The Curv | 178.5m | 60Fl | Proposed

[dleung]

Not a fan of the waves, but vagina vibes side... for this much density, the tower could meet the ground with a lot more grace than what's shown, and have more intentionally-scaled public space than the front yard of a 1970's walk-up. It's like they didn't design the tower base at all

[bb1510]

so is only the crown lighted in the newest proposal or the entire length of the green strips are lit

does anyone know what the green strip material will be and have there been any real samples shown?

[ericmacm]

I hate to be blunt, but this is such a joke.

This project has been proposed since around 2015, if you count the previous version "Nelson on The Park" before the project was sold. It makes me frustrated that these ~500 residential units are coming up on 7 years (now likely more) of waiting just for approval. Meanwhile, across the province, Kelowna's Water Street by the Park development with ~650 units was initially proposed in 2019 and is now soon going to begin construction.

I get that the finer details of design are important and can change a lot in terms of how a building can interact with the neighbourhood around it, but there needs to be a balance.

[Feathered Friend]

Originally Posted by Florilege

Is it completely cancelled or does it need to be reworked once again?

It's not completely cancelled, I'm not sure why others got that idea. What will happen now is the applicant will have to make some changes to the look of the tower, and a lot of improvements at the ground level. Afterwards, the UDP will likely be asked to weigh in on if those moves were enough, and then it will go to the Development Permit Board who will make the final decision. All of this will mean a few months of delay.

Originally Posted by dleung

Not a fan of the waves, but vagina vibes side... for this much density, the tower could meet the ground with a lot more grace than what's shown, and have more intentionally-scaled public space than the front yard of a 1970's walk-up. It's like they didn't design the tower base at all

The ground level was clearly the weakest part of the project, though I'll leave it to others to judge whether that warranted resubmission, or if the issues could have been handled through conditions of approval.

Originally Posted by bb1510

so is only the crown lighted in the newest proposal or the entire length of the green strips are lit

They included a render in the slideshow presentation, but as the lights in the room were turned back on, my photos didn't turn out well at all. That said, the intent is for them to be on every slab, at the outer green band.

[Metro-One]

I agree that something needs to be done to the ground level / street interaction, but t he point still stands how silly it is for someone complaining about how bright Vancouver is from their Bowen Island home as part of this review.

[officedweller]

I suspect that it was rejected because it looks too sleek - unlike any other residential tower in the city.
I'm sure if they added more mullions and spandrel, and made it asymmetrical, it would get approved.

I wonder if it would get approved if they eliminated all open space at grade and placed it on a podium?

[Florilege]

Originally Posted by Feathered Friend

It's not completely cancelled, I'm not sure why others got that idea. What will happen now is the applicant will have to make some changes to the look of the tower, and a lot of improvements at the ground level. Afterwards, the UDP will likely be asked to weigh in on if those moves were enough, and then it will go to the Development Permit Board who will make the final decision. All of this will mean a few months of delay.

Thank you for your answer. I'm not too accustumed to Vancouver's building timelines, coming from Montreal. At best, how soon can we expect the promoter to tear down the existing building?

[urbanight93]

Originally Posted by officedweller

I suspect that it was rejected because it looks too sleek - unlike any other residential tower in the city.
I'm sure if they added more mullions and spandrel, and made it asymmetrical, it would get approved.

I wonder if it would get approved if they eliminated all open space at grade and placed it on a podium?

I submitted my comments to the link above and they touched exactly on these points (and more).

The fact that a project is being penalized for bringing variety in form and contributing a divergent architectural expression, all while providing 500 units AND social housing AND using advanced energy-efficiency systems is ludicrous and indicates the DRP's failings as a review body.

The City should get its priorities straight because as things stand, the planning process is severely falling short and has a chokehold on development.

As has been said, i don't see why these issues couldn't have been solved as conditions of approval.

[phesto]

Interesting that the developer is from Montreal and doesn't appear to have developed anything in Vancouver before.

Curious if a local developer would've gotten a more favorable response, or might have been a little more involved with the City in the lead up to the UDP review.

As far as I can recall, the other tall tower sites by local developers have flown through UDP.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Florilege

Thank you for your answer. I'm not too accustumed to Vancouver's building timelines, coming from Montreal. At best, how soon can we expect the promoter to tear down the existing building?

I don't do towers, but if they have their ducks in a row for their Working Drawings and already started in tandem with these UDP changes, they'll need BP and Demo permit in hand before evictions on the rental buildings start, then a 4 month notice. So maybe late Fall or Winter 2022 if all goes well (I doubt it).

