The forum will be temporairly closed soon for maintenance.
    
HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


595 West Georgia Street in the SkyscraperPage Database

Building Data Page   • Comparison Diagram   • Vancouver Skyscraper Diagram

Map Location

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #141  
Old Posted May 25, 2025, 3:14 AM
jollyburger jollyburger is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 14,659
Quote:
Originally Posted by bb1510 View Post
Actually the Butterfly was significantly value engineered. There were multiple concepts, which I'm not sure if it made it to the public, where it was two separated towers that were undulating in terms of width and floorplate size
I assume it's something along these lines?





Credit: Westbank

Supposedly the original sketch from 2015



Credit: Westbank

Last edited by jollyburger; May 25, 2025 at 3:24 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #142  
Old Posted May 25, 2025, 3:26 AM
bb1510 bb1510 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 649
Quote:
Originally Posted by jollyburger View Post
But isn't there a distinction from some architectural concept/sketch being "value engineered" versus a rezoning/developing application being "value engineered" with cheaper materials or other fundamental parts of the building design.

Was it related to this model?



https://images.adsttc.com/media/imag...jpg?1510790486
Nope.

It was similar to this one but the two curvilinear masses were further detached (scroll down):

https://www.formedevelopment.com/projects
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #143  
Old Posted May 25, 2025, 3:26 AM
bb1510 bb1510 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 649
Quote:
Originally Posted by jollyburger View Post
I assume it's something along these lines?





Credit: Westbank

Supposedly the original sketch from 2015



Credit: Westbank
Yes, similar
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #144  
Old Posted May 25, 2025, 3:42 AM
jollyburger jollyburger is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 14,659
Quote:
Originally Posted by bb1510 View Post
Nope.

It was similar to this one but the two curvilinear masses were further detached (scroll down):

https://www.formedevelopment.com/projects
Interesting thanks!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #145  
Old Posted May 26, 2025, 1:36 AM
VancouverOfTheFuture's Avatar
VancouverOfTheFuture VancouverOfTheFuture is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 3,481
Quote:
Originally Posted by jollyburger View Post
I think this one is new?



Credit: Holborn
now if that were to actually be built, with the waterfall and all, i would be VERY happy with it.

fingers crossed.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #146  
Old Posted May 26, 2025, 1:38 AM
logan5's Avatar
logan5 logan5 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Mt.Pleasant - The New Downtown South
Posts: 8,065
There's no effen way that gets built. Sorry to be a pessimist, but I've seen this routine before.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #147  
Old Posted May 26, 2025, 2:05 AM
jollyburger jollyburger is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 14,659
Seems like Henriquez has more details about the rezoning application on their website. I think the level descriptions are new.

Quote:
388 Abbott Street, is a 402 ft tall tower with an 8-storey podium and 30-storey tower above. It is proposed to be 100% 378 City-owned Social Housing units. Level 1 is proposed as a Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh (MST) gallery, with three artists-in-residence studios for MST artists. The podium above, levels 2 to 8, consist mainly of studio units. A 37-child Daycare is proposed at the podium roof level with an associated outdoor play space. Levels 10 to 37 consist of a mix of 1, 2 and 3 bedroom social housing units. Amenity rooms and an outdoor amenity space is proposed on the roof of the tower.

595 West Georgia Street is a 1,033 ft tall hotel tower. The tower is topped by a restaurant and publicly accessible rooftop observation deck, which will be free for Vancouverites to visit. The ground floor consists of a cafe / bar and restaurant as well as serving as the lobby for the hotel and conference facilities in the tower above. Level 2 of the podium has a lobby for access to the observation deck. Levels 3 to 8 consist of Conference facilities. The roof of the podium has an outdoor amenity for the hotel including a cafe / bar and indoor pool. Level 10 has additional conference meeting rooms; levels 11 to 25 consist of 240 long term stay hotel rooms; and, levels 31 to 64 are for 680 short term stay hotel rooms.

501 West Georgia Street consists of two towers on a 3-storey podium. The north tower is a 783 ft tall market residential building with a shared rooftop amenity deck. The south tower is 889 ft tall with market rental at the base and market residential above. The podium rooftop is a shared outdoor amenity space for all residents. The podium consists of retail at grade and two levels of interior residential amenity space on levels 2 and 3. A mid-block mews connects to the 595 West Georgia Street plaza.


https://henriquezpartners.com/projec...ia_388-abbott/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #148  
Old Posted May 26, 2025, 5:37 PM
Spr0ckets Spr0ckets is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 1,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by jollyburger View Post
That guy who seemed to have a lot of inside information on Burrard Place said it was an engineering decision so it might have not been a "value" change per se? I mean wouldn't they have known the costs of the concrete and not change mid-construction if it was just to save money? He does say it was exponentially more expensive + didn't fit with their pour cycle.

