CF Pacific Centre Developments

[officedweller]

Nordstrom signs have finally been removed or covered up (blade signs) on the former store.
The ground level winodws have been plastered with cartoony Vancouver themed wraps (looks good) (which may also help protect the glass).

[officedweller]

On the Granville side of the former Nordstrom (north half of the store).
The south end of the frontage just has newsprint paper inside the windows (maybe something temporary going on inside?)







Former Nordstrom front doors:

[jollyburger]

RIP all the people who think we need more hotel rooms.

"We haven't finalized our plans for the building," Cadillac Fairview senior vice-president Tom Knoepfel told BIV this afternoon.

"There may be a residential component to it. I don't know. We haven't determined the final use for the building. I would expect that, ultimately, at least a portion of the building will be a hotel."

https://biv.com/article/2023/12/rosewood...ds-top-25-hotels-plans-temporary-closure

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

RIP all the people who think we need more hotel rooms.

https://biv.com/article/2023/12/rosewood...ds-top-25-hotels-plans-temporary-closure

I wonder if they would consider full demolition (and go taller) if there is a substantial residential component?
I think the site is in Scotia Tower's view shadow.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

RIP all the people who think we need more hotel rooms.



https://biv.com/article/2023/12/rosewood...ds-top-25-hotels-plans-temporary-closure

Are they allowed to have residential homes there or are they referring to hotel rooms as "residential"?

[madog222]

He definitely means true residential.

Residential isn't allowed under the current CD, it would require rezoning.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by officedweller

I wonder if they would consider full demolition (and go taller) if there is a substantial residential component?
I think the site is in Scotia Tower's view shadow.

I wonder if it's possible depending on the interaction with the underground parkade and/or the shopping mall.

They can go to around 165m with the view cones on the corner closer to the Apple Store..

https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/appendix-c-791-w-georgia-architectural-pages-1-to-18.pdf

[madog222]

Complete demo and rebuild seems like a complete waste just for an extra twelve or so floors, there is no way that would make financial sense.

Knoepfel's wording suggests that isn't their plan.

We haven't determined the final use for the building.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

I wonder if it's possible depending on the interaction with the underground parkade and/or the shopping mall.

They can go to around 165m with the view cones on the corner closer to the Apple Store..

https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/appendix-c-791-w-georgia-architectural-pages-1-to-18.pdf

Thanks.



But I don't know think this Ziedler diagram to 165m (geodetic) accounts for the Scotia Tower view shadow.
The top of the view cone is shown a bit above Canaccord Tower which is about the height of TD Tower.
Ziedler is from Toronto, so I don't know if they know about view cone shadows.

This is from the 2011 Telus Garden rezoning, it shows the Scotia Tower shadow in front of which the Telus Garden condo was built taller than the view cone
(i.e. Scotia Tower intrudes into the view cone and anything built in front or behind it doesn't count against the view cone as long as it stays within the Scotia Tower intrusion)
I suspect that the Four Seasons also resides in that view shadow.
I think that the 165m (geodetic) limit shown in the Ziedler diagram is the top of the view cone shown as the red line (to the height of the TD Tower).
If the Four Seasons falls within Scotia Tower's view shadow, it could go substantially higher than the existing building
(probably just below the Hotel Georgia condo tower).



Here's the alignment of the view shadow past Telus Garden and Scotia Tower to the Four Seasons site (shown in green).



You can see the top of the former Four Seasons in this pic just below the Fairmont Pacific Rim
(concrete cladding with a square black vent).
If it falls in the view shadow of Scotia Tower, it could go as tall as Scotia Tower.
(since it's behind Scotia Tower, Scotia Tower would even block a slightly taller building)

Of course, the footings and their ability to go that tall (and how much reinforcving would be required), are another matter.


https://pixabay.com/photos/vancouver-skyline-british-columbia-4585887/

[jollyburger]

From the Hotel Georgia rezoning:

The site is within the 12th Avenue/Cambie Street view cone which has a height limit of 154.4 m (506.6 ft.) at this location. The proposed total building height would not encroach this limit. [Note: The maximum building height calculated for view protection includes all appurtenances such as mechanical/elevator penthouses, decorative roofs and aerials. Building height for zoning purposes is calculated only to the roof parapet of the uppermost occupied space.]

