Downtown Vancouver Updates

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Vin

I have no qualms about the replacement of old, but at least the new needs to match the beautiful structures around, and that the replacements are better. Paris has done this well.

Can you say the same about here? Old Birks Building and the second Hotel Vancouver were both replaced by big yawns.

People at the time thought that Haussmann was building vulgar materialist buildings.

"We weep with our eyes full of tears for the old Paris, the Paris of Voltaire, of Desmoulins, the Paris of 1830 and 1848, when we see the grand and intolerable new buildings, the costly confusion, the triumphant vulgarity, the awful materialism, that we are going to pass on to our descendants."

- Jules Ferry (Mayor of Paris 1870 - 1871, Prime Minister of France 1883 - 1885)

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Paris, pre-Haussmann. Good thing they ignored the "heritage" crowd.

Busted link.

I'm all for documenting local history to be honest, as long as they aren't throwing any NIMBY heritage stickers on them.

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

part of Vancouver's character and irreplaceable.

A good time to share this video:

• Video Link

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Exactly, developers can already change to residential if the commercial isn't viable, and add a bit more space to the shorter buildings (just not towers). Interestingly, nobody has suggested residential conversion in Yaletown for many years. If you can't see that allowing towers would totally alter the character of the area, then there's nothing to discuss.



It wasn't really a warehouse, it was effectively an industrial building, full of heavy equipment for mail sorting and dispatching. It's most interesting features were the scale and design of the structure, and some artwork. Those are all retained. Much of the space inside the retained building is now parking, over retail. The conversion was only viable because something else was built on top. (It would have made an interesting conversion as a new VAG, but the board and director at the time it became available weren't interested. They were only interested in a starchitect new build).



More whataboutism. I don't believe it is necessary. That's just a developer's idea for theoretically maxing out development potential of their property. It hasn't been approved yet, and even if it is, given the developers track record and changing demand for office space, it might not get built.

Granville Street needs a rethink, but the 800 block isn't especially run-down or derelict, and the City is currently showing that they if they think it's important they can move people on if they're occupying public (or private) spaces for too long. And Yaletown has a function already, and is working ok. That's not true for a few blocks of Granville, although maybe when the Rec Room is (finally) finished, and the new building on the 900 block it will improve a bit more.

The Post was a warehouse in the same way the Amazon industrial buildings are warehouses.

The difference is that most of the 'conversion' for Yaletown was done decades ago. If we did it now, the Post building would have been empty for a lot longer...


Remember that a lot of 'preservationists' want to see the preservation of South False Creek in its current state.

South False Creek is not run-down, and yet the vast majority of people here kind of agree that plan sucked. So did the CoV.


Yaletown is similar in the sense it's 'working', and yet there's a lot of room for a 'rethink' with extra density while persevering the most important aspects of its character and history.
I don't think that would ruin the neighborhood's character any more than development in any other neighborhood would for that neighborhood, or the original gentrification of Yaletown did.

I don't think (and I don't think you think) that the power poles should have been kept in Yaletown for 'character' and 'preserving its industrial history.'

[fredinno]

Also, good time for this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_N1Y9qRkjo

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Busted link.

I'm all for documenting local history to be honest, as long as they aren't throwing any NIMBY heritage stickers on them.

Ducking Reddit; try this one. Yeah, when we talk about Paris' "heritage," we're really talking about a thousand years' worth of tearing it down and building something new; even the Eiffel Tower was considered an eyesore at first.

That said, Yaletown's pretty dense already, and the warehouses aren't exactly a waste of space compared to other parts of the city, so we can always decide their fate later when everything else is built out. Same reason we kept Gastown.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Ducking Reddit; try this one. Yeah, when we talk about Paris' "heritage," we're really talking about a thousand years' worth of tearing it down and building something new; even the Eiffel Tower was considered an eyesore at first.

That said, Yaletown's pretty dense already, and the warehouses aren't exactly a waste of space compared to other parts of the city, so we can always decide their fate later when everything else is built out. Same reason we kept Gastown.

What exactly is 'built out'?
Everything in the inner suburbs is medium density apartments and multiplexes?

If you exclude the West End, the Downtown Peninsula is relatively 'full.'
Especially compared to when we established these heritage districts to begin with.

The West End isn't really built out, but it's also not really as easy to access as most of the DT peninsula (it's waiting for a West End Subway of some sort).
Plus, you could make the character and heritage argument with Robson, Denman, and Davie Villages (as the City did in the West End Plan).

Same thing with most of the area outside the 'City Center' region.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Must’ve missed the part where Denman, Davie or many of the inner suburbs were 4 FSR on average. Sure, we’ll have to make a choice eventually, and the final result will probably look like The Post, but surely we can wait at least a few decades until (let's say) Kitsilano's as dense as historic Yaletown - and Dunbar as dense as Kitsilano - before we declare it an objective waste of space?

It kind of sounds like Burnaby and how they're levelling every single affordable walkup for more condos... while simultaneously being too scared to lift a finger against all the single detached homes surrounding them.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Must’ve missed the part where Denman, Davie or many of the inner suburbs were 4 FSR on average. Sure, we’ll have to make a choice eventually, and the final result will probably look like The Post, but surely we can wait at least a few decades until (let's say) Kitsilano's as dense as historic Yaletown - and Dunbar as dense as Kitsilano - before we declare it an objective waste of space?

It kind of sounds like Burnaby and how they're levelling every single affordable walkup for more condos... while simultaneously being too scared to lift a finger against all the single detached homes surrounding them.

For what it's worth, I don't think we should swing the pendulum too far in the other direction either. There's a reason why every downtown core in the world is denser than its surroundings. I don't think we need to wait for rowhouses on Bowen and 5+1s along Marine Drive before we can think of maybe allowing downtown to develop naturally.

