Please Mr. Trudeau, explain how a highrise dropped in the middle of that is going to "interact with the urban fabric of a young, dynamic metropolis and important gateway to Asia" any better than what is there (unless they tear down the heritage facade). It wasn't that long ago the Feds announced they'd be selling off office buildings.

If they (the feds) try & proceed with this in any way, then let this devolve into the biggest knock-down, drag-out blood spattered brawl this city has known. This is an insult, a traumatism, it's a blowtorch on the face of The Mona Lisa ..... not enough words. Whose idea was this anyway, Justin Trudeau's? I can still only half beleive I'm reading it all. My adrenaline surges, my stomach tightens, I want to be sick, to lash out .... really

[GenWhy?]

I think the element talking about improving interaction with its surroundings is primarily about the Granville / Cordova pedestrian overpass. These buildings were built when a railyard was on Cordova and was undesirable and the grade was vastly different.

The current "street grade" of the buildings could easily be remodeled.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by dleung

Queen Richmond Centre in Toronto for example:

Yes, a better example than CitiCorp Tower.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Keep the north building (the only one that looks decent on all four sides) and gut the others. Let's get a proper office tower out of this.

There are tons of locations downtown and West Broadway where there are a lot other uglier buildings that deserve to be torn down to be replaced with new gleaming towers. Again I implore the Feds to just leave these beautiful heritage buildings alone. In modern days builders can't even manage to come up with the kind of cash to get these kinds of buildings built without incurring a huge loss, and that makes these structures even more invaluable.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Yes, a better example than CitiCorp Tower.

Your example does not work here: simply no room for a tower.

Originally Posted by whatnext

Gawd, what a load of hooey:

..“Density [on the site] has never increased since a hundred years ago and the conservative sturdy stone buildings interact less and less with the urban fabric of a young, dynamic metropolis and important gateway to Asia. Sitting near the edge of the Pacific, globalization has largely passed the Sinclair Centre by,” states the federal government’s rationale for the project...

Please Mr. Trudeau, explain how a highrise dropped in the middle of that is going to "interact with the urban fabric of a young, dynamic metropolis and important gateway to Asia" any better than what is there (unless they tear down the heritage facade). It wasn't that long ago the Feds announced they'd be selling off office buildings.

Exactly. If that were true, globalization has already passed by a lot of Europe for decades. What a load of crap.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

If they (the feds) try & proceed with this in any way, then let this devolve into the biggest knock-down, drag-out blood spattered brawl this city has known. This is an insult, a traumatism, it's a blowtorch on the face of The Mona Lisa ..... not enough words. Whose idea was this anyway, Justin Trudeau's? I can still only half beleive I'm reading it all. My adrenaline surges, my stomach tightens, I want to be sick, to lash out .... really

The Feds simply spent too much during the pandemic and is bleeding from the coffers. Only way to recoup the expenditure is to sell off Fed assets, like how unproductive people in this country know best: sell and live off property. Yes we need to stop them.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Vin

There are tons of locations downtown and West Broadway where there are a lot other uglier buildings that deserve to be torn down to be replaced with new gleaming towers. Again I implore the Feds to just leave these beautiful heritage buildings alone. In modern days builders can't even manage to come up with the kind of cash to get these kinds of buildings built without incurring a huge loss, and that makes these structures even more invaluable.

Or they can just build on the one they already own. The feds only need to save the outside; the inside is just City Square and old Brentwood. Shouldn't you be excited for another highrise?

Originally Posted by Vin

Your example does not work here: simply no room for a tower.

Yes there is - gutting the interiors of the three southernmost buildings frees up a sizeable L-shaped chunk that can become a tower.

Originally Posted by Vin

The Feds simply spent too much during the pandemic and is bleeding from the coffers. Only way to recoup the expenditure is to sell off Fed assets, like how unproductive people in this country know best: sell and live off property. Yes we need to stop them.

