Downtown Vancouver Updates - Page 1034

hollywoodnorth · #**20661** Posted **May 23, 2022, 9:36 PM**

looks like CURV is being taken to market. I have been getting Facebook ads served to me all weekend >>

https://www.facebook.com/CURV-101592725895743/

https://thecurv.ca/

officedweller · #**20662** Posted **May 25, 2022, 12:33 AM**

1045 Burnaby St.

Quote:

The proposal is for a 16-storey rental building that includes:

170 rental units;
133 market rental units and 37 below market rental units;
A total density of 6.19 FSR;
A floor area of 107,050 sq. ft.;
A building height of 159 ft.;
52 vehicle parking spaces and 317 bicycle parking spaces.

https://vancouvermarket.ca/2022/05/24/16-storey-rental-building-planned-for-west-end-site/

Changing City · #**20663** Posted **May 25, 2022, 12:38 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by officedweller

1045 Burnaby St.

https://vancouvermarket.ca/2022/05/24/16-storey-rental-building-planned-for-west-end-site/

Interesting project - lose 38 strata units, gain 132 additional rental units, 37 of them renting below market. The developer is Gracorp, the rental development arm of Graham Construction.

vanman · #**20664** Posted **May 25, 2022, 5:01 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by hollywoodnorth

looks like CURV is being taken to market. I have been getting Facebook ads served to me all weekend >>

https://www.facebook.com/CURV-101592725895743/

https://thecurv.ca/

Interesting that it's by a Montreal based developer. Is that a first for Vancouver?

Hoping the facade turns out as reflective as these renderings:

Changing City · #**20665** Posted **May 25, 2022, 5:29 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by vanman

Interesting that it's by a Montreal based developer. Is that a first for Vancouver?

The project was initiated by a Vancouver-based developer, Henson, but they sold it on after rezoning was approved. Looking at this list, none of the other Quebec developers seem to have built here. Obviously Ivanhoe Cambridge have developed here, and are based in Montreal.

Equally, while it's not true in other cities like Calgary, or Toronto, you don't see Westbank or Concord Pacific or Bosa developing in Montreal. (Having said that, apparently the Vancouver developers are slowly withdrawing from Calgary).

vanman · #**20666** Posted **May 25, 2022, 5:46 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Changing City

The project was initiated by a Vancouver-based developer, Henson, but they sold it on after rezoning was approved. Looking at this list, none of the other Quebec developers seem to have built here. Obviously Ivanhoe Cambridge have developed here, and are based in Montreal.

Equally, while it's not true in other cities like Calgary, or Toronto, you don't see Westbank or Concord Pacific or Bosa developing in Montreal. (Having said that, apparently the Vancouver developers are slowly withdrawing from Calgary).

I should've specified I meant first condo tower by a Montreal developer. Ivanhoe Cambridge has only built commercial projects out here.

Montreal's condo culture is only now starting to flourish. Maybe in the near future our developers will start testing the waters there.

Changing City · #**20667** Posted **May 25, 2022, 3:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by vanman

I should've specified I meant first condo tower by a Montreal developer. Ivanhoe Cambridge has only built commercial projects out here.

Montreal's condo culture is only now starting to flourish. Maybe in the near future our developers will start testing the waters there.

Sorry, I wasn't suggesting Ivanhoe had built residential here - they were the only other Montreal based developer I could think of who had developed anything here. Interestingly, they have an extensive rental residential portfolio in New York and London, and some other US cities, Mexico and Berlin, but only one in Canada in Quebec City. I don't think they've actually developed any strata buildings - although they started the Oakridge project with Westbank, before selling out to Quadreal before construction started.

whatnext · #**20668** Posted **May 26, 2022, 1:07 AM**

Dekete

Feathered Friend · #**20669** Posted **May 31, 2022, 11:53 PM**

Old Pavilion/Plaza Design

New Pavilion/Plaza Design

Quote:

The plan to transform the Bentall Centre into an experiential destination, complete with a new food hall, has generated excitement from both Pavco and Destination Vancouver, over what its halo effect could mean for their efforts & DowntownVan.

