Landmark on Robson | Completed

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Speaking of which, any news on where they’re at with old Coast Plaza? Are they renting out now?

Look like they are.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by Changing City

It looks as if the huge demolition project in Ontario is a bigger problem for JMX. In the case of the Landmark, there may be a partial resolution negotiated.

32. The JMX Group’s counsel has since been engaged in discussions with ASNA’s counsel in respect of a potential resolution of the lien and security amounts.

It's interesting to note that the big problem with the demolition was that the old hotel had structural deficiencies that meant it was much slower and more expensive to demolish safely (as well as having more asbestos than JMX had been told about). That explains why it took so much longer than they originally announced.

I guess if these are new court filings then the discussions failed?

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

I guess if these are new court filings then the discussions failed?

We need someone who is a lawyer and understands this stuff - but I think they were trying to resolve the sub contractors claims (which were smaller sums), just leaving theirs as the main source of dispute. I could be wrong about that though.

[Feathered Friend]

Not a lawyer, but it could be as simple as the deadline to file a claim had come up. Regardless if the discussions are going good or bad, they filed to ensure they had the ability to proceed with legal recovery if negotiations sour at a later date.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Are you still pursuing the myth that they could have re-purposed the hotel to residential and meet contemporary seismic codes?

Have you not heard of seismic upgrade or earthquake-proofing? Steel braces can be incorporated into the tower when they re-clad it. Geez, keep up with the times, yo!

I suppose based on your logic, older buildings like Hotel Vancouver and scores of older structures will come crumbling down at the slightest earth tremors?

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Vin

Have you not heard of seismic upgrade or earthquake-proofing? Steel braces can be incorporated into the tower when they re-clad it. Geez, keep up with the times, yo!

I suppose based on your logic, older buildings like Hotel Vancouver and scores of older structures will come crumbling down at the slightest earth tremors?

The architects said it would not be cost effective to convert the building, not that it was impossible. If it was possible, at a reasonable cost, why do you think they went the route of tearing it down and building the shorter replacement?

Absolutely, there are hundreds of older structures that will collapse in a major earthquake - the type that's somewhat overdue. In major redevelopments (or repurposing of structures to a new use, like hotel to residential) do you think the standard the building has to meet is 'a slight earth tremor' (whatever that is on the Richter scale)?

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Changing City

The architects said it would not be cost effective to convert the building, not that it was impossible. If it was possible, at a reasonable cost, why do you think they went the route of tearing it down and building the shorter replacement?

Absolutely, there are hundreds of older structures that will collapse in a major earthquake - the type that's somewhat overdue. In major redevelopments (or repurposing of structures to a new use, like hotel to residential) do you think the standard the building has to meet is 'a slight earth tremor' (whatever that is on the Richter scale)?

So why don't we get rid of Hotel Vancouver, or the Marine Building, then build a "cost-effective" short condo tower there in their place?

People will come up with all kinds of lies to justify their deeds. We can clearly see that in the Viaduct removal attempt, where engineer's assessments do not match what the City comes up with in the media.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Vin

So why don't we get rid of Hotel Vancouver, or the Marine Building, then build a "cost-effective" short condo tower there in their place?

People will come up with all kinds of lies to justify their deeds. We can clearly see that in the Viaduct removal attempt, where engineer's assessments do not match what the City comes up with in the media.

When you start accusing people of lying, you lose what little credibility you have. Your other question also makes no sense, and both buildings are in zones that don't allow condos anyway. Have a great day.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by Feathered Friend

Not a lawyer, but it could be as simple as the deadline to file a claim had come up. Regardless if the discussions are going good or bad, they filed to ensure they had the ability to proceed with legal recovery if negotiations sour at a later date.

I would agree with that - it's also a negotiating tactic.

[SFUVancouver]

This forum has become so toxic, it's appalling. Just be civil to each other. Have constructive positive things to contribute. Don't endlessly rehash old fights.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Changing City

When you start accusing people of lying, you lose what little credibility you have. Your other question also makes no sense, and both buildings are in zones that don't allow condos anyway. Have a great day.

You only lose your credibility when you are caught lying.

Originally Posted by Changing City

The architects said it would not be cost effective to convert the building, not that it was impossible. If it was possible, at a reasonable cost, why do you think they went the route of tearing it down and building the shorter replacement?

