B6 (1090 W Pender) | 123m | 31Fl | Completed

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by giallo

Whoa. Hold on. We're losing that 10fl gem at the corner?

Yep!

But at least the view of the mountains from a few arbitrary points will be saved.....

This is really where the city should offer relaxed view cones.

You can build taller in exchange for preserving the current structure.

[mcminsen]

Originally Posted by giallo

Whoa. Hold on. We're losing that 10fl gem at the corner?

Yup, 1090 West Pender. Such a classy little office tower. When I was by there the last time I could see a bit through the windows of the tower and the spaces were getting gutted. All the fixtures and wires hanging.



Nov.12 '18, my pics

[retro_orange]

Originally Posted by giallo

Whoa. Hold on. We're losing that 10fl gem at the corner?

Yessir. I didn't realize until recently how much of the land use was parkade, if they took just that down and maybe part of the tower they could have put more parking underneath the new section to keep the tower which I guess doesn't have any under it. Why don't we have any sort of heritage retention initiatives anymore? A loss of architectural and urban texture for....








Wait for it!!....








more glass.

[retro_orange]

Originally Posted by mcminsen

Yup, 1090 West Pender. Such a classy little office tower. When I was by there the last time I could see a bit through the windows of the tower and the spaces were getting gutted. All the fixtures and wires hanging.

Nov.12 '18, my pics

Was the lobby anything interesting or in it's original finishes?


Edit: nevermind, it was 90'sified. I wonder what the original lobby looked like.
https://bentallkennedyleasing.com/bu...r-st#gallery-2

[osirisboy]

Originally Posted by Vin

Screw viewcones! That makes me furious.

A much taller building looks so good over there.

Yeah exactly. The view cone policy doesn't seem very sustainable

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

I heard some much more detailed rumours surrounding the potential lead tenant and their size (quite large).

If they turn out to be true you guys will be very surprised by who the tenant is. I know I was.

Someone completely new to the Vancouver market?

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

I heard some much more detailed rumours surrounding the potential lead tenant and their size (quite large).

If they turn out to be true you guys will be very surprised by who the tenant is. I know I was.

Don't keep us waiting, who is it?

Bombardier? Huawei? Is Victoria moving offices into Vancouver?

Originally Posted by dleung

Still think we should've kept the heritage building. It wasn't that hard. Here's a version with 16,000sf floorplates

Could you make a version that keeps within a story or two of the viewcones (basically viewcones+ heritage conservation bonus, if Vancouver had cared enough to save it)? Just more for realism, if the thing was actually made.

I think it'd still have similar (or slightly larger) floor area to the current proposal, just more expensive to work around? (Otherwise, why would they demolish it?)

[Vin]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

Yeah exactly. The view cone policy doesn't seem very sustainable

Not at all. I've been lamenting a lot regarding this, especially with the unnecessary tearing down of older structures: many one-of-a-kind in our city.

[Galaxy]

It's probably Google since with the launch of there upcoming Stadia Gaming platform they probably want to build out a game dev office in Vancouver. I am sure there are other big contenders but of the big tech companies with offices in Vancouver or in this case currently none Google currently has no presence in Vancouver.

[rofina]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

It's probably Google since with the launch of there upcoming Stadia Gaming platform they probably want to build out a game dev office in Vancouver. I am sure there are other big contenders but of the big tech companies with offices in Vancouver or in this case currently none Google currently has no presence in Vancouver.

Seems like a reasonable guess. That be a pretty sweet addition to the local tech scene.

I know everyone still likes to whine how small the offices are, that theyre not HQ's, etc. But the bottom line is having these companies here is overwhelmingly positive to develop the tech scene.

It will also hopefully serve to draw more VC attention to the City, and with that some more successful Van start ups.

[giallo]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Yep!

But at least the view of the mountains from a few arbitrary points will be saved.....

This is really where the city should offer relaxed view cones.

You can build taller in exchange for preserving the current structure.

This city baffles me sometimes.

[trofirhen]

The curving glass building that will be 1090 West Pender is demolishing a sort of 'brutalist modern' heritage building, and that is a shame.
But consider 'brutalist classy' 900 West Hastings. Tearing that down for something else would be a war crime. (I hope it has Heritage designation).
Back to 1090, yes, that designed concrete building is a loss, it's true (so was The Birks Building), but there is a "bittiness" to that part of downtown which 1090 will help mitigate.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

The curving glass building that will be 1090 West Pender is demolishing a sort of 'brutalist modern' heritage building, and that is a shame.
But consider 'brutalist classy' 900 West Hastings. Tearing that down for something else would be a war crime. (I hope it has Heritage designation).
Back to 1090, yes, that designed concrete building is a loss, it's true (so was The Birks Building), but there is a "bittiness" to that part of downtown which 1090 will help mitigate.

900 West Hastings is 1965, and currently only a 'C' heritage building, and not protected (It's not designated, but it is identified on the list of heritage buildings).

1090 W Hastings was more recent - 1971 - and not on the heritage list, but was listed on the Recent Landmarks Inventory. When the site was rezoned in 2015 the report said "The applicant has explored the possibility of retaining this building. However, there are a number of issues that make this a challenging option, including seismic and building code issues. Further, the building is no longer in keeping with the requirements of Class A office tenants."

