Fifteen Fifteen (1500 W Georgia) | 134m | 43fl | U/C

[NewWester]

What I find kind of amusing is that you can all still flip out over this. Like, there is a viewcone there and the developer proposed something taller than what was allowed on the chance that it would get approved anyway. And it didn't, which is unsurprising. Temper your expectations a little.

[Klazu]

I am surprised how the view cone can be so restrictive at this location. It is behind the Downtown "hump", which means it must be some 20 meters or more lower than towers on top of the hump. One would think that buildings here could go taller and wasn't this one of the magic sites in the West End community plan?

I really thought what they were looking in terms of height would be within the limits. Also such a dick move by the city, considering that this building could be something to defy Vancouver (together with few neighbouring towers). This area will be the new showcase gateway into the city, which will be photographed a lot. Don't they get the value of that?

[Caliplanner1]

Originally Posted by Klazu

I am surprised how the view cone can be so restrictive at this location. It is behind the Downtown "hump", which means it must be some 20 meters or more lower than towers on top of the hump. One would think that buildings here could go taller and wasn't this one of the magic sites in the West End community plan?

I really thought what they were looking in terms of height would be within the limits. Also such a dick move by the city, considering that this building could be something to defy Vancouver (together with few neighbouring towers). This area will be the new showcase gateway into the city, which will be photographed a lot. Don't they get the value of that?

Klazu, we have to now all look to Burnaby and Surrey and pray that they build 200-250+ metre towers since Vancouver has little to no (real) skyscraper pride!

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Klazu

I am surprised how the view cone can be so restrictive at this location. It is behind the Downtown "hump", which means it must be some 20 meters or more lower than towers on top of the hump. One would think that buildings here could go taller and wasn't this one of the magic sites in the West End community plan?

I really thought what they were looking in terms of height would be within the limits. Also such a dick move by the city, considering that this building could be something to defy Vancouver (together with few neighbouring towers). This area will be the new showcase gateway into the city, which will be photographed a lot. Don't they get the value of that?

I heard - and saw in a diagram - that the city was trying for a "dome shaped" skyline. Maybe all this is connected to that.

[WarrenC12]

Toderian's comments in the BIV article:

When Toderian was the city’s top planner, he led an effort to identify five locations downtown where the city would be willing to make exceptions for taller towers if the designs were exceptional.

The height exception, however, would likely be far shorter than even 700 feet tall, , Toderian said.

Council approved those locations as:

•on Seymour Street between Beach Avenue and Pacific Boulevard;

•on Howe Street between Beach Avenue and Pacific Boulevard (where Westbank’s Vancouver House tower is under construction );

•on Burrard Street between Alberni Street and Georgia Street, where there is a Tiffany and Co. jewelry store;

•on Burrard Street between Alberni Street and a lane; and

•next to the Loden Hotel between Bute and Thurlow streets on Melville Street.

Those sites were identified even though there were no proposals for those locations at the time.

“We wanted to have signature buildings in key entrance points where it could change the architectural feel of our city,” Toderian said.

The view cones are not a secret. Developers are buying cheaper locations outside of these key areas and hoping to get the zoning adjusted. I can understand why they are doing it, but nobody should be surprised when they are denied.

[osirisboy]

No one thinks that you can't have a great city unless you have tall buildings

I think it's how these view cones, especially the one going over this site is pointless. We are enforcing these restrictive rules on all these sites just to protect some arbitrary view.

[csbvan]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Toderian's comments in the BIV article:



The view cones are not a secret. Developers are buying cheaper locations outside of these key areas and hoping to get the zoning adjusted. I can understand why they are doing it, but nobody should be surprised when they are denied.

It's interesting. I wonder how often these adjustments succeed, and I wonder what the current Council's general position on it is. Does the current government want to keep the viewcones as is? Or are they looking at ways to bypass them...Obviously they couldn't just get rid of them, the NPA would be all over them if they tried, and the NIMBYs would follow suit. So is the Council more receptive to adjustments, hence why the developers in the know feel like they may as well try, or is it just wishful thinking on their part?

[Metro-One]

Yes, the viewcones are no secret, so what is your point?

The northern gateway project was no secret either, but people can still bitch about it, just because something isn't a secret doesn't mean it can't be a bad idea.

Again, we are not talking about supertalls here.

Heck, we are not even talking about over 250 meters here.

We are talking about 152 meters here, which places it at...... potentially as the 190th tallest tower in Canada (complete / UC / proposed).

Not an unreasonable height.

