Downtown Vancouver Updates

[Overground]

From all the people I've talked to that live down here in my neighbourhood the Spanish tiles paint job on the Berkeley looks fantastic.

Here's some more info on it. I didn't know Douglas Coupland was behind it.

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/the-berk...ncouver-douglas-coupland-mural?auto=true

[Vin]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Some PDF that were included in the recent RFP for the Sinclair Centre Redevelopment:
https://buyandsell.gc.ca/cds/public/2021.../ABES.PROD.PW_TPV.B019.E8981.EBSU000.PDF

They have a giant blob of a building on the entire site (2020 project brief) for all your heritage fans


upload images
https://buyandsell.gc.ca/cds/public/2021...ndix_f_-_project_brief_part_2_-_main.pdf

Originally Posted by Vancouver_Highrise

yup.. apparently it will be a 16 story huge fat blob in downtown.

Stupidity knows no bounds.

The Feds should learn from Montreal's Centre de Commerce Mondial building on how to make this work, and not just replacing such elegant buildings with a mere short stubby tower.

Montreal's example:
https://www.google.ca/maps/@45.501527,-7...uvLLoZ5oymb30_CuIVN8g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Website with interior photos:
https://www.mtl.org/fr/quoi-faire/patrimoine-et-architecture/centre-de-commerce-mondial-de-montreal

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by Vin

The Feds should learn from Montreal's Centre de Commerce Mondial building on how to make this work, and not just replacing such elegant buildings with a mere short stubby tower.[/url]

Do you really think this is a serious rendering and that they are planning to replace the current buildings with square tower that has no visible windows or doors?

On the bright side, this rendering shows a tower that is higher than the view cone, and you are a shameless advocate for building height!

[GenWhy?]

That's a massing study.

[madog222]

Originally Posted by Vin

The Feds should learn from Montreal's Centre de Commerce Mondial building on how to make this work, and not just replacing such elegant buildings with a mere short stubby tower.

Montreal's example:
https://www.google.ca/maps/@45.501527,-7...uvLLoZ5oymb30_CuIVN8g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Website with interior photos:
https://www.mtl.org/fr/quoi-faire/patrimoine-et-architecture/centre-de-commerce-mondial-de-montreal

That looks exactly like what is there now.

[Marshal]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

That's a massing study.

It is actually even less than that. This is a standard height restriction illustration diagram where height restrictions are simply applied to an extrusion of the property boundaries. It is part of what defines the legal building envelope: building setbacks (none) and height. It has nothing else to do with the eventual design.

[Migrant_Coconut]

If the serial complainers would bother to Ctrl-F through the document:

The Sinclair Centre site has long been recognized for its strategic value and heritage significance. In 1983, prior to the development of the retail centre, anevaluation of the four buildings was conducted by the Federal Heritage Buildings Review Office (FHBRO). Three of the buildings have a heritage designation: the Post Office and Clock Tower is designated as ‘Classified’, and the Winch Building and Customs Examining Warehouse are designated as ‘Recognized...'

... PSPC in its investigations of the options and feasibility for establishing new office accommodation has identified four project pillars for the potential redevelopment at Sinclair Centre. The project team scope of services will include:
x Heritage Conservation, Cultural Expression and Indigenous Community Engagement
o Review heritage conservation options that include preservation/rehabilitation/restoration
o Understand the history and past of the location and buildings
o Investigate strategies to revive and restore this site into the future
o Further Government of Canada’s mandate to advance indigenous reconciliation, for indigenous engagement and realization of indigenous benefits
o Leverage project pre-planning base reference documents and reports (Heritage Conservation Guidelines, Heritage Building Recording information, Building Condition Assessment Reports )

The feds fully intend to see if they can keep the exteriors. Calm the flock down.

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

If the serial complainers would bother to Ctrl-F through the document...

Why the use of plural???

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

Why the use of plural???

Preemption.

[Metro-One]

So looks like they will push through the view cones by 20 metres. Says tower height of 137m.

Happy to hear that, just wish they would push it to above 150 metres for the tower to truly stand out.

But so far better than I hoped for.

Fingers crossed the design itself is up to par and respects the heritage structures.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

So looks like they will push through the view cones by 20 metres. Says tower height of 137m.

I can't see that statement. It says the ODP limits the height to 137m. Then it says the view cones reduce that. It doesn't say what that reduced height is; (earlier comments suggest around 106m). I can't see any statement that they will (or won't) 'push through the view cones'.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

Do you really think this is a serious rendering and that they are planning to replace the current buildings with square tower that has no visible windows or doors?

On the bright side, this rendering shows a tower that is higher than the view cone, and you are a shameless advocate for building height!

If they can't build it fat, then wouldn't it be a total waste of allowed space? If then, why not allow it to go much higher and thinner to gain back the space? It doesn't matter: this is still the worst place for anyone to plunk in a new building. Even with the allowable height, the area will still table-top out: creating the ugliest of urban skylines.

