800 Granville Street | 137.5m | 42, 38 fl | Proposed - Page 5

seamusmcduff · #1 Posted **Feb 3, 2021, 9:47 PM**

^Agree to disagree. I do not believe for a second that just because other cities are doing large scale block developments that it is the right thing to do. We also collectively decided that urban renewal, urban highways, strip malls, power centres, dead office districts, towers in the park, and sprawl were good ideas for our cities (almost the world over with some exceptions). I will continue to stand by my opinion that this form of development is completely out of scale with the human experience, and is not suited for one of Vancouver's only places where a fine grained structure of architecture, frontages, and businesses come together to create a unique place for people to gather and socialize (whether the scene that occurs there is your thing or not). It would be a misuse of the block to remove the experiential typography that has intentionally been preserved there.

jollyburger · #2 Posted **Feb 3, 2021, 9:57 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by seamusmcduff

^Agree to disagree. I do not believe for a second that just because other cities are doing large scale block developments that it is the right thing to do. We also collectively decided that urban renewal, urban highways, strip malls, power centres, dead office districts, towers in the park, and sprawl were good ideas for our cities (almost the world over with some exceptions). I will continue to stand by my opinion that this form of development is completely out of scale with the human experience, and is not suited for one of Vancouver's only places where a fine grained structure of architecture, frontages, and businesses come together to create a unique place for people to gather and socialize (whether the scene that occurs there is your thing or not). It would be a misuse of the block to remove the experiential typography that has intentionally been preserved there.

The problem with that cop out is that when you agree with the form of development it's enlightened urban planning. And when you disagree it's Vancouver bring "dumb" again. Anyone that has spent five minutes on Granville would question your BS about the typography of the area.

seamusmcduff · #3 Posted **Feb 4, 2021, 1:06 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jollyburger

The problem with that cop out is that when you agree with the form of development it's enlightened urban planning. And when you disagree it's Vancouver bring "dumb" again. Anyone that has spent five minutes on Granville would question your BS about the typography of the area.

I mean there's plenty of research behind typology, how fine-grained human scaled streets make people feel more comfortable and keep their interest, among other things I've described. It's not just arbitrary "enlightened" urban planning. Just as there's plenty of research showing why those bad examples of urban planning I gave are bad, there's plenty of research about what people are looking for and find desirable in a street, and the current state of Granville aligns a lot closer to that.

The discussion around the current state of Granville, the clientele, the atmosphere, the state of the buildings etc., is completely separate to this. It obviously has some issues right now, but this would not be the way to fix it, and would be moving things in the wrong direction.

Obviously there is things this proposal does that can maintain the fine grained nature of the street, but what it can't do is address what people find comfortable, appealing, and engaging. Just for example I think the below paper is a pretty interesting indepth review into the street height to width ratio that people prefer, which is between 0.5-1.5, which on my estimation is right where granville sits. One thing that Vancouverism does well is allow for much higher density while maintaining this sense of scale by setting buildings sufficiently back so that they don't contribute to this perceived ratio as much, which this development would not do at all.

"ENCLOSURE AS A FUNCTION OF HEIGHT-TO-WIDTH RATIO AND SCALE: ITS INFLUENCE ON USER’S SENSE OF COMFORT AND SAFETY IN URBAN STREET SPACE"

Denscity · #4 Posted **Feb 3, 2021, 10:45 PM**

Granville is many blocks long. One side of one block will not change the whole thing.

TwoFace · #5 Posted **Feb 3, 2021, 11:16 PM**

....

Changing City · #6 Posted **Feb 3, 2021, 11:32 PM**

.... back at you

GenWhy? · #7 Posted **Feb 3, 2021, 11:36 PM**

Tom Lee isn't vacant - Pre-COVID, anyway.

Again, I think Bonnis is just positioning themselves for the upcoming 2022 K1, K2, and K3 updates. Hence why I thought the recent K3 changes were the big deal and not the minor tweak being presented. The ideas Bonnis is suggesting would take talks a few years out in any case with the City.

TwoFace · #8 Posted **Feb 3, 2021, 11:49 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Tom Lee isn't vacant - Pre-COVID, anyway.

It turns out that it's the "temporary" space for Deloitte till Georgia street is finished.