......
It is a "value"-related change, however you choose to characterize or word it.

It may have been the initial proposal - even with the Engineers' go-ahead and blessing to have it done in white concrete, because at the time they, (the engineers) - much like everyone else - were not aware of what the construction schedule would be like and when the pouring and curing for the concrete would occur.

Once it became clear that it would occur over the summer with high summer heat and all the cost increases and engineering deficiencies that would occur, and that that would entail, a decision was made to switch to grey concrete which cures better under those conditions, but more importantly which would be less costly from the perspective of fixing the errors that occur as a result of curing white concrete in the summer heat with all the problems that occur in the weeks that follow.

i.e...... a "value"-based engineering change decision.

Should they have known better ahead of time that this was a likelihood and anticipated it?
Probably.
This is where experience comes into play, but even then you can't possibly anticipate everything that a project will encounter in its lifecycle.


Not so obvious but still significant is the fact that the type of concrete they proposed to use would take longer to cure and set - adding significantly to the construction schedule time, which,......as is well known...,more time added to a project on top of what wa scheduled is more money being spent that wasn't budgeted.

But ultimately this is what it comes down to right here in black and white:-

Quote:
"3. The white concrete is exponentially expensive. The costs difference between changing to "gray" concrete with white elastomeric and traffic coating, vs pure white concrete is substantial and is a benefit to the developers. Obviously, the redesign presented new set challenges but thats for another discussion."
I'm sure it looked great in the initial project proposal, but like I said, once real-world costs and considerations come into play, so do these cuts too.
Whether you refer to them as value-based engineering or not.

Again, perhaps someone should have mentioned that, "white concrete is exponentially expensive" at the outset and saved them all this trouble, but thing is, people rarely ever think about costs that early on in a project proposal and the truth is for most projects if you did, they'd never proceed beyond that point.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #149  
Old Posted May 26, 2025, 5:43 PM
Spr0ckets Spr0ckets is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 1,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by logan5 View Post
There's no effen way that gets built. Sorry to be a pessimist, but I've seen this routine before.
Careful, there.
You could get dinged for being too much of a pessimist and a hater.

I mean, it's easy to see in 10 different ways (....at least) from that image, how that's not likely to get realized and built as they're showing it there and in how many ways things would have to be changed just to make it feasible and a reality that will result in the built version looking markedly different.

But like I said, far be it for us to be the party-poopers here.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #150  
Old Posted May 26, 2025, 5:45 PM
jollyburger jollyburger is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 14,659
Conceptual sketches. If it doesn't end up looking like this then value engineering.



https://henriquezpartners.com/projec...ia_388-abbott/

Last edited by jollyburger; May 26, 2025 at 6:57 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #151  
Old Posted May 26, 2025, 7:15 PM
Spr0ckets Spr0ckets is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 1,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by jollyburger View Post
Conceptual sketches. If it doesn't end up looking like this then value engineering.

......

https://henriquezpartners.com/projec...ia_388-abbott/
No actually, this is more along of the kind of value-engineering I'm talking about.

The renders below is from circa 2018/2019 for one of the submissions.



Source: - https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/the-...ouver-westbank

And here is the actual built form.....



Source:- https://www.skyscrapercity.com/threa...2233054/page-8
(via user Pengui)

Firstly, I hope we can at least agree that while similar, and while they did a decent job matching a significant part of the spirit of the original design, that the actual realized form differs significantly from that proposal image.

And that that being said, you're going to tell me you don't see how that (above) was probably run through an energy modeler or envelope consultant who came back with a number for how much it would cost to get built/maintain after construction with energy loss, leakages...etc.. and that the solution was to tone down the curves and puffiness look into something more feasible and constructable and which also would lower down the cost?

I'm talking about the skin and the "puffy" curved faces cladding, just to be clear.

Why are we still even debating this?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #152  
Old Posted May 26, 2025, 7:58 PM
jollyburger jollyburger is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 14,659
May 8th but don't think it was posted

Quote:
Vancouver’s tallest tower proposed as part of ambitious downtown development

After a decade of dreaming about it, a developer who’s generated controversy with some of the Vancouver’s biggest projects has unveiled plans to build the city’s tallest tower.

