601 Beach Crescent | 202m | 67fl | Proposed

[dleung]

The viewcones were poorly-conceived and resulted in a wall-effect along False Creek that lacks layering and depth. I find many foreground towers on the water already blocking too much of the city and mountains, while towers in the more-distant CBD could stand to be taller without affecting the mountain view.

But in general the idea of preserving sunlit public spaces, views of the mountains/ocean and significant landmarks, etc from as many vantage points as possible is something that should have widespread support.

SFH areas are only good as long as they don't look worse than a hypothetical new townhome development (usually they do) and are sparse enough to preserve the tree canopy (ie shaughnessy, arbutus, dunbar, point grey, etc). The Vancouver-special neighbourhoods are just a blight on the landscape and should be replaced with 4-6 storey multi-plex type housing.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Changing City

So you still haven't understood that the mayor has no jurisdiction over parks? But he does have one vote towards approving this rezoning. So that's relevent, even if the park homeless part isn't.

Seems like the mayor has jurisdiction over NOTHING.

By the way, this thread is really really off topic. Let's get back to talking about this nice building and retail that will come here in a few years' time.

[jollyburger]

There was a crew on the site and they had a long cable on the ground with sensors every 4-5 feet down the length of the site (east/west) measuring something.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

There was a crew on the site and they had a long cable on the ground with sensors every 4-5 feet down the length of the site (east/west) measuring something.

Geotechnical investigation of soils condition or ground water conditions? Awesome news: prep work is being done now.

[Jimbo604]

.

Anything happening on site lately?

This was "approved by Council at Public Hearing on September 17 and 30, 2020." Six months ago now.

Source: COV Rezoning webpage for 601 Beach Crescent


.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Jimbo604

.

Anything happening on site lately?

This was "approved by Council at Public Hearing on September 17 and 30, 2020." Six months ago now.

Source: COV Rezoning webpage for 601 Beach Crescent.

The developers don't appear to have submitted a Development Application yet.

[vanman]

I'm still holding out hope that this will be sent back to the drawing board.

[jollyburger]

When it got announced they said they wanted to build within the year and finish by 2024.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by vanman

I'm still holding out hope that this will be sent back to the drawing board.

Same here.. (and hopefully others, too) Something about this building just hasn't quite 'got it.'

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by Jimbo604

.

Anything happening on site lately?

This was "approved by Council at Public Hearing on September 17 and 30, 2020." Six months ago now.

Source: COV Rezoning webpage for 601 Beach Crescent


.

I haven't seen the conditions appended to their rezoning approval yet, so those could be the holdup. Conditions to rezoning or DP can often take a long time to address and hold up the next steps for many months if not over a year.

[LeftCoaster]

This is in for DP as of yesterday:

https://shapeyourcity.ca/601-beach-crescent

Seems like the height has settled at 166m.

[Feathered Friend]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

This is in for DP as of yesterday:

https://shapeyourcity.ca/601-beach-crescent

Seems like the height has settled at 166m.

Heh I was planning to put that out today, but you beat me to it. While the height is unchanged, it's a bit misleading as the rooftop has undergone significant sculpting, and the result has eliminated about 50k sqft.

[LeftCoaster]

Height seems down to me (only 4m). This diagram seems to set it out pretty simply:



Height is down and definitely some lost area, but the roofline looks a lot better.

It's strange that the Shape Your City landing page still shows the old design, the new one in the skyline study seems much sleeker.

Also interesting, it lists Vancouver House at 155m not 151 as approved.

[Feathered Friend]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

Height seems down to me (only 4m). This diagram seems to set it out pretty simply:

Height is down and definitely some lost area, but the roofline looks a lot better.

It's strange that the Shape Your City landing page still shows the old design, the new one in the skyline study seems much sleeker.

Also interesting, it lists Vancouver House at 155m not 151 as approved.

That's odd, as the stats on both the October 2019 rezoning page, as well as the referral report list the height as 163m, which is the same as the info on the Shape Your City DP. Maybe one's counting the usable floors, while the other is referring to the total height?

https://shapeyourcity.ca/601-beach-crescent

https://rezoning.vancouver.ca/applications/601beach/index.htm

referral report
https://council.vancouver.ca/20200721/documents/rr6.pdf

[dleung]

I submitted my comments, same as last time:

"This design is bad enough with these arbitrary applied-graphic curves, if it doesn't also undermine and dilute the impact of Vancouver House - the other half of this gateway into the city - with a cheap imitation of the former's sweeping curves, which were driven by a site constraint-based rationale. Unlike Vancouver House, which by growing upward from a triangular floorplate achieves 30m separation between all tower units and the noise of Granville Bridge, the setbacks here have no purpose and leaves the lowest units only 24m from the bridge. I've seen plenty of terrible designs in this city, but this is the only one that also dumbs down it's landmark neighbour."

Would have preferred something that mirrored the functional gesture of Vancouver House with respect to the bridge setback, without imitating the curves:





Only 3 unique floorplates instead of 50 might result in less insane unit layouts

[Klazu]

Boo about the height reduction. We're they required to cut it down or why couldn't they add one more floor? Being a fair but taller than Vancouver House would add visual appeal but that's something this city understands nothing about.

[svlt]

Originally Posted by dleung

I submitted my comments, same as last time:

"This design is bad enough with these arbitrary applied-graphic curves, if it doesn't also undermine and dilute the impact of Vancouver House - the other half of this gateway into the city - with a cheap imitation of the former's sweeping curves, which were driven by a site constraint-based rationale. Unlike Vancouver House, which by growing upward from a triangular floorplate achieves 30m separation between all tower units and the noise of Granville Bridge, the setbacks here have no purpose and leaves the lowest units only 24m from the bridge. I've seen plenty of terrible designs in this city, but this is the only one that also dumbs down it's landmark neighbour."

Would have preferred something that mirrored the functional gesture of Vancouver House with respect to the bridge setback, without imitating the curves:





Only 3 unique floorplates instead of 50 might result in less insane unit layouts

Not to be banal but 601 Beach as proposed looks way better than that rendering . I think we all know this is a bit of a city vanity project and less a functional one.

[officedweller]

I agree that dleung's blocky design doesn't work as a standalone tower - I think it would work in a row of rectangular towers, with its cut-out being a feature. There a slightly similar tower in Toronto with one corner cut back once.

[dreambrother808]

I wish they would build a mirror-image Vancouver House in that space. That would be dramatic and beautiful.

[dleung]

Originally Posted by svlt

Not to be banal but 601 Beach as proposed looks way better than that rendering . I think we all know this is a bit of a city vanity project and less a functional one.

I beg to differ, but am curious as to your specific rationale?