BC Place - Site 10C | 129.3m | 45 fl | Proposed

[Feathered Friend]

The proposal passed today. Vision in favor; Affleck, De Genova, and Carr opposed; Ball absent; Bremner conflict of interest.

However, there was an amendment. The height is conditional on the building being all market rental, which is probably what Pavco wanted this whole time. If it's not 100% rental, the height will be limited to 300ft.

Audio of closing comments from the mayor after the link.

https://twitter.com/j_mcelroy/status...35423982002176

[Metro-One]

Well, that is some good news.

Will add a nice pinnacle to the table top in the area.

[Migrant_Coconut]

I wonder how many trees went into those 163 letters and petition?

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

interesting how the mayor sites a small intrusion into the view cones. yet shadowing a park for 12mins by shaded trees isn't considered small. hmmm.

PavCo wouldn't have wanted condos anyways since with rentals they retain complete control.

[urbancanadian]

So what is the approved height, subject to 100% rental?

From what I gather it's 121.9m and 40 floors. Is this right?

Also what is the FSR? EDIT - Is it just 4.88?

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by urbancanadian

So what is the approved height, subject to 100% rental?

From what I gather it's 121.9m and 40 floors. Is this right?

Also what is the FSR? EDIT - Is it just 4.88?

It's approved at that height as a rental building, but only at 91m if they want to build it as market condos, which the comments they made at the Public Hearing certainly suggested PavCo were considering.

Nominally it calculates as 4.88 FSR, but the plan suggests that's misleading as the land parcel includes where the tower will go, and the land to the east where the new viaduct replacement will run. That is proposed to be built over the parkade of this building, so the whole site area is included in the FSR number.

[osirisboy]

I don't understand the rational. If the height is ok at 121m for rental why isn't it ok as strata?

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

I don't understand the rational. If the height is ok at 121m for rental why isn't it ok as strata?

You almost certainly wouldn't agree with it, even if the rationale was explained. Think of it as being like Rental 100 policy. If you build purpose built rental, you get greater height and density, even when a lot of people show up to object to that height and density, even more sign a petition, many more send e-mails, and just seven support it.

[Migrant_Coconut]

I think it's because rentals can be subsidized and can't be flipped, thereby being more "affordable."

[urbancanadian]

Originally Posted by Changing City

It's approved at that height as a rental building, but only at 91m if they want to build it as market condos, which the comments they made at the Public Hearing certainly suggested PavCo were considering.

Nominally it calculates as 4.88 FSR, but the plan suggests that's misleading as the land parcel includes where the tower will go, and the land to the east where the new viaduct replacement will run. That is proposed to be built over the parkade of this building, so the whole site area is included in the FSR number.

Thanks, I appreciate the clarification!

[WarrenC12]

Is there any realistic renders of the skyline with this new tower? I'm kind of surprised at the amount of outcry against it, and I'm wondering if people are being shown unrealistic version of what "400ft" looks like. How does the height compare to Parq and the Rogers Arena towers already built?

[Vin]

In June 2017 I said this:

Originally Posted by Vin

See, if there is a political will to puncture through the viewcones (*money-cough!*), then anything is possible.

Of course the City would approve this: they need the extra funding to tear down the viaducts, remember?
If there is a will there is ALWAYS a way.

Without this agenda, they would totally succumb to the viewcone policies, especially so because of those loud Nimbys.


From Daily Hive:
http://dailyhive.com/vancouver/777-p...oved-july-2018

On the matter of the view cone intrusion, City planning staff say the recommended view cone intrusion with the 400-ft-tall height is far less than the intrusion made by the Shangri-La Hotel, Trump International Hotel & Tower Vancouver, One Wall Centre, and a number of other towers.

They also prefer a taller, slender tower over a shorter, wider tower as it protects the highly limited views of the iconic BC Place Stadium roof from False Creek.

“I appreciate the view cones from time to time, and I appreciate the advocacy over the years. This Council has certainly protected view cones and added view cones to parts of the city that were previously unprotected,” said Mayor Gregor Robertson, who also commented that trees and even traffic lights have a greater impact on the view cones from certain perspectives.

“I think in this situation, we’re faced with a choice of a microscopic incursion into the view corridors for a future public benefit of rental housing and settling an obligation on BC Place for the investment there.”

City Council has yet to review the rezoning application for Concord Pacific’s portion of the Northeast False Creek redevelopment, which includes the remaining two taller towers of the intersection.

Don't you wish the City can speak more against the Viewcones such as this? Why didn't they say the same regarding Parc Casino hotels to go tall and slender rather than fat to block the stadium before? Either they are learning from past mistakes (which I don't think so), or they are just pandering to higher densities to seek funds for the viaduct removal. I especially like the part where mayor Robertson was criticizing even the trees for blocking mountain views.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Vin

In June 2017 I said this:



Of course the City would approve this: they need the extra funding to tear down the viaducts, remember?

