601 Beach Crescent | 166m | 56 Fl | Proposed

[Feathered Friend]

I suppose that was poor wording on my part, as I meant that when it seemed like it could go either way when I had to leave (which was just after the referral motion was introduced).

[csbvan]

This tower looks a bit cheap. I'm quite worried about how it will turn out.

[goodcitywhenfinished]

Originally Posted by csbvan

This tower looks a bit cheap. I'm quite worried about how it will turn out.

Ya the renders are really bad, don’t give us much idea about the actual materials.

Pinnacle seems to be doing really well with their recent Toronto projects in terms of material usage, but all of their Vancouver projects have just been super underwhelming in this area.

[Vin]

Mayor Stewart wanted the Council to approve this ASAP. His rationale was that a delay would cost Vancouver a great opportunity to create new jobs in a sagging pandemic economy. He also thought this would be a beautiful building that Vancouver is getting. Finally good logic prevailed.

[WarrenC12]

High rise condo downtown? Approved!

Trying to squeeze in just a little density on the west side? HELL NO!

[dleung]

Originally Posted by Vin

Mayor Stewart wanted the Council to approve this ASAP. His rationale was that a delay would cost Vancouver a great opportunity to create new jobs in a sagging pandemic economy. He also thought this would be a beautiful building that Vancouver is getting. Finally good logic prevailed.

They've been ramming all sorts of terrible designs in the name of "jobs" and "affordability" these days. This one is not "beautiful" by any stretch of the imagination

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by csbvan

This tower looks a bit cheap. I'm quite worried about how it will turn out.

Yes, I wouldn't mind it somewhere else but it will contrast badly with Vancouver House if poorly executed.

[Jimbo604]

Re: 601 Beach Crescent:

- Vancouver Sun Article

- Daily Hive Article

[rofina]

Originally Posted by goodcitywhenfinished

Ya the renders are really bad, don’t give us much idea about the actual materials.

Pinnacle seems to be doing really well with their recent Toronto projects in terms of material usage, but all of their Vancouver projects have just been super underwhelming in this area.

I'm not sure if they will be able to get away with underwhelming materials, as I imagine they are banking on top end prices to make this work.

The luxury game has really been stepped up by Grosvenor, Landa, Westbank.
Cheap materials on a luxury tower are not going to lead to success, I imagine a developer like Pinnacle is aware of that.

Then again - we have The Mark across the street. I don't think I need to say more.

[rofina]

Originally Posted by svlt

Great news for the Vancouver skyline. An 8-2 vote wasn’t all that close (understood the referral back to city staff was a bit closer at 7-3), and I’m kind of impressed council showed such a strong vote of confidence.

For once common sense prevailed.

You don't create a motion at this stage, to evaluate if you can also get rental housing into a design. Its ridiculous.

[officedweller]

Pinnacle has upped it's game in Toronto -
hopefully the same here.

https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/thread...17920/page-238

[Klazu]

Originally Posted by Vin

Mayor Stewart wanted the Council to approve this ASAP. His rationale was that a delay would cost Vancouver a great opportunity to create new jobs in a sagging pandemic economy.

He just wants those developer millions to fund his wasteful programs and luxury chairs. What an useless mayor Vancouver has.

Even then, happy to see this move forward. Too bad it isn't just a little taller, say 60 floors and 180 meters.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Klazu

He just wants those developer millions to fund his wasteful programs and luxury chairs. What an useless mayor Vancouver has.

Even then, happy to see this move forward. Too bad it isn't just a little taller, say 60 floors and 180 meters.

You mean the 150 social housing units? Unless you're suggesting the mayor is useless in his 1 vote where he could have made a recommendation to Staff to explore allowing an extra 5 floors which could allow another 2 levels (maybe) of social housing? I'm not sure policy supports that tho - which could result in this not being built at all for a decade, maybe.

[GenWhy?]

This is where the CAC money will be going:

"If approved, the rezoning would contribute on-site 152 turnkey social housing units towards achieving the City’s affordable housing goals as identified in the Housing and Homelessness Strategy and the Housing Vancouver Strategy. In addition, a $12.1 million cash CAC is offered for off-site social housing in the vicinity of the rezoning site. "

This is determined well in advance by a 2 decades old CAC policy and local community plans / policies which the current mayor did not implement.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

You mean the 150 social housing units? Unless you're suggesting the mayor is useless in his 1 vote where he could have made a recommendation to Staff to explore allowing an extra 5 floors which could allow another 2 levels (maybe) of social housing? I'm not sure policy supports that tho - which could result in this not being built at all for a decade, maybe.

I'd be happier if the City actually retained title to land like this, rather than sell it off. We've seen time and time again that wildly inflating land prices are making it impossible to deliver true affordable housing so why lose control of it? The City should easily be able to build affordable housing on those lands themselves.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by whatnext

I'd be happier if the City actually retained title to land like this, rather than sell it off. We've seen time and time again that wildly inflating land prices are making it impossible to deliver true affordable housing so why lose control of it? The City should easily be able to build affordable housing on those lands themselves.

Why build here when they can get cheap land anywhere else in the city for "affordable" housing.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Why build here when they can get cheap land anywhere else in the city for "affordable" housing.

In that case why build and affordable housing by any means in the downtown core?

The city should never sell land, only lease it.

[rofina]

Originally Posted by whatnext

In that case why build and affordable housing by any means in the downtown core?

The city should never sell land, only lease it.

We shouldn't.

Most of us cant afford to live in the core. Not sure why homeless need to be occupying some of the most expensive land in North America.

Particularly when you consider just how much more housing these sums could provide anywhere else.

And if they don't want that housing elsewhere?

Tough shit. No support for staying in the Downtown core.

For everyone else its "drive till you qualify" for the underprivileged its waterfront only.

Its ridiculous.

That being said, to get this back on track, unlike many, I have high hopes and I do want to see this go ahead. If well executed, it should be quite elegant.

[GenWhy?]

Social housing does not equal housing homeless.

[rofina]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Social housing does not equal housing homeless.

Sure.

A household with a 2 bedroom unit cant be making more than $63,000 to qualify.

So minimum wage (or less) each, for 2 people.

I meeeeeeeeean ok. I guess them folk can live waterfront too.