[retro_orange]

Originally Posted by Changing City

900 West Hastings is 1965, and currently only a 'C' heritage building, and not protected (It's not designated, but it is identified on the list of heritage buildings).

1090 W Hastings was more recent - 1971 - and not on the heritage list, but was listed on the Recent Landmarks Inventory. When the site was rezoned in 2015 the report said "The applicant has explored the possibility of retaining this building. However, there are a number of issues that make this a challenging option, including seismic and building code issues. Further, the building is no longer in keeping with the requirements of Class A office tenants."

They could have converted the 1971 tower section to a small hotel or residential portion if it couldn't work as office. Still hoping some of those concrete facade panels end up as a wall treatment in the new building lobby...

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by retro_orange

They could have converted the 1971 tower section to a small hotel or residential portion if it couldn't work as office. Still hoping some of those concrete facade panels end up as a wall treatment in the new building lobby...

They could have a hotel, but not residential as it's not heritage - but what would be their incentive? They would end up with a more difficult site to develop with smaller floorplates (the new tower averages over 18,300 sq. ft. floors).

[retro_orange]

Originally Posted by Changing City

They could have a hotel, but not residential as it's not heritage - but what would be their incentive? They would end up with a more difficult site to develop with smaller floorplates (the new tower averages over 18,300 sq. ft. floors).

Boutique hotel? Why not residential as it's not heritage? It's still a cool old building that would make an interesting conversion. There's the Cube nearby of a similar vintage that was renovated when it was younger than 1090 is now.

The viewcones decimate the economy of scale as the floorplates of the new tower above the old building can go larger by cantilevering which would offset the cost of saving the old building but you would need enough height to make it feasible.

It's demolition of a still useful structure that adds to the urban fabric.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by retro_orange

Boutique hotel? Why not residential as it's not heritage? It's still a cool old building that would make an interesting conversion. There's the Cube nearby of a similar vintage that was renovated when it was younger than 1090 is now.

The viewcones decimate the economy of scale as the floorplates of the new tower above the old building can go larger by cantilevering which would offset the cost of saving the old building but you would need enough height to make it feasible.

It's demolition of a still useful structure that adds to the urban fabric.

Qube is not in the CBD, so could be converted. This is the CBD so no residential unless it's to preserve a heritage building (so Jameson House was the last example, and the Hotel Georgia before that). Under the existing zoning, with or without viewcone limitations, that building was unlikely to be retained unless there was a financial incentive offered to the developer. If it had been a heritage building, that might have been a conversation, but it wasn't. There are a lot more 70s and earlier buildings of a similar scale that are likely to get replaced with new towers three times higher in the next round of office development - there aren't too many parkades left to tear down.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Qube is not in the CBD, so could be converted. This is the CBD so no residential unless it's to preserve a heritage building (so Jameson House was the last example, and the Hotel Georgia before that). Under the existing zoning, with or without viewcone limitations, that building was unlikely to be retained unless there was a financial incentive offered to the developer. If it had been a heritage building, that might have been a conversation, but it wasn't. There are a lot more 70s and earlier buildings of a similar scale that are likely to get replaced with new towers three times higher in the next round of office development - there aren't too many parkades left to tear down.

Hopefully this is a warning call to City Hall to protect newer heritage buildings? Any chance of that happening?

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Hopefully this is a warning call to City Hall to protect newer heritage buildings? Any chance of that happening?

What 'this' are you referring to? It isn't a heritage building, and never was. The Heritage Commission reviewed the plan to demolish it, and they didn't object to it's demolition. At the Public Hearing to rezone the site, nobody - not a single person - appeared to express any opinion about the project. Only three people sent an e-mail comment. One supported the scheme, and two opposed it, but only because they didn't think the CAC offered was high enough. Not a single comment was made about the existing building.

So Council at the time, and staff who worked there at the time, didn't know anybody particularly cared about the building that would be demolished. The current Council are almost all different from the Council that approved the project, and many of the City staff are also not the same people, so there's no reason for them to know either.

These days, significant heritage buildings generally, but not always, get saved, one way or another. Even insignificant buildings like the Catholic charities building at Robson and Beatty (that started life as a warehouse) get saved. This one wasn't saved because, at the time, nobody thought it was special enough to try to save it, and the replacement was, and is, seen as a positive contribution to the continued growth of Dowmntown employment.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Changing City

What 'this' are you referring to? It isn't a heritage building, and never was. The Heritage Commission reviewed the plan to demolish it, and they didn't object to it's demolition. At the Public Hearing to rezone the site, nobody - not a single person - appeared to express any opinion about the project. Only three people sent an e-mail comment. One supported the scheme, and two opposed it, but only because they didn't think the CAC offered was high enough. Not a single comment was made about the existing building.

So Council at the time, and staff who worked there at the time, didn't know anybody particularly cared about the building that would be demolished. The current Council are almost all different from the Council that approved the project, and many of the City staff are also not the same people, so there's no reason for them to know either.

These days, significant heritage buildings generally, but not always, get saved, one way or another. Even insignificant buildings like the Catholic charities building at Robson and Beatty (that started life as a warehouse) get saved. This one wasn't saved because, at the time, nobody thought it was special enough to try to save it, and the replacement was, and is, seen as a positive contribution to the continued growth of Dowmntown employment.

I meant that 'this' as in people are more aware that significant buildings are being demolished?

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/vanc...lism-formulism