Vancouver-based developer Joo Kim Tiah, a member of one of Malaysia’s wealthiest families, and chief executive officer of Holborn Group, envisions a 1,033-foot-high tower on a downtown city block he owns bounded by Georgia, Seymour, Dunsmuir and Richards streets. If it passes a recently submitted rezoning application, the hotel tower with observation deck will stand alongside 69- and 80-storey residential towers, with 1,288 strata condo units and 273 market rental units, a large public plaza and retail spaces.

A couple of major changes to the city’s skyline made Mr. Tiah’s ambitious plan possible. First came the demolition earlier this year of the Dunsmuir House, a heritage property at 500 Dunsmuir St., built in 1909, which Holborn has owned since 2006. The city ordered the 117-year-old building demolished due its dangerously dilapidated condition.

“It’s not something that was a part of our plan,” architect Gregory Henriquez said of the demolition. “It was an unforeseen event and unfortunate in the sense that it doesn’t allow us to maintain the facades, but fortunate in the sense that it does allow us to give back to the public realm in a far more significant way.”

Then, last summer, an amendment to the city’s view cone policy opened up the possibility of much higher towers for the developer. Both events occurred during the design process, said Mr. Henriquez, who showed two versions – one from before the changes and one from after – of the plans to the Globe and Mail at his offices last week. (Mr. Tiah and Musqueam councillor Gordon Grant were also present.) A model of the earlier version showed that it included the Dunsmuir House façade as well as a smaller heritage building on Georgia Street, before Holborn had purchased that building.

Mr. Henriquez’s own office is across the street from the site, in the Telus Gardens building, near the Bay department store, which is closing down.

“This is the neighbourhood that needs rejuvenation,” he added. “The Bay is now vacant. This whole block … is really suffering in terms of retail, even safety. It’s really a part of the downtown that needs attention and this project is meant to serve all of that.”

Mr. Henriquez added that they still need to meet downtown building and rezoning policies.

The towers will have a striking design, referencing the tubular shape of the west coast’s glass sea sponge with a latticelike exoskeleton, with coral reef references in the podiums. In a back room, Mr. Henriquez showed architectural models of his design.

“This is the hotel here proper, which is the sea sponge itself, with the exoskeleton and regenerating crevices of the cavities that the different life forms live within and become the balconies on the residential tower. And you can see a whole story about reconciliation on the plaza,” said Mr. Henriquez.

The tallest tower will feature a three-level, glass-topped observation deck that will be free for residents, as well as 920 hotel rooms and conference centre. At a separate site at 388 Abbott St. there will be a fourth tower, where Holborn will build 378 nonmarket housing units, a daycare and Indigenous art gallery with three artist-in-residence suites. The Abbott Street site is Holborn’s contribution to the city. The embodied carbon for the project will be 50 per cent below the city’s goal.

The tallest tower will feature a three-level, glass-topped observation deck that will be free for residents.Supplied

“Even when it comes to the height of the tower, I’m not doing it, you know, just for my own ego,” said Mr. Tiah. “I’m doing it because, well, first of all, it helps on the financial viability of the project, so we can actually pay for all these amenities that we want to give to the city. And I made it very clear, we need to do an observation deck. Why? Because this is for the locals, this is for people to get behind the project, you know, and also we have the best views in the world.”

Holborn is no stranger to controversy, having built the Trump Tower (now called the Paradox Hotel) and having purchased the Little Mountain site at Main and 33rd Avenue from the province in 2008, where 224 units of old social housing were demolished as part of the deal. The site sat vacant for many years until the developer agreed with the city and BC Housing to expedite construction of the social housing. He will launch presales for the first condominium building there this fall, but they won’t get built until after the social housing is complete next year.

As for so much controversy, Mr. Tiah said he’s learned to engage more with the public.

“I think maybe, perhaps in the past we could have been more proactive in getting our messaging across or … doing a better job of communicating with the media,” said Mr. Tiah. “And that’s why we’re doing this now with you, so that we can make sure that our messaging gets out properly.”

Dunsmuir House had sat vacant since 2013, after a lease arrangement with BC Housing had ended. Mr. Tiah said that the building was returned to him in “uninhabitable” condition.

The developer will have to resolve the city’s assertion that it had neglected a significantly important heritage building that offered low-income housing. Vancouver’s single-room accommodation (SRA) bylaw means the city council can penalize Holborn $300,000 per lost SRA unit, and Dunsmuir House contained 167 SRAs, according to the city. Mr. Tiah said that he purchased the site on the understanding that it was not an SRA, and it is assessed as a commercial property. The city said in an e-mail that it was designated an SRA property in 2003 and remains on the list.