Except - "there are no cash CACs or DCLs associated with this rezoning. Public benefits for this application are the completed upgrades to BC Place Stadium which was considered a significant community amenity and the statutory right-of-way necessary to construct the new Georgia Ramp."

So no money.

[wrenegade]

Presumably the higher building is not just higher, but also denser? That 4.88 FSR number (no matter what site area is used to calculate it) wouldn't be the same for a shorter, market condo building, correct? So the rationale is additional density if the project is rental, with the viewcone height limit as a special waiver. This site has a lot of things going for it that lend itself to more height (georgia "gateway"), density (proximity to skytrain and other amenities) and rental (the potential for future strata owners to complain about stadium noise). This decision seems like it makes sense and is fine in my opinion.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Except - "there are no cash CACs or DCLs associated with this rezoning. Public benefits for this application are the completed upgrades to BC Place Stadium which was considered a significant community amenity and the statutory right-of-way necessary to construct the new Georgia Ramp."

So no money.

Yes, there is money, as if its not approved the City would not have to cough up the millions to secure the land for the ramp. Also, by allowing this to go tall, it would also be easier to approve other talls at the Concord land to get funding for the viaduct demolition.

All no less corrupt.

If they really do care about this city, there would have been other talls that would poke through the viewcones at more downtown sites, OV and West End, West Broadway, etc.
Come on, since when did the Mayor blame trees for spoiling mountain views? He is a self-perceived "tree hugger".

Also, why are there so many more proposals where heights are being lobbed off elsewhere in the city? Notice that these developments are AWAY from the viaduct neighbourhood?

[kaitoe]

I don't know if I'm just naive, but how come the Pavco tower has to go through the rezoning process if the land is owned by the government? The Daily Hive article also says

In 2008, City Council made an agreement with Pavco to allow for the development of the site in exchange for the stadium renovations, even though the crown corporation was not obligated to request permission from the municipal government as the developments are on provincial government property.

And are there other laws in place that give the city control over the height of the tower?

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by kaitoe

I don't know if I'm just naive, but how come the Pavco tower has to go through the rezoning process if the land is owned by the government? The Daily Hive article also says

And are there other laws in place that give the city control over the height of the tower?

As I understand it, PavCo don't have to go through a rezoning process, but they offered to do so. With a change of Provincial Government, and the City working more closely on housing with the Province, it's not unreasonable to think they'd be even more likely to try to work together. In the past that wasn't always the case on this site - the huge electronic billboard that will be replaced by this tower completely ignores the City's sign bylaw, and wouldn't have been approved. The same is true of the billboard facing the end of Robson Street. All senior levels of government can, generally, do what they want with the land that they own, and the City has no jurisdiction over them. The new Seaforth Armoury building for example, never obtained a Development Permit.

[SpongeG]

Vancouver's B.C. Place Stadium could soon be renamed

"B. C. Place is a vibrant, world-class facility, and is one of only a few venues of this size and profile in North America yet to capitalize on this valuable type of revenue opportunity."

STEPHANIE IP Updated: February 4, 2019

B.C. Place Stadium — home of the B.C. Lions, the Vancouver Whitecaps and large-scale concerts and events — could soon have a new name.

The B.C. Pavilion Corp. (PavCo), which manages the stadium, will soon seek a private sponsor to pay for the right to put their name on the massive sports and entertainment venue. The provincial government announced Monday it had given PavCo approval to issue a request for proposals (RFP).

This comes seven years after the B.C. Liberal government scuttled naming-rights talks it was having with Telus, that would have seen the province earn $35 million over 20 years in exchange for turning B.C. Place into Telus Park. At the time, the province claimed the deal wasn’t lucrative enough and they wanted to keep the B.C. Place name.

It’s unknown how much it would cost for a company to put their name on the stadium but any funds exchanged would go toward offsetting the stadium’s operations, freeing up government funding for other projects.

“This naming-rights sponsorship opportunity will make more funds available for government to improve the services that British Columbians count on,” said Tourism Minister Lisa Beare. “We believe this is an excellent time to look for the right corporate partner for this important facility in B.C., and through that sponsorship, generate significant benefit for British Columbians.”

...

https://vancouversun.com/news/local-...oon-be-renamed

[osirisboy]

Wrong thread

Has there's been any new study on this project since it was passed last spring

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

Wrong thread

Has there's been any new study on this project since it was passed last spring

They were still doing a financial analysis on the final design (100% rental or not, 400 or 300 foot tower) and would still need to get a development permit.