The proposed height does exceed the maximum height of the Queen Elizabeth Park view shed at this location, 110.9 m (331.1 ft.). In recent years, a number of buildings which would enhance the downtown profile have been permitted to exceed the Q.E. Park view shed. As on these previous occasions, and recalling that encroachment was approved in 1997, staff support encroachment of the Q. E. Park view shed because the proposed building mass and height will contribute positively to the downtown skyline.

https://council.vancouver.ca/020514/p3.htm

I still think they wouldn't totally be in the view shadow for Scotia Tower if you look at the Vancouver Centre "cut out" which seems to run directly into the old Four Seasons tower.

For the Vancouver Centre II rezoning:

The application shows a building height of approximately 124 m (406.8 ft.). Two view cones affect this site: view cone 9.2.1 (Cambie Street to North Shore Mountains) limits the overall height of the building, including all appurtenances, to approximately 128 m (420 ft.). In addition, view cone F1.3 (Choklit Park) restricts a portion of the tower floorplate to approximately 106 m (348 ft.) on the remainder of the site. It has been concluded that a maximum height of 125.5 m (411.8 ft.) can be supported, subject to there being no protrusions into either of the view cones that affect this site.

https://roar-assets-auto.rbl.ms/files/53857/phea3-Report.pdf

But I think the F 1.2 Choklit Park view cone also hits the hotel tower but not within a view shadow of the Scotia Tower.

[officedweller]

Yeah, I think the Choklit Park view cone 1.2 is responsible for the west side cut-out on VCII.
There is a VC12 (Granville Bridge) shown on the Four Seasons volumetric view cone diagram, but not VC1.2.
But looking at the City website for the Choklit Park view cone, I think you may be right that that view cone applies, but not sure to what height.
Probably short though, given the VCII cut-out.
https://vancouver.ca/home-property-development/protecting-vancouvers-views.aspx

[C3YVR]

"We haven't finalized our plans for the building," Cadillac Fairview senior vice-president Tom Knoepfel told BIV this afternoon.

"There may be a residential component to it. I don't know. We haven't determined the final use for the building. I would expect that, ultimately, at least a portion of the building will be a hotel."


My hope is that this at least indicates CF is getting close to signing an operator who is interested in a 'Hotel and Residence' type of property. In addition to offering hotel rooms it would also offer serviced apt type units designed for longer stays, and assuming they are still going after the luxury market could attract film industry types or business workers on special projects. This could help with the lower room numbers luxury operators prefer, but add to the higher revenue that will be required.
The darker alternative is that after all this time Tom Knoepfel is just spitballing ideas in the hope that something will stick. I've come to realize that anything he says has to be taken with a grain of salt so at this point things could go either way.
I doubt they are thinking of knocking down the existing building and rebuilding, but what do I know.

[jollyburger]

If it's long-term stays it could probably just stay as a hotel like Sutton. I'm guessing it would just be regular rental if it's not all hotel.

From November

According to Cadillac Fairview President & CEO Sal Iacono, the phased strategy of entering the residential sector is familiar territory for CF.

"It was in 1953 that our company was founded by meeting the need for housing during the post-war baby boom," said Mr. Iacono. "We revolutionized the design of apartment buildings, introducing features that are taken for granted now such as health club facilities, individually controlled heating and air conditioning, underground parking, and grounds landscaped with trees and fountains. These were all pioneered by the early forerunners of CF and for us today, our full-circle re-entry into residential is akin to homecoming of sorts."

