The Charleson | 125.2m | 42Fl | Completed

[officedweller]

If an application has been made to the City for a development permit or a rezoning prior to a development permit, it would appear on one of these City websites:

http://former.vancouver.ca/commsvcs/.../applications/

http://former.vancouver.ca/commsvcs/...apps/index.htm

or here:

http://cfapp.vancouver.ca/planning_w...SelectTypeID=5

Until then, you'd need insider information.

[Prometheus]

If the developers found it beneficial to allow buyers to arbitrarily choose walls where windows were supposed to go for The Mark, then I suppose we can look forward to another horror show of random spandrel patchwork at the top of The Charleson too.

I suppose there is no reason why we won't be seeing more of this formerly unprecedented phenomenon in Vancouver from now on:

Originally Posted by Built Form

pix by Built Form

[Delirium]

a website is up now. limited information but Onni displays quite nicely on their homepage the spandrel mess at the Mark. i have zero expectations for this new building. interesting that there's only 125 units in a 43 storey building. that's really low.

http://www.onni.com/charleson/


http://www.onni.com/charleson/

scroll>> i just can't believe how bad the Mark looks. for a city so obsessed with 'higher buildings', how did this fall through the cracks?

http://www.onni.com/charleson/

[connect2source]

I'm a little more optimistic about the Charleson over The Mark. First off, it's a higher-end development, the design and shape is simpler and more modernist and perhaps Onni got a 'slap on the wrist' over the horrendous spandrel mess on the Mark, who knows? I wrote City Hall and voiced my opposition, perhaps others did too.

[subdude]

Gotta have those balconies dominate the design - those balconies that people don't use 9-10 months of the year....

[dleung]

It has a really fussy massing, and reminds me of the worst aspects of The Georgia. The mere 3 units a floor and curtain wall here are parameters that could and should have generated a much cleaner design.

[Genauso]

There is some value in continuing to redevelop alone. As long as they always try to do better than their last effort, it's infinitely better than the waste of vacant lots like the one about a block away from this site directly across from King's Landing.

As for balconies, I don't see why people who hate balconies don't also live underground to save money if they want to stay inside.

[Jimbo604]

Current status...

Source: me

[Delirium]

Onni posted a 3-d fly-thru video of this project on Youtube.
i have zero faith on how this is going to turn out given what they did at the Mark.

• Video Link

[trofirhen]

This building does not seem "top," but it looks better than certain others. I'd call it a "60/40." Nothing too special, but not hideous either .... like some other buildings recently posted.

[officedweller]

The render posted by Delerium shows a couple strips of spandrel (on the Richards side) absent on the video.

[djh]

Originally Posted by Delirium

Onni posted a 3-d fly-thru video of this project on Youtube.
i have zero faith on how this is going to turn out given what they did at the Mark.

• Video Link

At the beginning of the fly-though there appears to be a park or plaza kitty-corner to the development.

Real? Imaginary? Planned? I've never heard or seen that before.

[connect2source]

I love how at 2:08 you get a good view of the horrid spandrel mess on upper floors of the Mark.

[osirisboy]

They are advertising that buyers have the option of combining units just like they did at the mark. So I basically have zero hope for this building now. If someone at the city is reading this can you please stop this bizarre nonsense!! The mark is such a mess, it would be nice if we could at least learn from that mistake

[Prometheus]

There is reason to be concerned. After all, if it helped sales to give buyers the unprecedented option of randomly putting up false walls where windows are supposed to be at the Mark, then I see no reason why they wouldn't do the same thing for the Charelson.

I still have a hard time believing this actually exists in our city, for now and for evermore:

Originally Posted by Built Form

pix by Built Form

[scryer]

Originally Posted by connect2source

I love how at 2:08 you get a good view of the horrid spandrel mess on upper floors of the Mark.

Lol #architectshade.

[dleung]

Originally Posted by Genauso

As for balconies, I don't see why people who hate balconies don't also live underground to save money if they want to stay inside.

The people who hate balconies aren't the ones living in those units; it's the fanboys who find them getting in the way of sleek/corporate-looking tower facades.

Residential tower designs that attempt to be those things are fighting against both market forces and human comfort. IMO it's better to design for randomness/chaos/customization.


http://assets.inhabitat.com/wp-conte...-3-537x331.jpg


http://filt3rs.net/sites/default/fil...ers/gsw006.jpg

[Jimbo604]

Has this passed the Development Permit Board?

[Jimbo604]

Storage business closed up a while ago. No other signs of progress..

Photo credit: me

[Jimbo604]

Source: Byron in the 1300-1320 Richards Thread

Looks like something is going on on the roof of the building where the Charleston is proposed to be built. Byron posted this photo showing workers and a hole in the roof of the former storage business.