Except they're not selling the centre. They're redeveloping it.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Or they can just build on the one they already own. The feds only need to save the outside; the inside is just City Square and old Brentwood. Shouldn't you be excited for another highrise?

Nope, not at all, at least not here.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Yes there is - gutting the interiors of the three southernmost buildings frees up a sizeable L-shaped chunk that can become a tower.

Look closer: the "interiors" you mentioned are beautiful heritage facades: only that they face inwards. It should be a crime for anyone to pull those down.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Except they're not selling the centre. They're redeveloping it.

Making money out of real estate. Same thing. And you must be dreaming that they will just keep it without selling it to make a profit.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Vin

Look closer: the "interiors" you mentioned are beautiful heritage facades: only that they face inwards. It should be a crime for anyone to pull those down.

Making money out of real estate. Same thing. And you must be dreaming that they will just keep it without selling it to make a profit.

Look even closer. The "beautiful heritage facades" on the inside are seafoam glass and generic stone; it's the exteriors facing the street that're worth keeping. The real crime would be allowing NIMBY sympathizers to let a perfectly good block with a 29-floor allowance go to waste (and gutting another building with a less generous height limit), when it's possible to have density and heritage at the same time.

Breaking news: the feds don't really need more offices; they don't even need the offices they have right now! You heard it here first, people!

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by Vin

There are tons of locations downtown and West Broadway where there are a lot other uglier buildings that deserve to be torn down to be replaced with new gleaming towers. Again I implore the Feds to just leave these beautiful heritage buildings alone. In modern days builders can't even manage to come up with the kind of cash to get these kinds of buildings built without incurring a huge loss, and that makes these structures even more invaluable.

As mentioned by Changing City, the Feds can't sell Sinclair Centre without an aboriginal land claim taking it from them, so they can't sell it and buy an alternate site.
They are making the most of a centrally-located site that they already own.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Breaking news: the feds don't really need more offices; they don't even need the offices they have right now! You heard it here first, people!

Yeah I'm ok with the Feds owning some buildings they use, but nothing more. Preferably they just lease all of their office space and not be in the landlord game at all.

[jlousa]

Originally Posted by officedweller

As mentioned by Changing City, the Feds can't sell Sinclair Centre without an aboriginal land claim taking it from them, so they can't sell it and buy an alternate site.
They are making the most of a centrally-located site that they already own.

I believe the plan is to add office space here and move existing depts to and reduce some leased space and also sell off some of the other space that isn't not constrained by land claims.
Mixed on this one, if done right it could work but given the track record of the feds, it will either be done horribly wrong, or horribly over budget.

[rofina]

Originally Posted by jlousa

I believe the plan is to add office space here and move existing depts to and reduce some leased space and also sell off some of the other space that isn't not constrained by land claims.
Mixed on this one, if done right it could work but given the track record of the feds, it will either be done horribly wrong, or horribly over budget.

Horribly over budget gets my vote. This wont be an easy site to work for a very large variety of reasons.

The requirements for the simplest federal projects absolutely blow my mind these days.

Common sense is gone completely out the window, its all a series of box ticking exercises without much or often any thought given to how preposterous some of the requests and requirements are.

The stories of replacing coat hooks or door handles costing thousands of dollars make sense. Because there is no sense used in how these things are accomplished. Its really disheartening.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by jlousa

I believe the plan is to add office space here and move existing depts to and reduce some leased space and also sell off some of the other space that isn't not constrained by land claims.
Mixed on this one, if done right it could work but given the track record of the feds, it will either be done horribly wrong, or horribly over budget.

I'm not sure what track record the Feds have these days. They don't appear to have developed many new buildings in the past decade, and those that they have developed are pretty modest. The last office building they developed in Vancouver was the Douglas Jung Building at Burrard and Hastings, and they used local architects for that, and it was 20 years ago.

