Vancouver View Cones - Reviews and Amendments

[AlexYVR]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

of course I love these proposals, they seem like a reasonable middle ground approach in adding some taller pinnacles to our skyline, while maintaining the overall policy of the view cones. i love the gateway concepts coming in from Granville and Burrard street BRidges.

I do not see how an one could be against these.

A very Vancouver way of adding height. I'm fully in favour - I just wish we didn't have to lose the Burrard Building. Fingers crossed that we get something truly spectacular for our 700 footer.

[squeezied]

Originally Posted by jlousa

Just to clarify no one at this time is proposing demolishing the Burrard building for a700ft tower, what they are proposing is allowing a 700ft tower to be built at that location.

But proposing to allow a 700ft tower to be built at that location requires demolishing the Burrard building, right?

I understand it's not a proposal to demolish, but rather a proposal to allow to demolish. Is that right?

[phesto]

Originally Posted by squeezied

But proposing to allow a 700ft tower to be built at that location requires demolishing the Burrard building, right?

I understand it's not a proposal to demolish, but rather a proposal to allow to demolish. Is that right?

Not really. All the City is saying is that within the area identified for the increased height to 700', the Burrard Building is the most probable site to take advantage of this within, say, the next 20 years.

Hopefully the policy to allow rooftop mechanical and elements to go another 10% will remain, which would theoretically allow a building as tall as 770', but still shorter than the Bow in Calgary...

[trofirhen]

... 700ft tower canyons along Burrard and Georgia ... dreamy ....

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by AlexYVR

A very Vancouver way of adding height. I'm fully in favour - I just wish we didn't have to lose the Burrard Building. Fingers crossed that we get something truly spectacular for our 700 footer.

interesting ... exactly my first reaction when I read the plan.

[jlousa]

Anyone here attend today's presentation?
Seems like general consensus so far is against the increased height, no surprise there, but what can we expect when those in favour fail to attend... Still two more presentations though...

There was someone from Reliance there observing.

Looks like the tidbit in the other thread is confirmed, Vancouver's Turn did put in an application for a DP 3 weeks ago. The proposal is the same as the modified application which had shorter floors with smaller units. The Ritz-Carlton will not be operating the hotel.

[Hed Kandi]

..

[Yume-sama]

I bet it is a Park Hyatt

Or Mandarin. But Park Hyatt would be better, it would certainly be their Canadian flagship hotel, possibly their North American (it has to be better than the one in Toronto, and Chicago...)

Also, Asian Countries love and respect Hyatt much more than we do. Most of their top hotels are Hyatt.

[djh]

Originally Posted by jlousa

Looks like the tidbit in the other thread is confirmed, Vancouver's Turn did put in an application for a DP 3 weeks ago. The proposal is the same as the modified application which had shorter floors with smaller units. The Ritz-Carlton will not be operating the hotel.

Wouldn't the Turn be within the Increased Height zone? I don't know if they'd be able to retroactively (or perhaps preemptively, since the policy is not adopted yet) apply for extra height, but with another, say, 10 floors then maybe the economics of the building would be more reasonable, so wouldn't it be worth them doing?

[Yume-sama]

You'd think it would cost too much money to go back and re-design 10 more floors. Where's an engineer when you need one

But, the view from waaay up there 700 feet up would be amazing

[jlousa]

Probably not feasible without major costs, they'd have carrying costs for an additional period of time, however long it takes for the current recommendations to be approved, and that's if they are approved. You'd have to redraw up the plans for the additional floors (probably only 6 maybe 7. Possibly thicker columns needed to carry the weight. Would the twist now reenter the viewcone? Would the extra units now necessitate an extra elevator thus eliminating space on every floor below-hand?
They are already very tight for parking space, would they have do dig yet another floor for the additional parking that would be requested by owners?
Way too many ifs to warrant the potential pluses for the developer.

[Locked In]

Originally Posted by jlousa

Anyone here attend today's presentation?
Seems like general consensus so far is against the increased height, no surprise there, but what can we expect when those in favour fail to attend... Still two more presentations though...

Any sense of what the NIMBYs' objections are to modestly increased height within view cone limits? Just general opposition to tall(er) buildings? Or something more rational...?

[Metro-One]

I was busy today with family events but I will gladly attend one of the next meetings to support the increase. When and where are the next two?

[Mininari]

Although I would have preferred to have seen a more progressive outcome on the initial proposal for increased building heights, I am happy to see them at least considering some exceptions. The current policy that we have could yield us 3 or 4 600' towers -- and thats about it, unless we're willing to see some significant demolition occur of existing office space. I wouldn't be opposed to 3 or 4 600' towers, but permitting one to go to 700' will "complete" the dome effect that they're looking for (i.e. prevent a new table top appearance from developing). There should still be opportunities to permit some 500-550 towers, thus balancing out the transition from the 450' table-top to 600, with a 700 peak.

Theres still that very attractive "Amacon Tower" development site, as well as the Renaissance hotel that could support taller buildings. How high might they permit those to go? Perhaps a demo-rebuild of Bentall1, or the parking garage at Melville and Thurlow?

Give height exemptions to office towers. If the city wants to get serious about retaining job-space, and wants to add a little prestige, then some top-level AAA office space with awesome views is bound to attract some tenants over the long term.

Lastly, I still think they need to reconsider the area defined as the CBD, and extend it eastward, and southward. This was shot down as per the recent city council decision on reviewing the viewcones, no?

[phesto]

Attended the open house. The feedback I got is that there is opposition from nearby residents for the height increases proposed at the Pattison Toyota site and at the Granville bridgehead sites (ie. residents in nearby towers at Beach, Burrard, etc concerned about shadows and losing views).

Staff aren't anticipating much opposition to the proposed 550' and 700' CBD increases. So that's good news.

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by djh

Wouldn't the Turn be within the Increased Height zone? I don't know if they'd be able to retroactively (or perhaps preemptively, since the policy is not adopted yet) apply for extra height, but with another, say, 10 floors then maybe the economics of the building would be more reasonable, so wouldn't it be worth them doing?

or perhaps just go back to the original floor heights of the main building, and add 5-10 more floors of 12' or 15' ceilings?

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by phesto

Attended the open house. The feedback I got is that there is opposition from nearby residents for the height increases proposed at the Pattison Toyota site and at the Granville bridgehead sites (ie. residents in nearby towers at Beach, Burrard, etc concerned about shadows and losing views).

Staff aren't anticipating much opposition to the proposed 550' and 700' CBD increases. So that's good news.

So you're saying that people living along Beach are worried about shadows from a new building NORTH of them?

??????

[SpongeG]

saw the report on global TV they showed renders of the toyota site

most of the people they interviewed on the news said they wanted increased heights - didn't seem like anyone opposed it as long as they were very nice buildings

[hollywoodnorth]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

saw the report on global TV they showed renders of the toyota site

most of the people they interviewed on the news said they wanted increased heights - didn't seem like anyone opposed it as long as they were very nice buildings

thanks! and here is the news story >> http://www.globaltvbc.com/video/index.html?releasePID=x8BYVXx2RET0kCe4736mOkWLeQ9EMoqG

and a pic of the Toyota tower .. 50 Stories!



photo by global news hosted on pbucket

[officedweller]

Thanks for posting.
It looks like the tall tower is at the Hornby & Drake corner.
Hard to tell what it looks like from the rendering.

Anyways, ultimately, I'd like to see the tallest towers be commercial office buildings - so that they can be more sculptural in form (not a lot of balconies and with a lighted rooftop feature not constrained by residential penthouses).