Quote:
Originally Posted by mcj
It's only the façade being retained, which if the building isn't publicly accessible is really the only thing of heritage worth retaining imo.
The significance is that it managed to be registered as a heritage building by someone at some point in time, and like most heritage buildings it's completely arbitrary as to why and why we need to retain it.
My question to you is why is the Lumbermens Building worth retaining?
|
I won't address whether either façade is architecturally significant. But from a pedestrian's perspective, I love older facades because they often address the sidewalk at a human scale. Even new builds like Deloitte Summit that try to address the sidewalk often have long stretches of cold, solid glass façade and I would much rather walk down a street with historic street fronts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by djh
I like this trend - discourage office workers from driving-in, and move them to using public transit where possible; share the parking between the office use where it is necessary (there always will be some need), commercial, and hotel. Then maybe the remainder is managed rental parking?
|
Since this location is two blocks from Waterfront there is no reason most employees shouldn't be able to take transit to work. The great thing about Waterfront is it pulls commuters in from all directions: south from Richmond, East from Burnaby and Surrey, farther east from Maple Ridge, and north from North Van. It's harder for employees who work in Gastown because that neighborhood is really only effectively served by the Canada Line.
I wouldn't be surprised if the hotel tenant only has enough parking for some employees. Urban hotels in plenty of cities (I'm thinking of my recent trips to the Ace and A.C. hotels in Portland) do not have dedicated parking and instead rely on visitors using transit or parking in 3rd-party lots.
Prev
Linear Mode