Mr. Barwise also credits Ottawa for removing the federal sales tax on construction of rental housing as incentivizing increased investment in residential projects, describing the move as "timely, significant, and more than welcomed."

https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/cadillac-fairview-build-residential-rental-150000909.html

[jollyburger]

791 W Georgia development application comments

1 total response received
Opposed 100%

Terrible design. 1. Very bland walls 2. No attention whatsoever to a
human-scaled podium, relationship between the tower and the
podium, and creating an interesting pedestrian experience 3. Very
bulky tower shape 4. Architectural expression is very ugly and not
fitting for Vancouver 5. Vancouverism principles are absent

https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/appendix-h-syc-comments-791-w-georgia.pdf

Which former city planner submitted it?

[officedweller]

Isn't Pacific Centre under a long term ground lease from the City?
That would probably prevent the sale of residential units as condos.

EDIT: Found the lease from Pacific Centre back to the City for the underground EasyPark parkade, which mentions a Block 52 Ground Lease from Eaton's and an Undersurface Lease from the City - so not sure who owns the land now:
https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/oic/arc_oic/2836_1975

Originally Posted by jollyburger

791 W Georgia development application comments

1 total response received
Opposed 100%

Terrible design. 1. Very bland walls 2. No attention whatsoever to a
human-scaled podium, relationship between the tower and the
podium, and creating an interesting pedestrian experience 3. Very
bulky tower shape 4. Architectural expression is very ugly and not
fitting for Vancouver 5. Vancouverism principles are absent

https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/appendix-h-syc-comments-791-w-georgia.pdf

Which former city planner submitted it?

Short of demolition, the comment ignores the fact it's a renovation of an existing structure.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Isn't Pacific Centre under a long term ground lease from the City?
That would probably prevent the sale of residential units as condos.

EDIT: Found the lease from Pacific Centre back to the City for the underground EasyPark parkade, which mentions a Block 52 Ground Lease from Eaton's and an Undersurface Lease from the City - so not sure who owns the land now:
https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/oic/arc_oic/2836_1975

Short of demolition, the comment ignores the fact it's a renovation of an existing structure.

I found this FOI in October that seems to suggest Block 42 was sold to CF in 2015 for 8.35 million.

"We have completed the search for responsive records for this request and no responsive records have been located. Real Estate Services noted there is no record of a report or any other document to Council, as the sale of Block 42 was by way of an Option to Purchase for a predetermined amount that was set out in the Ground Lease entered into between the City and Pacific Centre e Limited in 1970, and that exercising the Option to Purchase required no report to Council."

Block 42 is between Georgia/Dunsmuir.

https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=10053942&postcount=4047

Also just found the lease:

1

In consideration of the rents, covenants and agreements
herein contained on the part of the LESSEE to be paid, observed
and performed, the LESSOR for itself, its successors and assigns,
hereby gives to the LESSEE, its successors and its permitted
assigns or any MORTGAGEE entitled to the benefit of this option,
the option to purchase the DEMISED LANDS for the price .and upon
the terms and subject to the conditions in this Article XX
contained.

https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/oic/arc_oic/4233_1969

[officedweller]

Thanks!
What a steal!

****

Just a note that the lights seem to be on inside Nordstrom. Not sure why.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

I found this FOI in October that seems to suggest Block 42 was sold to CF in 2015 for 8.35 million.



Block 42 is between Georgia/Dunsmuir.

https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=10053942&postcount=4047

Also just found the lease:

1


https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/oic/arc_oic/4233_1969

Didn't the city just own the parking rights?

....As mayor the late Tom Campbell promoted the creation of Pacific Centre, which opened in 1973. But it was his handiwork that ensured that the rights to the parking remained with the city, since the underground portion of the mall encroached on Granville Street....

https://edmontonjournal.com/news/staff-b...oon-be-vacant-again-with-sears-departure

[jollyburger]

Yeah there's a separate undersurface/parking lease for the block it seems.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

RIP all the people who think we need more hotel rooms.



https://biv.com/article/2023/12/rosewood...ds-top-25-hotels-plans-temporary-closure

Shows how incompetent they are. They made people think they could run this place better than Four Seasons Hotel, which clearly they can't. Funny thing is, after all these years, they still do not know what to do with this huge property.