HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Downtown & City of Vancouver


    CURV Nelson Street in the SkyscraperPage Database

Building Data Page   • Comparison Diagram   • Vancouver Skyscraper Diagram

Map Location

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #121  
Old Posted Oct 16, 2015, 5:42 PM
Klazu's Avatar
Klazu Klazu is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Above Metro Vancouver clouds
Posts: 10,357
Removed by poster.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #122  
Old Posted Oct 16, 2015, 6:58 PM
Vin Vin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 8,724
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prometheus View Post
Stop getting hung up on Edmonton. The original reference to Edmonton was to make two simple points:

1) That if a small town like Edmonton can handle tall skyscrapers, then so can a much bigger and sophisticated city like Vancouver, which has the hottest real estate market on the continent. Indeed, the First Baptist proposal wanted to create a new landmark for Vancouver at 750 feet. It wasn't physics or the economy that cut it down to only 550 feet. It wasn't even the city-fabricated viewcones, since none go over the site. It was the small town mentality of city council and staff.

2) Although you may not like the design of Edmonton's first foray into tall skyscrapers (something to be expected given the city's relative immaturity), these skyscrpaers are nevertheless creating an impressive skyline and bringing levels of urbanity to the public realm not before seen in that city. Imagine what can be done in a more advanced and architecturally refined city like Vancouver, in the absence of political interference and contrivances.

Regarding Vancouver, the essential point is that the choice between height and quality is a false one. Indeed, greater height and density are what usually finance bolder designs, higher quality materials, and more ambitious public realms. This crop of bolder towers we are seeing in Vancouver, for example, is a direct result of the city's recent relaxation of height limits along the corridors where the proposals are being made, in conjunction with Vancouver's growing architectural maturity.

Given these latest proposals, one can only imagine the qualtiy and number of proposals we might be seeing if the city were to relax their controls on height and density even further and in other parts of the city too.

Well, our "new wave of amazing towers" downtown may look great, but they lack the awesome public realm potentially materialize at Brentwood Mall and the Edmonton Arena neighbourhood. Those proposed towers are only residential, with hardly any commercial or entertainment outlets in the podiums included. The kind of project found in Edmonton takes guts, foresight and leadership by the City as well as developers to initiate. Sadly we lack such tenacity here, and worse still, people who insist that short buildings are actually good for us.

In recent times, we've already missed not just one but a few opportunities for such grand projects to take off. The Stadium district was mentioned, but more importantly, Olympic Village was a huge wasted opportunity.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #123  
Old Posted Oct 16, 2015, 7:10 PM
LowerLonsdaleMike LowerLonsdaleMike is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 176
Last time I checked, this discussion should be related to Nelson on The Park. Stop going off topic people!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #124  
Old Posted Jan 26, 2016, 1:37 AM
koops65's Avatar
koops65 koops65 is offline
Intergalactic Barfly
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Quarks Bar
Posts: 8,528
Here is a clear and on topic post.

I added a drawing of Nelson on the Park: http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=106960
Vancouver diagram: http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?searchID=71426004
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #125  
Old Posted Jan 26, 2016, 1:39 AM
LeftCoaster's Avatar
LeftCoaster LeftCoaster is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Toroncouver
Posts: 13,044
Koops your contributions to the forum do not go unnoticed. You're a huge part of what makes this site great. Thanks!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #126  
Old Posted Jan 26, 2016, 3:07 AM
Klazu's Avatar
Klazu Klazu is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Above Metro Vancouver clouds
Posts: 10,357
Cool indeed! I hadn't realized how much taller Nelson on the Park will be. Quite happy that there will be a difference between the two, making the more appealing in skyline.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #127  
Old Posted Jan 26, 2016, 3:12 AM
Infrequent Poster Infrequent Poster is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 613
I could not help but notice trump tower is still listed as 67 stories (in the Vancouver diagram). It is actually only 63. Every other building (in the diagram) seems to list the proper amount of (real) floors.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #128  
Old Posted Feb 4, 2016, 10:14 PM
officedweller officedweller is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 41,023
From a piece by Frances Bula about the Wall Financial parcels across the alley on the Nelson & Thurlow corner:

Quote:
But, said Mr. McNaney, sometimes the planning department doesn’t hear about sales until deals are done.

He confirmed that the site being advertised as “1065 Nelson” hasn’t been rezoned.

Currently, there are two low-rise apartment buildings at 1075 Nelson and 1059 Nelson, for which the Walls had started the rezoning process.

Last July, they held a pre-application open house to show off a 60-storey “pixellated skyscraper” called Nelson on the Park. But the application never went ahead.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...ticle28471686/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #129  
Old Posted Feb 4, 2016, 10:29 PM
trofirhen trofirhen is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 9,026
....... so it turns out that 1065 Nelson - "Nelson on The Park" - was/is all smoke and mirrors? What's all this rotten fishy smell anyway?? Can someone elucidate more precisely?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #130  
Old Posted Feb 4, 2016, 10:57 PM
Klazu's Avatar
Klazu Klazu is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Above Metro Vancouver clouds
Posts: 10,357
It's a crazy market that only a much higher loonie can cool down. I don't really care that much if Chinese realtors are scamming Chinese millionaire investors into throwing millions at projects that will never happen.