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by phesto

Interesting that the developer is from Montreal and doesn't appear to have developed anything in Vancouver before.

Curious if a local developer would've gotten a more favorable response, or might have been a little more involved with the City in the lead up to the UDP review.

As far as I can recall, the other tall tower sites by local developers have flown through UDP.

I'd say, from experience its less the name of the developer than it is the person who has dealt with the City in the past. I imagine IBI Group is having a blast working with Henson and explaining WTF is going on. I imagine they've been blustering over all these minor changes that has been causing delay (been there done that and it's such a waste of time and money).

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

I'd say, from experience its less the name of the developer than it is the person who has dealt with the City in the past. I imagine IBI Group is having a blast working with Henson and explaining WTF is going on. I imagine they've been blustering over all these minor changes that has been causing delay (been there done that and it's such a waste of time and money).

It's not Henson any more - they've sold it on to a developer called Bravia.

To respond to ericmacm's comment about how long this is taking - that's partly why it's taking so long - I think it's now the third developer involved with the site.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by officedweller

I suspect that it was rejected because it looks too sleek - unlike any other residential tower in the city.
I'm sure if they added more mullions and spandrel, and made it asymmetrical, it would get approved.

I wonder if it would get approved if they eliminated all open space at grade and placed it on a podium?

Lol! Only in Vancouver.

The boring short rectanngular ones would get instant approvals. Wait: even that isn't a certainty. At least the owners don't have to spend loads of money and time for all the redesign.

[GenWhy?]

I'm pretty sure the current lack of thirst for investment condos at over $2,200psf downtown has this project not warping into hyperdrive, or so my last market update was concerned. Changing owners 3 times must be a headache but a decent chunk of extra loose change for IBI.

I imagine they walk through the new owner and the owner tries new tactics each time to no avail rather than just going ahead with an approvable building. Been there before a few times.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Diegotheartist1

if the building needs to be reworked, they should roll back to the old design with the pixelated roof.

Totally agree. I wish that the powers that be would lobby for that

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by Diegotheartist1

if the building needs to be reworked, they should roll back to the old design with the pixelated roof.

I'm not sure if that may have ended up being a spandrel mess.
There is frit to soften the look of the spandrel, but a lot would have depended on the quality of the glass.
... and it may have ended up as a massive bird roost with guano problem.


https://www.skyscrapercity.com/threa...388870/page-24


https://www.skyscrapercity.com/threa...388870/page-24


https://www.skyscrapercity.com/threa...388870/page-24


https://www.skyscrapercity.com/threa...388870/page-24

and for reference, here's that proposal's entrance:


https://www.skyscrapercity.com/threa...388870/page-24

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by officedweller

I'm not sure if that may have ended up being a spandrel mess.
There is frit to soften the look of the spandrel, but a lot would have depended on the quality of the glass.
... and it may have ended up as a massive bird roost with guano problem

And, as we know, strata councils tend to dislike items that have ongoing expensive maintenance or running costs. How many 'light features' are now turned off, or have disappeared completely? This design looks like an ongoing nightmare, if it really could be built as shown. I have serious doubts about that, as it's not at all clear how a BMU would fit, and how likely it would be to damage the crown when in operation. If there is no BMU, but only cradles dropped from the inset near the top, how is the crown kept clean - noting your guano question.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Changing City

And, as we know, strata councils tend to dislike items that have ongoing expensive maintenance or running costs. How many 'light features' are now turned off, or have disappeared completely?

I'm not even sure it's the operational costs so much as the shit quality.

2 years later some of the lights aren't working, strata gets a huge bill to "investigate and repair", laughs and just turns them off. The developer who built it at garbage quality levels is nowhere to be seen.

[Snow_Wolf]

Extremely disappointing. It was one of the more unique proposed buildings and would have been a great match for the nearby "Butterfly" tower. I don't get why the design got hate from some people on this site, it's a massive improvement over the bland and generic square white-blue towers all over Metro Vancouver. Also, the idea that creating more housing makes Vancouver worse to live in somehow is just ridiculous. What makes Vancouver worse to live in is the fact that it's almost impossible for a middle class person to afford anything near downtown, pushing people further to the suburbs and putting further strain on roads an public transport. I can't help but feel like those are elitist attitudes who want living in Vancouver to be some exclusive bragging right for rich people.

[Feathered Friend]

https://www.instagram.com/p/CcgwlgEv...N07gOW2_O8h8sA