Downtown Vancouver Updates II

[Vin]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

did it? i thought that was still subject to the viewcones? i thought that just changed the non-viewcone limits.

Nope, I think some punctured through the Viewcones, but only a selected few. Again I need to say that Viewcones policy is certainly one of the dumbest ideas ever concocted by any living thing in this vast Universe.

I want the ABC-led government to change this.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

did it? i thought that was still subject to the viewcones? i thought that just changed the non-viewcone limits.

It was mainly the Queen Elizabeth view cones (?) which I assume even 500-600 feet tall buildings and I think the reasoning was because they only slightly encroached into the bottom of the North Shore mountains from that viewpoint.

https://guidelines.vancouver.ca/poli...-rezonings.pdf

[madog222]

Originally Posted by Feathered Friend

https://plposweb.vancouver.ca/Public...ctId=219786826

https://x.com/City_Duo/status/1743073111782940685?s=20

According to the building grades permit the developer is Bosa Properties.

As part of the redevelopment, the Listel Hotel will close down later this year, in November, with demolition to begin immediately after. Construction on the new tower is then expected to commence in September 2025, with the new tower expected to be completed sometime in 2028.

https://storeys.com/vancouver-listel...elopment-bosa/


Image from Henriquez Partners Architects / Bosa

[city guy]

it looks like two completely different architects did the podium and the tower

[seamusmcduff]

I really like the look of the podium though.

[jollyburger]

But it would be too much if you continued the podium section to the roof. And it would be boring for that tower section at ground level. Seems like an okay compromise...

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

It was mainly the Queen Elizabeth view cones (?) which I assume even 500-600 feet tall buildings and I think the reasoning was because they only slightly encroached into the bottom of the North Shore mountains from that viewpoint.

https://guidelines.vancouver.ca/poli...-rezonings.pdf

ahh yes, those ones. the ones where the trees have grown and block out the mountains now.

realistically, i think the viewcone policy needs to be sent to a referendum for residents. its been a policy for so long, and the mountains/nature is so key to vancouver, that the people should be asked if they want them gone.

i get the impression the average person likes them and places like this forum are more of an echo chamber than anything else.

[gaviscon]

It's ugly, but I'd say it's an improvement to the Listel Hotel that's already there.

I'm surprised that this kind of design work was accepted though.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

ahh yes, those ones. the ones where the trees have grown and block out the mountains now.

realistically, i think the viewcone policy needs to be sent to a referendum for residents. its been a policy for so long, and the mountains/nature is so key to vancouver, that the people should be asked if they want them gone.

i get the impression the average person likes them and places like this forum are more of an echo chamber than anything else.

I agree that the status quo probably usually wins out but I personally think more people are indifferent about it especially with the weak pushback on all the larger towers being built recently in the downtown core.

My only point would be that it's presented with the data to make a judgement about the cost or non-cost that viewcones have on development (CACs, housing, office space etc.) Sure it was fine when Vancouver was a tiny little city where it was hard to push into viewcones I think it lets councilors or people voting in a referendum to know that viewcones aren't free.

And I could care less about any 60 storey towers as the reason why some viewcones need to re-evaluated.

If viewcones are good policy then would you make a case against adding new viewcones that might hinder development? Jonathan Rogers Park has one of the nicer views of the mountains but should everything below 7th be capped to protect that view? Except for the "natural" viewcones down the major road corridors of downtown it would not be any more arbitrary than that Choklit Park viewcone.

[city guy]

Originally Posted by gaviscon

It's ugly, but I'd say it's an improvement to the Listel Hotel that's already there.

I'm surprised that this kind of design work was accepted though.

its like a cut and paste of one thing ontop of another...just don't understand it

[officedweller]

Yeah really bizarre tower podium combo at the Listel site. Just continuing the vertical elements up with different glass or inset balconies would have worked well.

Anyone else find it annoying when authors
use the wrong words to describe a redevelopment?
"Transform" would be an adaptive reuse of an existing structure. This would be demolition and replacement with a new building. Daily Hive does the same thing with words like "turned into" ... It erodes credibility.

Through the 50/50 joint venture, the six-story Listel Hotel will be transformed into a 28-storey mixed-use tower.