If you are ready to put that kind of money into investment that you know nothing about, that's your problem of being an idiot and you will be scammed out of money anyways. But it sucks that we are being teased with fancy towers that never get built.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #131  
Old Posted Feb 4, 2016, 11:10 PM
Jebby's Avatar
Jebby Jebby is offline
........
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Mexico City
Posts: 3,330
So this proposal is dead?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #132  
Old Posted Feb 4, 2016, 11:42 PM
trofirhen trofirhen is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 9,026
that question !!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jebby View Post
So this proposal is dead?
That's what I (and most probably others, too) would like to know!!! Does anyone know ??? If so, WHAT a loss for the city!!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #133  
Old Posted Feb 5, 2016, 6:30 PM
LeftCoaster's Avatar
LeftCoaster LeftCoaster is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Toroncouver
Posts: 13,044
No rezoning application has been submitted to the city. That does not mean this project is dead or alive however, it just means the formal process of rezoning has not yet begun. It may never begin or it could begin next week. Likely there are or have been pre-submittal discussions going on between the City and Wall and they will dictate what gets proposed in any eventual rezoning.

The bottom line is the land has been identified as a higher building site, and if this project doesn't move forward something else likely will.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #134  
Old Posted Feb 5, 2016, 6:33 PM
Vin Vin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 8,724
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jebby View Post
So this proposal is dead?
Quote:
Originally Posted by trofirhen View Post
That's what I (and most probably others, too) would like to know!!! Does anyone know ??? If so, WHAT a loss for the city!!
Might as well, I mean I'm sure the City will shoot down the illuminated pixelated top for being too distracting to the birds, and that it will block the precious mountain views. The developer would probably then take the interesting top off and offer us a bland rectangular tower, shortened by 15 floors or so to "meet the conditions". Sorry for being hyperbolically pessimistic, but hey, always be prepared to be disappointed in this town.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LeftCoaster View Post
The bottom line is the land has been identified as a higher building site, and if this project doesn't move forward something else likely will.
I hope it won't end up like 1500 West Georgia.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #135  
Old Posted Feb 18, 2016, 11:12 PM
Vanelevatorman's Avatar
Vanelevatorman Vanelevatorman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 330
I'd really like to see this built, as per the drawings...Chance of that happening? Not good.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #136  
Old Posted Feb 23, 2016, 12:49 AM
bb1510 bb1510 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 649
I heard that Wall Financial no longer owns the site.

I read some article somewhere about the Chinese real estate crowdfunding company (the one alleged purchased the Molson site) now owns the Nelson site.

I'm not sure though
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #137  
Old Posted Feb 23, 2016, 1:40 AM
Metro-One's Avatar
Metro-One Metro-One is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 17,804
Well, this is too bad, I really liked this towers bulky yet slender form. Perfect for the location and height.

I hope what ever replaces this is at least as interesting and is at least as tall as this proposal.
__________________
Bridging the Gap
Check out my Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/306346...h/29495547810/ and Youtube channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCV0...lhxXFxuAey_q6Q
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #138  
Old Posted Feb 23, 2016, 3:29 AM
trofirhen trofirhen is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 9,026
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metro-One View Post
Well, this is too bad, I really liked this towers bulky yet slender form. Perfect for the location and height.

I hope what ever replaces this is at least as interesting and is at least as tall as this proposal.
Me too, but I'm rather pessimistic about that, this being Vancouver and its viewcones. Somebody somewhere will find a way to nix it, or put up a mediocre offering.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #139  
Old Posted Feb 23, 2016, 4:56 AM
bb1510 bb1510 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 649
http://business.financialpost.com/ne..._lsa=644f-b03c

"For some time, the apartment buildings on Nelson Street appeared on the Facebook site of a former realtor, Julia Lau, whose business card named her as a vice-president of Sun Commercial. Her post said she was looking for investors for a 58-storey tower development at that location.

The previous owners of the Nelson Street apartments are companies directed by developers Bruno and Peter Wall. They had previously started the rezoning process and presented plans for a 60-storey residential skyscraper, but the application didn’t go through so there is no rezoning in place that would allow for a tall tower at the site of the two apartment buildings."


Too bad. This was one of the better and sleeker new developments the city was getting.

Last edited by bb1510; Feb 23, 2016 at 10:09 PM. Reason: typo
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #140  
Old Posted Feb 23, 2016, 7:30 AM
Klazu's Avatar
Klazu Klazu is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Above Metro Vancouver clouds
Posts: 10,357
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metro-One View Post
I hope what ever replaces this is at least as interesting and is at least as tall as this proposal.
Considering how great the tower next door will look like, I think the pressure is on to build something as nice on this site as well. However as long as Julia Lau and other crooks like her are involved, this is just a speculation/flipping lot. Lot's of interesting stories about her businesses online.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Downtown & City of Vancouver
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 5:26 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.