Downtown Vancouver Updates - Page 1060

Denscity · #**21181** Posted **Jan 18, 2023, 5:16 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Awesome, thanks! Not allowing signs on the top of towers regardless of height is one of the most bizarre and arbitrary of Vancouver’s long list of bizarre finger fu¥&ing regulations.

Ya I'd say

Changing City · #**21182** Posted **Jan 18, 2023, 4:49 PM**

From the City Clerk's twitter feed: "VanCityCouncil approves Item 1. CD-1 Rezoning: 1063-1075 Barclay Street."

That's the 48 storey tower to replace a 1990 West End ex-condo. 285 strata units and 87 social housing rentals to be given to the City of Vancouver.

[Changing City blog]

officedweller · #**21183** Posted **Jan 18, 2023, 10:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Just saw this in the Sign bylaw. Not sure how it's set or the policy.

https://bylaws.vancouver.ca/Sign/Part9.pdf

Too bad none of the developers / landlords created a blank space on the facade and actually installed, say,
hotel signage halfway up the tower, just to show how stupid it would look.

Metro-One · #**21184** Posted **Jan 18, 2023, 11:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by officedweller

Too bad none of the developers / landlords created a blank space on the facade and actually installed, say,
hotel signage halfway up the tower, just to show how stupid it would look.

That would be hilarious.

Your tower is 198 metres tall? Okay, you can put your sign up at the 137m level… because somehow a sign at 137 metres isn’t offensive, but at 198 metres it is???????

Really hard to square this policy.

TwoFace · #**21185** Posted **Jan 19, 2023, 12:51 AM**

Who wouldn't want to live in the KFC or Subway tower, LOL

Changing City · #**21186** Posted **Jan 19, 2023, 1:40 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by officedweller

Too bad none of the developers / landlords created a blank space on the facade and actually installed, say,
hotel signage halfway up the tower, just to show how stupid it would look.

In the case of Vancouver's taller towers with hotels, that idea might make sense. Shangri La, Paradox, Fairmont Pacific Rim are all hotels at the base and the upper part is a residential strata . I can't see a residential strata wanting a hotel logo on it's common property. I'm not sure we'll ever see a really tall 100% hotel building that would challenge the current height limit for a sign.

Metro-One · #**21187** Posted **Jan 19, 2023, 1:52 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Changing City

In the case of Vancouver's taller towers with hotels, that idea might make sense. Shangri La, Paradox, Fairmont Pacific Rim are all hotels at the base and the upper part is a residential strata . I can't see a residential strata wanting a hotel logo on it's common property. I'm not sure we'll ever see a really tall 100% hotel building that would challenge the current height limit for a sign.

Well, what about the Stack?

162 metres tall and entirely office? Does that not make sense to have some signage at the top of that tower?

Metro-One · #**21188** Posted **Jan 19, 2023, 1:55 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by TwoFace

Who wouldn't want to live in the KFC or Subway tower, LOL

We’re talking about a common practice done throughout the world where office towers and hotel towers often have their own branding / primary tenants branding on the top of the tower.

If the idea is that “advertisements and signs with brands on them are bad!” then make it a full stop ban, not a bizarre “up to 137 metres” regulation.

TwoFace · #**21189** Posted **Jan 19, 2023, 2:02 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metro-One

We’re talking about a common practice done throughout the world where office towers and hotel towers often have their own branding / primary tenants branding on the top of the tower.

If the idea is that “advertisements and signs with brands on them are bad!” then make it a full stop ban, not a bizarre “up to 137 metres” regulation.

I would think many commercial tenants would object to having a rival's sign on the building they do business from. The whole idea is a touchy subject with many pitfalls.
Not all concepts are universal. I personaly see it as a form of pollution.

Changing City · #**21190** Posted **Jan 19, 2023, 3:03 AM**

Another 11+ FSR West End rental tower, this one at 1065 Pacific from Wall Financial. 30 existing rentals replaced with 36 below market and 144 market rental units.

[Changing City blog]

LeftCoaster · #**21191** Posted **Jan 20, 2023, 12:34 AM**

Looks sharp, if a bit dull. Can't complain about all rental with 20% below market though, thanks for the scoop!

officedweller · #**21192** Posted **Jan 20, 2023, 1:52 AM**

Looks good except for the at-grade frontage - but that'll eventually be screened by landscaping.

jollyburger · #**21193** Posted **Jan 20, 2023, 2:05 AM**

Robson Street 0.37-acre development site sold for $63 million.

https://www.westerninvestor.com/done-dea...lopment-site-sold-for-63-million-6368625

WestEnd604 · #**21194** Posted **Jan 20, 2023, 8:34 PM**

Interestingly, the Stack is getting an EY logo at the top of tower. It's being installed right now. That's higher than 137m. So, there must be exceptions allowed now.

Changing City · #**21195** Posted **Jan 20, 2023, 9:32 PM**

The tower crane is up at the 950 Granville retail / office building (next to The Roxy).

Spr0ckets · #**21196** Posted **Jan 20, 2023, 11:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by TwoFace

I would think many commercial tenants would object to having a rival's sign on the building they do business from. The whole idea is a touchy subject with many pitfalls.
Not all concepts are universal. I personaly see it as a form of pollution.

"Polluting" what, ....exactly?

I can see that argument made in the context of lit up logo signs that stay lit all night, and in those cases I would agree that a city or municipality would and should place restrictions, but at the end of the day, you're in the middle of a business district of a city.
Business logos and signage on top of buildings (particularly the illuminated sort) should sort of be expected at that point, no?

Also if you're a business who's likely to be offended by, or sensitive to your rival's sign or logo on the building, then maybe you shouldn't move into that building in the first place or find some other place to do business from(?)

These signage agreements (for their placement onto the buildings) are usually negotiated long before tenants move in so they can be installed as the building is being constructed.
So you would know in advance (...of moving in)whose branding was adorning the building

jollyburger · #**21197** Posted **Jan 20, 2023, 11:45 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by WestEnd604

Interestingly, the Stack is getting an EY logo at the top of tower. It's being installed right now. That's higher than 137m. So, there must be exceptions allowed now.

There's specific exemptions for taller buildings in certain areas of the city.

Quote:

Despite anything to the contrary in this by-law, the following site specific signs for Higher
Buildings Policy sites are permitted in the Commercial, Mixed Use and Industrial Sign District:

officedweller · #**21198** Posted **Jan 21, 2023, 12:06 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by WestEnd604

Interestingly, the Stack is getting an EY logo at the top of tower. It's being installed right now. That's higher than 137m. So, there must be exceptions allowed now.

Can't see what's going on from TD Tower.

officedweller · #**21199** Posted **Jan 21, 2023, 12:14 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Changing City

The tower crane is up at the 950 Granville retail / office building (next to The Roxy).

Weird seeing cranes on Granville St.

By me just now:

Metro-One · #**21200** Posted **Jan 21, 2023, 12:25 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by WestEnd604

Interestingly, the Stack is getting an EY logo at the top of tower. It's being installed right now. That's higher than 137m. So, there must be exceptions allowed now.

Wow, some ironic timing on my part! Really hope that's true!