[jollyburger]

But isn't it better to have a better visual streetscape podium design and have the value engineered bland tower section on the top? Versus the black tower design top to bottom?

[gaviscon]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

But isn't it better to have a better visual streetscape podium design and have the value engineered bland tower section on the top? Versus the black tower design top to bottom?

But the tower didn't have to be designed with black "stripes"...

I mean, looking at all the condos built across Canada, maybe we have problems with the quality of training at our top architecture schools like UT UBC...

That's how much I'm questioning the architects' training and credentials to design this kind of thing and call it a day at work.

[Spr0ckets]

Originally Posted by gaviscon

But the tower didn't have to be designed with black "stripes"...

I mean, looking at all the condos built across Canada, maybe we have problems with the quality of training at our top architecture schools like UT UBC...

That's how much I'm questioning the architects' training and credentials to design this kind of thing and call it a day at work.

It's not that simplistic.

Nobody goes to architecture school to learn only residential condo tower design or even specifically to specialise in residential condo tower design (for the most part).

In fact, most people who end up in residential condo tower design got their training for doing so post-graduation after they began their professional career and specialise in that kind of design and work for a firm that specialises in designing that kind of building.
Add to that, there's also the fact that you'll even find some residential towers were designed by people who didn't get their training from architecture school.

Architecture schools will give a generalized foundation and basis for design writ large, to anchor whatever field you end up specializing in (even though some schools can specialize in specific areas. But or the most part, the larger schools don't and in most cases you wouldn't have the resources to do so).

It's a lot more complez and complicated than you settle on the position that architecture schools are to blame, when what it seems you might be better suited blaming is the industry and field as a whole that can either facilitate and foster the better design you're hoping for, or cripple it (through regulations, rules, bylaws, industry standards, market constraints,....etc.).

Canada has some of the best architecture schools in not just North America but the world.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by gaviscon

But the tower didn't have to be designed with black "stripes"...

I mean, looking at all the condos built across Canada, maybe we have problems with the quality of training at our top architecture schools like UT UBC...

That's how much I'm questioning the architects' training and credentials to design this kind of thing and call it a day at work.

I assume it has more to do with their budget than their creativity.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

I assume it has more to do with their budget than their creativity.

I thought it was a contemporary take on a typical West End rental tower. I've noticed (for example) that MetCap have bought a number of older West End buildings, and they're updating them and repainting them with very similar horizontal bands in charcoal or black. Extending the band beyond the edge of the building so that it forms the side of the balcony is an interesting idea, and the sort of design detail I would expect from an Henriquez design.

Having a totally different expression for the rental tower from the replacement Listel hotel doesn't seem to be a design disaster, any more than dark bands on the tower. It's just a render, but I'm betting that some of those glazing panels are opaque, rather than transparent glazing, and if that's so, the building is going to look a bit different than the image in reality anyway.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

But isn't it better to have a better visual streetscape podium design and have the value engineered bland tower section on the top? Versus the black tower design top to bottom?

I think the question is why they didn't do a budget conscious top that had vertical elements, instead of horizontal elements.
Vertical elements would have matched the podiumbetter.

Best example of a compatible tower form with vertical elements is University District (also by Bosa!), even if it's only on the main Robson-side facade.
Glass colour would be chosen to coordinate with the podium.

Originally Posted by Lexus

2023, July 16

IMG_2328 by Lexus LX600, on Flickr

IMG_2329 by Lexus LX600, on Flickr

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Anyone else find it annoying when authors
use the wrong words to describe a redevelopment?
"Transform" would be an adaptive reuse of an existing structure. This would be demolition and replacement with a new building. Daily Hive does the same thing with words like "turned into"

... It erodes credibility.

i mean, does much media even have credibility anymore? mehh. theyre more interested in making $$$ from ads, getting clicks, etc. plus dailyhive is mediocre at best.

i dislike when people who write for a living make mistakes all the time. i do agree there.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by officedweller

... Daily Hive does the same thing with words like "turned into" ... It erodes credibility.

VanCityBuzz DailyHive has credibility? Seeing as all their content is paid advertising and/or reposts from other sites and platforms, this seems par for the course.

[osirisboy]

I read it as the property or site/land is being transformed or turned into. Not the building specifically