Whatever they build, if they build, will be very green - probably net zero. The Jung building is one of the greenest in the city, despite having been designed in the 1990s. One example of a current project is where the Feds are jointly occupying the new Ottawa Public Library with Library and Archives Canada, and they just added an additional $34.5 million to the budget to upgrade the building’s exterior and insulation, add triple-glazed windows, solar panels on the building rooftop and embedded in the building facade, and use more sustainable building materials. Those changes, to achieve net zero carbon, aren't expected to delay construction. (I don't consider that to be 'over budget' - it's a change to the building, and its day-to-day costs, with a higher capital outlay but improved energy performance over the life of the building).

[jollyburger]

The Centre Block renovations is their largest project probably at $5 billion dollars:

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/centre-b...2030-to-complete-cost-up-to-5b-1.5474574

20 years ago they thought it might cost $1.4 billion but all of it is heritage so nothing is as expected.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

i wonder how they will deal with putting a tower on the sinclair centre site because there is like a very deep sub basement under that thing. i wonder what implications that would have for any tall/big building above.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

The Centre Block renovations is their largest project probably at $5 billion dollars:

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/centre-b...2030-to-complete-cost-up-to-5b-1.5474574

20 years ago they thought it might cost $1.4 billion but all of it is heritage so nothing is as expected.

Yes, that's an example where hanging onto a heritage structure with inherent design faults ends up costing massively more than starting again. Clearly there are a few posting here who see the Sinclair Centre as similarly important, but I don't see it that way. I think retaining the facades and the street podium on Hastings is a worthwhile exercise, but the atrium can be replaced - especially if we got an interesting energy efficient addition (that didn't scream 'look at me' architecturally and relegate the retained historic elements to stick-on-facades). It's a fine balance, but there are good (and bad) examples of significant additions to buildings like ours. I'll be interested to see what (if anything) emerges from the exercise.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

i wonder how they will deal with putting a tower on the sinclair centre site because there is like a very deep sub basement under that thing. i wonder what implications that would have for any tall/big building above.

Subsidize an office tower with luxury condos and build to 60 storeys.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Look even closer. The "beautiful heritage facades" on the inside are seafoam glass and generic stone; it's the exteriors facing the street that're worth keeping. The real crime would be allowing NIMBY sympathizers to let a perfectly good block with a 29-floor allowance go to waste (and gutting another building with a less generous height limit), when it's possible to have density and heritage at the same time.

Breaking news: the feds don't really need more offices; they don't even need the offices they have right now! You heard it here first, people!

You just bulldoze through what you said without even checking, don't you? Only the northeast building has some seafoam glass. All other ones, and even the NE building, have heritage walls facing the inside.

https://earth.google.com/web/search/vanc...U4QBEBoNoixHU4wBmlDnTmdyZiQCFJZEiZ3_ZCQA

https://earth.google.com/web/search/vanc...U4QBEBoNoixHU4wBmlDnTmdyZiQCFJZEiZ3_ZCQA

The real crime here is to destroy heritage structures in an older part of Vancouver when a lot of downtown areas are able to accommodate 60 or more storied structures. Enough is enough.

Originally Posted by Changing City

Yes, that's an example where hanging onto a heritage structure with inherent design faults ends up costing massively more than starting again. Clearly there are a few posting here who see the Sinclair Centre as similarly important, but I don't see it that way. I think retaining the facades and the street podium on Hastings is a worthwhile exercise, but the atrium can be replaced - especially if we got an interesting energy efficient addition (that didn't scream 'look at me' architecturally and relegate the retained historic elements to stick-on-facades). It's a fine balance, but there are good (and bad) examples of significant additions to buildings like ours. I'll be interested to see what (if anything) emerges from the exercise.

Sinclair centre has not a sliver of similarity with the boondoggle in Ottawa, unless you are referring to wasting tax payer's money.
The "atrium" you are referring to is merely a strip of old lane converted and covered with glass. Try building a tower without covering the inner facades there if they can.