Sometimes I feel some of you will never be annoyed / dismayed by the city. Similar to how the Toronto forum members seem to defend any form of rail transit their city decides to build, even if it is a watered down half at grade LRT.

A few towers in height up to 700 or even 750 feet tall in Vancouver would not destroy the city, and arguably would enhance it (making it more visually interesting)

Look at what the Shangri-La and Trump have done, the city looks so much better and all the feedback has essentially been positivie about how much better the skyline looks.

Yes I feel many of you here would be giving the same lip service if those towers were cut down in height when proposed.

Trump reduced to 140 meters. Someone posts an article saying tall towers don't make a city. WarrenC12 says the view cones are no secret.

This tower is an exceptional design at a key entrance point to the city and the only view it would be blocking is suburban sprawl on a mountain side, how is being annoyed by this decision so wrong?

Also, i am on the other side of the ocean, if there I would go to the public meeting and voice this exact concern.

[WarrenC12]

I don't really care one way or another... tall (50+ real story) buildings are nice, but they won't change the city in any meaningful way, IMO. I prefer to see unique designs instead. Trump has a cool twist, Vancouver House looks like it will be great. Shangri-La is boring.

I'm happy to see any land in the city re-purposed for better usage, typically more density. We still have surface parking lots in the DT core, so I could not care less about 10 additional floors on some boring tower.

[Klazu]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I prefer to see unique designs instead. Trump has a cool twist, Vancouver House looks like it will be great.

Well with this project the height is not the point at all, but the truly unique design (that the height supports). I hope it retains it's unique elements even when dumbed down.

[officedweller]

If anything - I think it's a failure of the City to reconcile its conflicting policies.

The West End Community Plan allows towers up to 500 ft.
The view cones do not .

So why pay lip service to the concept of tall tower in the WECP when the view cones don't allow it?

Ditto for the Higher Building Policy.

[jlousa]

WarrenC12 is correct, the developer knew the view cone limit and proposed something over the top trying to get an exemption. Didn't work. Hasn't been posted here yet but the proposed building across the street on the NE corner of Georgia and Cardero will be reduced from 27flrs to 26flrs.
The reason why the city can't cave is speculation, keeping rigid rules limits what developers will pay for land. Once you open the gates to upzoning developers will up the bids expecting to be able to recoup it on the bonus density. That's why having area plans in place is so important as it brings some stability to pricing.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by jlousa

That's why having area plans in place is so important as it brings some stability to pricing.

Wall Financial is flipping its nearby Alberni site for double what it paid!
That site is uphill from 1500 West Georgia, so it would end up shorter than 1500 West Georgia due to the same view cone.

Alberni Street Nominee Ltd., which paid $83.4 million for the buildings at 1444 Alberni and 740 Nicola in March 2014, is under contract to sell them (which means the deal hasn’t been finalized), said local developer Bruno Wall, who is a partner in the company along with Peter Wall and others.

Wall declined to reveal the price and buyer.

The deal is estimated by real estate industry sources to be in the range of $160 million. The buyers are Hong Kong-based Asia Standard International Group Ltd. and Landa Global Properties, a relatively new, Vancouver-based developer headed by 27-year-old Kevin Cheung and Scott Wang, 31.

...

Architects at Musson Cattell Mackey Partnership have “just started” working with the new purchasers of the Alberni Street site, said firm partner Bill Reid.

Up until the end of December, architects at another local firm, Perkins+Will, had been working on plans for the Wall-related group’s project on the site.
...

http://www.vancouversun.com/business...652/story.html

Originally Posted by officedweller

Marked-up aerial (updated):


http://www.bing.com/maps/default.asp...UzQW51bGwlN0Q=

[Caliplanner1]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

No one thinks that you can't have a great city unless you have tall buildings

I think it's how these view cones, especially the one going over this site is pointless. We are enforcing these restrictive rules on all these sites just to protect some arbitrary view.

Great urban economies/cities world wide seem to seek to utilize scarce land areas downtown and else where within their city scapes most effectively and efficiently (from an economic standpoint) by building upwards as needed. London (and Paris) used to be a pretty low rise global cities until recently (within say the past 30 years)!

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by officedweller

If anything - I think it's a failure of the City to reconcile its conflicting policies.

The West End Community Plan allows towers up to 500 ft.
The view cones do not .

So why pay lip service to the concept of tall tower in the WECP when the view cones don't allow it?

Ditto for the Higher Building Policy.