However, it’s already had its first setback, as the plans to replace the “Bear Pit” with a large pavilion have been significantly scaled back due to the Urban Design Panel’s advice. Yet these changes were enough to allow the wider vision for this office campus to move ahead.

It was the Development Permit Board’s turn to be excited, as they unanimously voted to approve the Bentall Exchange, a 16 floor mass timber hybrid office tower. This includes a now fully accessible plaza, even though it was acknowledged it still needed some refinement.

https://www.instagram.com/p/CePchrHJB3q/...KqBhq52R26pZq3NP7d0V1Z-lo18hnHw_xc1u_FtE

officedweller · #**20670** Posted **Jun 1, 2022, 12:33 AM**

I like the new plaza better than the old.
The old design was a series of walkways around a restaurant building with tables and chairs likely to creep well beyond the building.
The new design actually has a plaza that's inviting from the street and could be programmed with concerts, etc.

Denscity · #**20671** Posted **Jun 1, 2022, 12:45 AM**

Pretty excited about Vancouver's primary office node getting redeveloped!

mcminsen · #**20672** Posted **Jun 1, 2022, 4:46 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcminsen

May 1 '22, my pic

Thirty days later...

May 31 '22, my pics

dleung · #**20673** Posted **Jun 1, 2022, 5:20 AM**

Pure greed. With heritage "retention" projects, there should be a rule making them set back the addition at least one structural bay to keep it volumetrically distinct from the original building, instead of having them appear ridiculously wallpapered onto the new building.

jollyburger · #**20674** Posted **Jun 1, 2022, 5:48 AM**

Your solution isn't much better. Unless it's some massive project with money behind it this is all you can expect from these heritage meets modern clusterf*ks.

officedweller · #**20675** Posted **Jun 1, 2022, 6:28 AM**

I think the cornice lines do a decent job of delineating old and new.
If it were set back, then the neighbouring building would stick out.

scryer · #**20676** Posted **Jun 1, 2022, 1:38 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by dleung

Pure greed. With heritage "retention" projects, there should be a rule making them set back the addition at least one structural bay to keep it volumetrically distinct from the original building, instead of having them appear ridiculously wallpapered onto the new building.

Will you be keeping the same energy with The Bay revamp being proposed? Not being snarky, just curious because virtually no one on this forum was up in arms for a glass box being plopped on it.

I actually think that this heritage project is fine. If you want to see some clashing heritage retention projects then look no further than Toronto

.

s211 · #**20677** Posted **Jun 1, 2022, 2:18 PM**

The best thing they could do for the Bentall Centre work would be doubling the width of the sidewalk. Because of a couple of bus shelters, the walking width is only a few feet wide. If this city honestly believes that pedestrians are number one, then maybe it should FINALLY WIDEN SOME BLOODY SIDEWALKS!

dleung · #**20678** Posted **Jun 1, 2022, 2:28 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by scryer

Will you be keeping the same energy with The Bay revamp being proposed? Not being snarky, just curious because virtually no one on this forum was up in arms for a glass box being plopped on it.

I actually think that this heritage project is fine. If you want to see some clashing heritage retention projects then look no further than Toronto

.

Lol I have

NewfBC · #**20679** Posted **Jun 1, 2022, 3:08 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by dleung

Pure greed. With heritage "retention" projects, there should be a rule making them set back the addition at least one structural bay to keep it volumetrically distinct from the original building, instead of having them appear ridiculously wallpapered onto the new building.

There's no reason, especially with this addition, that they can't match the original design. Sure it would cost more for the windows, etc.. but the city could force this if they wanted.

Ron.

Changing City · #**20680** Posted **Jun 1, 2022, 3:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by dleung

Pure greed. With heritage "retention" projects, there should be a rule making them set back the addition at least one structural bay to keep it volumetrically distinct from the original building, instead of having them appear ridiculously wallpapered onto the new building.

Nobody's being greedy. The buildings are shallow, so there's no space to set them back a lot, as there's a plaza in the lane behind. And one building is non-market housing (replacing the shelter that was in the heritage building) and the other is market rental - they're not condos. The option was lose the buildings completely and have all new build, or have the building we see.

I'm impressed at the quality of the heritage restoration on the old and tired hotel facades, and the fancy tin-work cornice.