There was one newer building Mr. Tiah could not purchase in the downtown block, where an English as a second language school is located. There is also the Randall Building, the handsome heritage retail and office building at 535 W. Georgia St. Mr. Henriquez designed around the ESL building, and his plan for the Randall Building is to demolish it and keep the façade. Built in 1929, it was named after prominent brokerage firm owner Samuel Randall, who operated Hastings Park racetrack.

Mr. Henriquez said that the Randall Building represented the city’s colonial past, but the Holborn project will balance that past with a mural by Musqueam artist Susan Point. Also, the design references an endangered sea sponge that reflects Indigenous concerns about the environment, said Mr. Grant. He hopes the design will make people curious about Indigenous history.

“We live in a really cool place in time, in my opinion, in that there’s a real thirst for the true history of the first peoples of this land,” said Mr. Grant, who was brought on as consultant.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/real...ious-downtown/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #153  
Old Posted May 26, 2025, 9:36 PM
chowhou's Avatar
chowhou chowhou is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: East Vancouver (No longer across the ocean!)
Posts: 3,536
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spr0ckets View Post
Why are we still even debating this?
Good question to ask yourself. How about we wait for a final design to be published before criticising the final design?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #154  
Old Posted May 26, 2025, 11:04 PM
Spr0ckets Spr0ckets is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 1,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by chowhou View Post
Good question to ask yourself. How about we wait for a final design to be published before criticising the final design?
Right.
Because I'm debating myself.

I made a commentary on the initial proposed images, and issues were taken with my commentary and my position - which I defended.

It's not even a debate in my mind. (...and that was a rhetorical question).

Value-engineering is a FACT of building construction.

If you or anyone else is going to throw a conniption fit just because someone suggests that the finished product isn't likely to look like the initial proposal images - a thing that frequently and commonly happens in the majority of designs and construction projects for a multitude of reasons - then that's a "you" problem and not a "me" problem.

I'll be happy to comment on the 'final' design images whenever those get released, and I will do - along with any subsequent images released post DP stage showing even more changes.
Just as I'm happy to comment now whether it irks you or not.

As always, have a nice rest of your day.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #155  
Old Posted May 27, 2025, 6:47 PM
griswold griswold is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2023
Posts: 169
Would the tallest building require a tuned mass damper near the top?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #156  
Old Posted May 27, 2025, 7:21 PM
madog222 madog222 is online now
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 3,795
Quote:
Originally Posted by griswold View Post
Would the tallest building require a tuned mass damper near the top?
Outright require? No. Though it could employ one depending on wind loading and the overall engineering of the building.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #157  
Old Posted May 28, 2025, 4:30 AM
scrapin scrapin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 241
Holy shit lmao wtf.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #158  
Old Posted May 28, 2025, 7:53 PM
whatnext whatnext is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 26,732
Quote:
Originally Posted by chowhou View Post
Good question to ask yourself. How about we wait for a final design to be published before criticising the final design?
Today's SSPers joyously greeting Holborn's final design:

https://tenor.com/view/starving-alie...48342092150591
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #159  
Old Posted May 29, 2025, 5:07 PM
PBlonde PBlonde is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2024
Posts: 84
The proposed design will almost certainly change but I wouldn't call that change 'value engineering'. I doubt the architects have spent significant time and expense in determining exactly what materials would be able to achieve that design, it's a fanciful drawing currently.
IF the proposal goes forward, then the architects will do a re-design of something close that can actually be built. You can argue that this is 'value engineering' but at this stage I think any changes from the initial design would be as a result of actual engineering.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #160  
Old Posted May 29, 2025, 5:42 PM
jollyburger jollyburger is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 14,659
Quote:
Originally Posted by PBlonde View Post
The proposed design will almost certainly change but I wouldn't call that change 'value engineering'. I doubt the architects have spent significant time and expense in determining exactly what materials would be able to achieve that design, it's a fanciful drawing currently.
IF the proposal goes forward, then the architects will do a re-design of something close that can actually be built. You can argue that this is 'value engineering' but at this stage I think any changes from the initial design would be as a result of actual engineering.
But isn't the basis of their design founded on the exoskeletal structure with less internal columns? They did bring in Arup from the initial stages to work on the engineering of the building structure FWIW.
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 9:37 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Privacy Statement - Top

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