Correction:
I am a shameless, and may I add, and proud advocate for building height, but not at the expense of the destruction or further bastardization of heritage buildings. Get that right.

Originally Posted by madog222

That looks exactly like what is there now.

Yeah, except in Montreal they can court businesses and other nice tenants, including restaurants, F&B businesses to tenant the spaces there, ie. they keep updating and improving the layouts and interior appearances to make the building work and function. Our Sinclair centre is dead, with businesses leaving and no new ones to fill in the vacated spaces, and hence the need to knock the existing structure down for a lousy sure bet. How can that be the same?

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Vin

Yeah, except in Montreal they can court businesses and other nice tenants, including restaurants, F&B businesses to tenant the spaces there, ie. they keep updating and improving the layouts and interior appearances to make the building work and function. Our Sinclair centre is dead, with businesses leaving and no new ones to fill in the vacated spaces, and hence the need to knock the existing structure down for a lousy sure bet. How can that be the same?

In Montreal they're not planning on reconfiguring the building, so they look for new tenants when any leave, and change the building if necessary. Here they've been planning on redeveloping the building for several years, so they aren't trying to fill the vacant spaces. Is that hard to follow?

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by Changing City

I can't see that statement. It says the ODP limits the height to 137m. Then it says the view cones reduce that. It doesn't say what that reduced height is; (earlier comments suggest around 106m). I can't see any statement that they will (or won't) 'push through the view cones'.

The 2015 inquiry from the Feds said:

"• The development will adhere to the City’s urban design considerations, including the View Corridors which limit maximum height to no more than 106.7 m (350 ft.) or approximately 29 commercial storeys"

https://council.vancouver.ca/20150513/documents/cfsc3.pdf

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

The 2015 inquiry from the Feds said:

• The development will adhere to the City’s urban design considerations, including the View Corridors which limit maximum height to no more than 106.7 m (350 ft.) or approximately 29 commercial storeyshttps://council.vancouver.ca/20150513/documents/cfsc3.pdf

Thanks. That was the quote I was trying to remember. Nothing in the current documents suggests any change from that earlier statement, as far as I can see.

[Metro-One]

So if the view cones is the max height, then why even reference a separate height of “Maximum Development Plan Height?”

Like, what’s the fucking point of including it?

Also a term like “maximum development plan height” kind of sounds like the maximum height you plan to develop a project to for someone not in the know, haha!

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

So if the view cones is the max height, then why even reference a separate height of “Maximum Development Plan Height?”

Like, what’s the fucking point of including it?

Also a term like “maximum development plan height” kind of sounds like the maximum height you plan to develop a project to for someone not in the know, haha!

From the brief:

The Downtown Official Development Plan limits height on the Sinclair Centre site to 137.2m. This height is indicated by a blue plane on the adjacent diagrams. The protected view cones impose additional restrictions on building height. The most restrictive view cone (3.2.3 View from Queen Elizabeth Park), for the Sinclair Centre site is indicated by a yellow plane.

The view cones and the development plan are two different constraints so it makes sense to present both.

[Metro-One]

It seems illogical to have two different restraints….

If one limits to a lower height (view cones) then why even have the secondary higher limit.

View cone > official development plan, therefore official development plan seems useless / superfluous to even have / reference. The view cone essentially is the official development plan by default.

This screams classic excessive bureaucracy.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

It seems illogical to have two different restraints….

If one limits to a lower height (view cones) then why even have the secondary higher limit.

View cone > official development plan, therefore official development plan seems useless / superfluous to even have / reference. The view cone essentially is the official development plan by default.

This screams classic excessive bureaucracy.

Have you taken a look at the document linked to above? It's totally bureaucratic - that's what the Federal Government does in a process like this. There are potentially half a billion dollars going into this development. Every detail is going to be documented, listed and scrutinized. It seems a better way of recording a process than (for example) what happened during the sale of Little Mountain by the Province being discussed in another thread.

Obviously what happens next here will partly depend on the outcome of the election. In the meantime the civil servants will be dotting 'i's, crossing 't's and making sure everything is included, including the height that could be built to under the ODP (which could be increased by a rezoning) and the height that could be built to under view cone policy (which could be ignored by a vote of Council or through them approving a rezoning).

[officedweller]

I think Metro-One is talking about the bylaws, not the Feds' disclosure of the applicable bylaws.

Originally Posted by Metro-One

So if the view cones is the max height, then why even reference a separate height of “Maximum Development Plan Height?”

Like, what’s the fucking point of including it?

Also a term like “maximum development plan height” kind of sounds like the maximum height you plan to develop a project to for someone not in the know, haha!

That's the absurdity of downtown height restrictions. In most cases, the ultimate determinator is the lower view cone height or even more vaguely, the park/sidewalk shadowing policy.

The maximum height just pays lip service to the thought of having tall buildings.
(I'm thinking of the Higher Buildings Policy which is gutted by the View Cones Policy.)