I'm all for rowhouses on Bowen and 5+1s along Marine Drive though, don't get me wrong. If they're viable, legalise them.

[GenWhy?]

Also important to note that the whole peninsula has largely gone through multiple waves of repurpose, build, demolish.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by fredinno

What exactly is 'built out'?
Everything in the inner suburbs is medium density apartments and multiplexes?

If you exclude the West End, the Downtown Peninsula is relatively 'full.'
Especially compared to when we established these heritage districts to begin with.

The West End isn't really built out, but it's also not really as easy to access as most of the DT peninsula (it's waiting for a West End Subway of some sort).
Plus, you could make the character and heritage argument with Robson, Denman, and Davie Villages (as the City did in the West End Plan).

Same thing with most of the area outside the 'City Center' region.

'Built out' would be when underdeveloped sites (like parking lots, parkades and low density former warehouses outside Yaletown or Gastown) have been developed.

There's still significant capacity for both residential and commercial space in the Downtown local area (which is the part of the peninsula that isn't the West End). There are 14 towers and 10 mid-rise buildings that have been approved, but not yet built. That's 5,700 more units. There's the Concord and City lands at NEFC, which should see at least 2,100 more units. There are three City non-market towers in False Creek North, which will have 674 more units, and three tower sites that Concord can now develop as condos. There's the SAP warehouse, three other old warehouses (near Yaletown), and two surface parking lots that can be rezoned for towers. There's Concord's Westin hotel redevelopment, and the old office buildings at 1445 W Georgia. That probably could add 12,000 more condos and rental units without thinking of anything less obvious or not currently on the development radar. And there are at least 20 future office sites, if and when it becomes clear that office developments are still going to be viable projects in the future. There are already 10 projects identified with over 5 million sf of office space.

Then in the West End there are 16 more towers approved for 3,800 units, applications for 8 more towers with 2,400 units, and at least 6 more sites acquired by developers, and Concord's redevelopment of St Paul's Hospital. Again, without looking for the other candidates for future development under the West End Plan, and without touching any of the retail village streets. That could easily be another 10,000 units in total. Nobody is on pause, or waiting for any ficticious subway.

Just outside Downtown there are six non-market projects in development in the DTES with 700 units, and plans to redevelop the Balmoral site, the American Hotel, and several other sites with more non-market and market rental units. And we know that as well as BC Housing, Westbank, Onni and others are looking to add significant market rental (and maybe condo) buildings along East Hastings.

Once those are all done, we still won't be 'built out'.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by chowhou

For what it's worth, I don't think we should swing the pendulum too far in the other direction either. There's a reason why every downtown core in the world is denser than its surroundings. I don't think we need to wait for rowhouses on Bowen and 5+1s along Marine Drive before we can think of maybe allowing downtown to develop naturally.

I'm all for rowhouses on Bowen and 5+1s along Marine Drive though, don't get me wrong. If they're viable, legalise them.

Heh, I think even Dunderave will get rowhouses before Bowen does.

Yeah, the key word here is "flexibility." For me it's less about preserving the Roundhouse area as-is forever (although we should at least try to keep the exteriors, and it's been pointing out how certain business prefer the interiors too), more so that making other such areas outside downtown is a bigger concern... and one much less likely to fracture the urbanist bloc at a critical moment in time.

[officedweller]

Rec Room

Pic by me today.
Roof girders being installed.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

A good time to share this video:

• Video Link

Interesting, and food for thought. Something's gotta give, and a new type of multiple dwelling similar to, but perhaps a bit aesthetically different to the 'Kelowna Special' seems in order.

[seamusmcduff]

Sounds like it will be very likely with the proposed changes to allow 4-6 units per lot.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Paris, pre-Haussmann. Good thing they ignored the "heritage" crowd.

And yet now most of the city insists the Specials are part of Vancouver's character and irreplaceable.

I am very sure nobody else outside the city thinks so. It's a local ego-thing, but oh my those are really ugly houses.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Vin

I am very sure nobody else outside the city thinks so. It's a local ego-thing, but oh my those are really ugly houses.

Truth be told, the Vancouver Special has more of a claim to "architectural heritage value" as a part of Vancouver history than a lot of the random west side bungalows or downtown pre-war brick offices protected as "heritage" that you could find anywhere else in North America.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Truth be told, the Vancouver Special has more of a claim to "architectural heritage value" as a part of Vancouver history than a lot of the random west side bungalows or downtown pre-war brick offices protected as "heritage" that you could find anywhere else in North America.

I'd rather not. If Vancouverites hail this as something of "architectural heritage value", there is really no hope for us. Ask any visitor to this city and I'm sure no one considers this even remotely close to being a beauty.

[Denscity]

It's more about uniqueness and originality than beauty I would think. Most cities don't have their own house or tower style like Vancouver does.
And isn't post and beam a Vancouver building style that started on the Coast?

[officedweller]

Can we bring the Downtown UPDATES thread back to construction UPDATES, please?

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Vin

I am very sure nobody else outside the city thinks so. It's a local ego-thing, but oh my those are really ugly houses.

One person's junk is another person's treasure. Many people found the Eiffel Tower and Haussmann architecture bland and soul-destroying, as they did the Berlin Cathedral, Golden Gate Bridge, Fuller Building, Guggenheim Museum, Pompidou Centre, former Twin Towers, Louvre Pyramid, and many modern glass towers like the Shard. Go back in time, you'll probably find somebody moaning about the horrid Sun Tower.

Personally, I think the former Empire Landmark was an eyesore... while you screamed bloody murder at its removal. Art and architecture is funny like that.