It's not just the existence of contradictory policies; it's that the city's obstinate application of the Queen Elizabeth Park viewcone guideline for these new West Georgia proposals is arguably inconsistent with the spirit of its own higher buildings policy, which was (in large part) about marking important, ceremonial gateways into downtown with tall buildings that demonstrate architectural excellence.

Here we have exactly that: a prominent gateway into downtown on Vancouver's primary ceremonial street and a crop of internationally-designed towers that have been hailed as a bold departure from Vancouver's infamous architectural homogeneity. Moreover, the towers have been proposed at heights just approved for this location under the city's West End Community Plan and would not cross any viewcone that Burrard Place (*cough* "architectural excellence" *cough*) doesn't cross.

For the city to frustrate some of the most interesting architectural proposals Vancouver has seen (which have been proposed at heights consistent with the precise letter of the city's own West End Community Plan and the underlying spirit of the city's own General Policy on Higher Buildings) for the sake of the view encircled in red below is pure mindlessness:



This might be rock-bottom for the city on the viewcone file.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by NewWester

What I find kind of amusing is that you can all still flip out over this. Like, there is a viewcone there and the developer proposed something taller than what was allowed on the chance that it would get approved anyway. And it didn't, which is unsurprising. Temper your expectations a little.

That's because the developer, like many of us, do not see the point of having the view cones. The policy shouldn't have been there in the first place, as many of is have also argued countless times.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

It's not just the existence of contradictory policies; it's that the city's obstinate application of the Queen Elizabeth Park viewcone guideline for these new West Georgia proposals is arguably inconsistent with the spirit of its own higher buildings policy, which was (in large part) about marking important, ceremonial gateways into downtown with tall buildings that demonstrate architectural excellence.

Here we have exactly that: a prominent gateway into downtown on Vancouver's primary ceremonial street and a crop of internationally-designed towers that have been hailed as a bold departure from Vancouver's infamous architectural homogeneity. Moreover, the towers have been proposed at heights just approved for this location under the city's West End Community Plan and would not cross any viewcone that Burrard Place (*cough* "architectural excellence" *cough*) doesn't cross.

For the city to frustrate some of the most interesting architectural proposals Vancouver has seen (which have been proposed at heights consistent with the precise letter of the city's own West End Community Plan and the underlying spirit of the city's own General Policy on Higher Buildings) for the sake of the view encircled in red below is pure mindlessness:



This might be rock-bottom for the city on the viewcone file.

Bingo.

The thing is we only have a few sites downtown that have been recently selected as sights that will allow taller towers, with the stipulation that they achieve architectural excellence.

So, due to this supposed change / exceptions in policy, exceptionally interesting architectural designs have been submitted.

So then to completely reverse that and say, "nope, view cone wins" even though the "exception" for the site is 500 feet seems incredibly disingenuous to me and I really hope the city does suffer a little bit for this now apparent bait and switch action.

If this were a location that was not allocated as an exceptional site for height then I wouldn't be upset and i would agree with the "they knew about the view cones" attitude, but this case is different, and it is actually quite frustrating.

Now I am seriously worried about the Baptist Church site and the Nelson proposal, are we going to see reductions on those designs as well now?

[Infrequent Poster]

nevermind all that

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

If this were a location that was not allocated as an exceptional site for height then I wouldn't be upset and i would agree with the "they knew about the view cones" attitude, but this case is different, and it is actually quite frustrating.

To be clear, this site (and the others nearby) were not identified as potential sites under the city's General Policy for Higher Buildings, which allows for buildings taller than the Queen Elizabeth Park viewcone, if they don't enter any other viewcones and demonstrate architectural excellence. That policy identified just three areas: the CBD, the Burrard Street gateway area and the Granville Bridge gateway area. That's why I claim only that the rigid application of the Queen Elizabeth Park viewcone to the latest proposals in this area is arguably inconsistent with the spirit (as opposed to letter) of the city's Higher Buildings policy, since these proposals meet or exceed many of that policy's criteria and underlying goals.

The bottom line, however, as officedweller pointed out, is that it's an embarrassing policy contradiction to create new allowable heights under one policy (the West End Community Plan) that you are not prepared to allow under another policy (the Viewcone Guidelines). This proposal adopts the exact height that the city's West End Community Plan specifically allows for this site. It's absurd for the city to create new allowable heights that its not prepared to allow, especially when the proposals are also some of the most interesting that Vancouver has seen.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

so if i am reading this right, the city set a height limit that is higher than the view cone allows? how the hell does that even make sense?