1040-1080 Barclay Street | 174.5m & 173m | 60Fl & 57Fl | Proposed

[trofirhen]

The Bure Ole Scheeren towers, with The Butterfly at a nearby angle, make a handsome cluster of buildings. But what is that tall plastic transparent building supposed to be? Thank you.

[Metro-One]

The name escapes me right now but that was the tower with the mesh at the top.

Sadly after being proposed the site was flipped. Guess the buyer should have moved on that project ASAP seeing the luxury slowdown that has now occurred given the price they paid.

Not sure if that exact proposal will come back but that site would be perfect for a new tallest in Vancouver. Hopefully it is not too affected by the new shadowing regulations or can be grandfathered such as The Butterfly.

The fact that the model still displays it at its full height (looks to be between 180 and 200 metres) is a good sign I guess.

[LeftCoaster]

Nelson on the Park, or "The Pixel"



Project sold from Wall Financial to A Chinese developer I believe. No way of knowing if the purchaser wants to continue the existing design or go with something different.

[Klazu]

Haven't seen these two before.





High-resolution version of the older skyline shot.


Source: https://bosaproperties.com/en/portfolio/barclay/

[rofina]

These two are phenomenal. I really hope they proceed. Amazing renders as well.

[Feathered Friend]

Further north along Thurlow Street, a forthcoming revised rezoning application will scrap Bosa’s previous plans to redevelop 1070 Barclay Street into twin Jenga-like towers, designed by German architectural firm Buro Ole Scheeren, with condominiums and social housing. Under the temporary flexibility, a new design will propose 100% rentals.

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/1065...reet-vancouver

[giallo]

I'm guessing those towers were scrapped due to them being another luxury-style development that wouldn't cater to the local population?

I'm sad to see the design go, but a 100% rental development bodes far better for locals than a bunch of $1.5m 700sqft apartments ever would.

[Metro-One]

Would be nice to see a height increase.

Hope the new design is at least decent. Sad to see this design go but it ain’t the end of the world. They ain’t no Butterfly or Kengo Kuma.

[Repthe250]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Would be nice to see a height increase.

Hope the new design is at least decent. Sad to see this design go but it ain’t the end of the world. They ain’t no Butterfly or Kengo Kuma.

If it’s 100% rental it’ll most likely be a generic design. But I’m all for it! More rental supply is desperately needed.

[Klazu]

Crazy that such prominent location would be converted to a 100% rental tower. Even more crazy is that it was originally proposed as condominiums and social housing, which don't mix at all. Nobody that is willing to pay over 1.5 million dollars for a condo wants to live anywhere next to social housing.

I have asked the question before, but who will continue to own these 100% rental buildings? Are local constructions companies becoming landlords for thousands of people or does the building get sold for someone to operate? It seems like an extra headache the constructions companies would not want to be part of...

[giallo]

Originally Posted by Klazu

\I have asked the question before, but who will continue to own these 100% rental buildings? Are local constructions companies becoming landlords for thousands of people or does the building get sold for someone to operate? It seems like an extra headache the constructions companies would not want to be part of...

They'll be owned by companies that specialize in rental building management. Dozens and dozens of buildings in the Westend operate this way, so it won't be anything new to the area.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Klazu

Crazy that such prominent location would be converted to a 100% rental tower. Even more crazy is that it was originally proposed as condominiums and social housing, which don't mix at all. Nobody that is willing to pay over 1.5 million dollars for a condo wants to live anywhere next to social housing.

They often live over the social housing. There's social housing under The Jervis, Mirabel and the Landmark, for example. And at the Butterfly. Many new Burnaby and Coquitlam towers are adding non-market rental units so that they can add extra height and density to the market part of the tower. Some of those are in podiums, and some are in a low rise building next to a tower (where a site is big enough).

Originally Posted by Klazu

I have asked the question before, but who will continue to own these 100% rental buildings? Are local constructions companies becoming landlords for thousands of people or does the building get sold for someone to operate? It seems like an extra headache the constructions companies would not want to be part of...

Many of Vancouver's developers are also landlords, including Cressey, Westbank and Concert. In this case the clue is in the name of the developer: Bosa4Rent.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by Klazu

Crazy that such prominent location would be converted to a 100% rental tower.

With the adjacent projects, the site is pretty hemmed-in and wouldn't have great views.
I doubt it would command top dollar, especially since they are late to the table and view blockage would be obvious.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Klazu

I have asked the question before, but who will continue to own these 100% rental buildings? Are local constructions companies becoming landlords for thousands of people or does the building get sold for someone to operate? It seems like an extra headache the constructions companies would not want to be part of...

REITs?

[urbanight93]

Really sad about the designs. Hopefully, Buro Ole Scheeren will be commissioned for future buildings in the city

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

REITs?

Ah beat me to it!

[officedweller]

Those ones may have looked better than 1515 since they wouldn't have had the visible crossbracing for cantilevers.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Klazu

Crazy that such prominent location would be converted to a 100% rental tower. Even more crazy is that it was originally proposed as condominiums and social housing, which don't mix at all. Nobody that is willing to pay over 1.5 million dollars for a condo wants to live anywhere next to social housing.

I have asked the question before, but who will continue to own these 100% rental buildings? Are local constructions companies becoming landlords for thousands of people or does the building get sold for someone to operate? It seems like an extra headache the constructions companies would not want to be part of...

Smart family-run companies know there will always be a constant, reliable, long-term cashflow from rental buildings, rather than the temporary "sugar high" from selling condos.

[svlt]

Really a shame, those renders looked fantastic.

[csbvan]

It's telling that many of the ultra luxury proposals are flipping to rental. With policy changes implemented to deter unproductive investment in Vancouver real estate, it tells me that a lot of these proposals were originally being developed for clientele completely disconnected from this City's market fundamentals. Good riddance. I don't need pretty buildings if they're not built as homes. The rentals will add far more to Vancouver's culture, economy and vibrancy.