The Stack (1133 Melville) | 161m | 36fl | Completed - Page 4

Vin · #61 Posted **Oct 9, 2015, 7:44 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by officedweller

Renderings filed with the City updated August 12, 2015:

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

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

Compare with rendering on Page 1 of this thread - they've added Shangri-La behind the tower:

Ahh, much better, with the Fortis building in front of it gone! That first rendering was really awful as it suggested that the proposed structure would replace Shangrila and Thurlow street?

officedweller · #62 Posted **Oct 9, 2015, 10:21 PM**

Right! I didn't even notice those errors.

LeftCoaster · #63 Posted **Oct 22, 2015, 5:53 PM**

This one went before UDP last night, met with non-support 2-7.

Hopefully the UDP makes them skinny up the tower a bit and go a touch taller. That's not really their mandate but doesn't seem to stop them from commenting on building massing anyway.

vanman · #64 Posted **Oct 22, 2015, 7:36 PM**

Awesome. Hopefully it results in a leaner, less awkward looking tower.

osirisboy · #65 Posted **Oct 22, 2015, 8:58 PM**

So why did it get non support?

The best thing I like about this one is the large floorplate

retro_orange · #66 Posted **Oct 22, 2015, 11:17 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by osirisboy

So why did it get non support?

The best thing I like about this one is the large floorplate

I think theres potential to make this one a bit better, they could maintain the large floor plate for the first 10 to 20 floors then above that make it slimmer and add the lost square footage from the smaller floors to the height, maybe they will go for the max allowable height!

red-paladin · #67 Posted **Oct 22, 2015, 11:23 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by retro_orange

I think theres potential to make this one a bit better, they could maintain the large floor plate for the first 10 to 20 floors then above that make it slimmer and add the lost square footage from the smaller floors to the height, maybe they will go for the max allowable height!

If the Trump tower project is any gauge, look at the initial 'asymmetric flower vase' proposal on that site and what we ended up with. So hopefully the same thing will happen here.

LeftCoaster · #68 Posted **Oct 22, 2015, 11:48 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by osirisboy

So why did it get non support?

The best thing I like about this one is the large floorplate

I'm not sure. It might not have been the floorplates at all, I'm just speculating.

We won't know until the minutes come out, and that's usually several weeks after the meeting.

jlousa · #69 Posted **Oct 22, 2015, 11:54 PM**

My understanding is they would prefer a cleaner design with less competing elements. But I was not at the meeting.

s211 · #70 Posted **Oct 23, 2015, 1:46 AM**

I'm hearing that the treatment of the lower levels closer to grade got the big thumbs-down.

retro_orange · #71 Posted **Oct 23, 2015, 7:39 AM**

Im curious about the 14 condo units that are on top of the existing parkade. How long have they been vacant? Were they high end? (For 1982)

I'd love to see this baby imploded.

officedweller · #72 Posted **Oct 23, 2015, 8:11 AM**

It would be nice if they could emulate NYC's proposed One Vanderbuilt to get some extra height:

http://www.yimbynews.com/2015/10/new...anderbilt.html

trofirhen · #73 Posted **Oct 23, 2015, 11:24 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by s211

I'm hearing that the treatment of the lower levels closer to grade got the big thumbs-down.

Not complaining, but just out of curiosity, I wonder why that was. What do they prefer be done with the lower levels? What treatment? More setback? (It is tight up against the street).

Jebby · #74 Posted **Oct 23, 2015, 11:34 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

This one went before UDP last night, met with non-support 2-7.

Is UDP approval required to move forward in the process? Or is it just a recommendation for the City?

jlousa · #75 Posted **Oct 23, 2015, 11:46 PM**

It's not mandatory but I believe their has every only been one project to have been approved without getting support from the panel. It's very unlikely any developer would go risk upsetting the panel by even going to council before getting support.

Klazu · #76 Posted **Oct 24, 2015, 2:14 AM**

Out of curiosity, which project that was?

jlousa · #77 Posted **Oct 24, 2015, 2:56 AM**

I used to know, but I can't remember which project went ahead, my understanding is they did act on some of the udp recommendations but did not go before them again in order to get support and took the risk that council would allow them to proceed. Perhaps someone with a better memory can enlighten us.

PopYourColla · #78 Posted **Oct 24, 2015, 3:49 AM**

501 Pacific?

jlousa · #79 Posted **Oct 24, 2015, 4:10 AM**

Great call

https://books.google.ca/books?id=5Sg...page&q&f=false

We should get back on topic though.

trofirhen · #80 Posted **Dec 24, 2015, 12:51 AM**

Let's do something a bit imaginative with the lower walls (to please the UDP), pull it a bit taller, to maintain large lower florplates, do whatever other cosmetic surgery is necessary ....
and build it !! It would add so much energy and impact to the skyline.
(simplistic post, but positive in intent)