Absolutely, there are hundreds of older structures that will collapse in a major earthquake - the type that's somewhat overdue. In major redevelopments (or repurposing of structures to a new use, like hotel to residential) do you think the standard the building has to meet is 'a slight earth tremor' (whatever that is on the Richter scale)?

Kindly show us where the developer's architects said it would not be cost effective to convert the building? I'm really curious. And if you can find that, also kindly show us where retrofitting it to become seismically sound is a lot more expensive than tearing it down.

[truenorth44]

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

This forum has become so toxic, it's appalling. Just be civil to each other. Have constructive positive things to contribute. Don't endlessly rehash old fights.

It's really starting to feel like mainstream social media comment sections. Can we get a separate forum where we can send those who want to fight? Call it the monkey cage, where they can fling what they want at each other.

[SFUVancouver]

Originally Posted by truenorth44

It's really starting to feel like mainstream social media comment sections. Can we get a separate forum where we can send those who want to fight? Call it the monkey cage, where they can fling what they want at each other.

I don't want to be perceived as "old man yells at clouds", but it's honestly jarring how much the tone and quality of this forum has seemed to have declined in the last few years. I used to love this board and was a very active contributor during my first four to five years in the 2006-2011 period, disengaged during grad school and starting my career, and then returned as more of a passive participant. It just seems like there are a few familiar arguments that keep coming up with increasing invective and it's taking up more and more of the oxygen in the forum. View cones, malls, foreign investment, the DTES, and the damn viaducts. Enough. It's like bingo, waiting for these subjects and the usual fights to arise in seemingly every thread and topic. Don't change for me, obviously, but just hear from a long-time forum member that the appeal of SSP is virtually gone at this point and no amount of ignore lists or self selection of topics is likely to turn that around, short of a major culture change.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

I don't want to be perceived as "old man yells at clouds", but it's honestly jarring how much the tone and quality of this forum has seemed to have declined in the last few years. I used to love this board and was a very active contributor during my first four to five years in the 2006-2011 period, disengaged during grad school and starting my career, and then returned as more of a passive participant. It just seems like there a few circular arguments with increasing invective and it's taking up more and more of the oxygen in the forum. View cones, malls, foreign investment, the DTES, and the damn viaducts. Enough. It's like bingo, waiting for these subjects and the usual fights to arise in seemingly every thread and topic. Don't change for me, obviously, but just hear from a long-time forum member that the appeal of SSP is virtually gone at this point and no amount of ignore lists or self selection of topics is likely to turn that around, short of a major culture change.

Agreed. I wouldn't want to dump work on the mods, but I think more warnings and bans would solve the problem quickly.

[giallo]

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

I don't want to be perceived as "old man yells at clouds", but it's honestly jarring how much the tone and quality of this forum has seemed to have declined in the last few years. I used to love this board and was a very active contributor during my first four to five years in the 2006-2011 period, disengaged during grad school and starting my career, and then returned as more of a passive participant. It just seems like there a few circular arguments with increasing invective and it's taking up more and more of the oxygen in the forum. View cones, malls, foreign investment, the DTES, and the damn viaducts. Enough. It's like bingo, waiting for these subjects and the usual fights to arise in seemingly every thread and topic. Don't change for me, obviously, but just hear from a long-time forum member that the appeal of SSP is virtually gone at this point and no amount of ignore lists or self selection of topics is likely to turn that around, short of a major culture change.

Mods were more proactive back then. It was pretty easy to get banned from the site, so everyone's behavior was a lot more civil.

[jlousa]

If I had a my way there would be a lot more members banned as well. Including some long timers that love to troll but just avoid going over the line to get disciplined but do enough to bring down the enjoyment of the place. We have noticed the sentiment around here, heck even we don't spend as much time here as we used to because it's so unappealing.
Call out and report everything you feel should be acted on. And we will not hesitant to yank people from both sides. But be careful at the same time this place can become very scarce quickly.

[Zepfancouver]

• Video Link

[mcminsen]

Sept.19 '20, my pics

[officedweller]

Thanks.
Close to grade on the downhill side!

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by Vin

Recap Leftcoaster's comment....wrong again!

Wow, take the summer off from the forum and come back to this mess. Yikes Vin.

Couldn't have missed the mark much further on this one big guy, but looks like everyone else already pointed that out to you.