DKaz · #9 Posted **Feb 3, 2021, 11:47 PM**

Wow. Fantastic building. I hope they build this. The facade of the Commodore and the Orpheum is retained but it's not clear if the establishments themselves get to stay or is it all for show?

officedweller · #10 Posted **Feb 4, 2021, 12:09 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DKaz

. The facade of the Commodore and the Orpheum is retained but it's not clear if the establishments themselves get to stay or is it all for show?

Yes, the Commodore would be preserved in its entirety and "bridged" over.
The Orpheum passage would not be affected either.

Migrant_Coconut · #11 Posted **Feb 4, 2021, 3:25 AM**

So in other words, this doesn't fit the "neighbourhood character" and should be reduced in size? Where have we heard that one before?

Well, we've also collectively decided that NIMBY sensitivities (such as the ones that created the zoning restrictions that're the reason why this thing is "OOC" to begin with) should be the least of everybody's concern when shaping a city.

GenWhy? · #12 Posted **Feb 4, 2021, 4:22 AM**

I'm not sure how City policies already in place here could be NIMBY.

officedweller · #13 Posted **Feb 4, 2021, 4:59 AM**

Tall buildings on Granville street are not a new thing.
It would be nice if the currently proposed building had a break in the length of facade (and I suspect that the UDP will require one)
and be stepped back from the heritage facades.

Here's proposal from the 1980s/90s for the site of the Best Buy/Winners Building.
Plans are limited by the Granville Bridge view cone and by the L-shaped alley behind Vancouver Centre (preventing easy tour bus access)

https://picasaweb.google.com/117187972778294086460

goodcitywhenfinished · #14 Posted **Feb 4, 2021, 9:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by officedweller

Tall buildings on Granville street are not a new thing.
It would be nice if the currently proposed building had a break in the length of facade (and I suspect that the UDP will require one)
and be stepped back from the heritage facades.

Here's proposal from the 1980s/90s for the site of the Best Buy/Winners Building.
Plans are limited by the Granville Bridge view cone and by the L-shaped alley behind Vancouver Centre (preventing easy tour bus access)

Good god, I am glad those never got built. The 80's and 90's were not nice to Vancouver's Urban Design. Canadian PostModernism is some of the worst Architecture I have ever seen and it is present in just about every city in the country.

Klazu · #15 Posted **Feb 5, 2021, 6:34 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by goodcitywhenfinished

Good god, I am glad those never got built. The 80's and 90's were not nice to Vancouver's Urban Design. Canadian PostModernism is some of the worst Architecture I have ever seen and it is present in just about every city in the country.

I think that today a few commieblock like this would nicely add to the mix of architecture. Sure, they would be ugly, but offer some contrast to a rather bland area.

Migrant_Coconut · #16 Posted **Feb 4, 2021, 5:06 AM**

To the best of my knowledge, the viewcones were set up with preservationism in mind - and the viewcones cap the 800-1200 blocks of Granville Mall at 60-90 metres (so no towers... which if proposed, would probably ruin the "typology" anyway). So not only is height unwelcome - fair enough - now apparently density overall is bad too?

Quote:

Originally Posted by officedweller

Tall buildings on Granville street are not a new thing.
It would be nice if the currently proposed building had a break in the length of facade (and I suspect that the UDP will require one)
and be stepped back from the heritage facades.

Eh, The Post didn't need a stepping-back. Don't see why this one would.

officedweller · #17 Posted **Feb 5, 2021, 3:29 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Eh, The Post didn't need a stepping-back. Don't see why this one would.

Hmm - the Heritage Commission said that the cantilevering facade of the office block proposed for the Leckie Building north on Granville overshadowed the heritage facade too much. So that sentiment could recur here too.

officedweller · #18 Posted **Feb 4, 2021, 5:14 AM**

Yeah, the gap may be enough.
The way they've rendered it though has the roofline of the heritage buildings blending into flashy surfaces.

It's also likely that the massing of the building - shorter to the south - is a function of the bridging over the Commodore Ballroom.
i.e. less mass supported by the bridge structure, making it more cost effective.

Migrant_Coconut · #19 Posted **Feb 5, 2021, 4:07 AM**

Probably, but the downtown thread has pointed out that the Heritage Commission is pretty much advisory-only. If City Council's alright with this iteration, it stays.

Migrant_Coconut · #20 Posted **Apr 12, 2021, 8:31 PM**

Virtual open house on the 22nd, register here. Survey on the bottom.