800 Granville Street | 137.5m | 42, 38 fl | Proposed

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

The staff’s job is to make recommendations, not to just look up the zoning. A quick Google search tells us that. Once the recommendation is made, then council will act on that recommendation, one way or another, or direct the staff to look into one or more aspects of the proposal.

The politicians are actually being pretty reasonable on this one-so far.

The staff report recommended that Council should direct them to process the rezoning application. Council duly followed that recommendation, adding the additional references to the freebie performance/rehearsal space and the need to replace the SRO rooms that the developer has chosen to leave empty for many years. The other content of the report is additional information, much of it drawing attention to the ways in which the proposal ignores or directly contradicts existing policy.

There was another report at the same meeting seeking similar guidance on a residential tower proposed to replace the MacBlo building parkade. It had a similar recommendation from staff, to process the rezoning recognising it contradicts existing policy for that part of the CBD. In that case Council told the developer to resubmit something that was closer to meeting existing policy.

In the recommendation report to a future Council, assuming the developer of 800 Granville is ok with the extra requirements Council added, all the contradictions of scale, massing, loss of light, proximity to residential towers will still be reported, if they're still true, and a future Council might decide that the adverse impacts don't make it worth approving the office block. It's not as if the developer is limited to tiny buildings. Existing zoned density and available heritage bonus space could see a large redevelopment with a significant amount of additional space - just not as large as the current proposal.

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by Changing City

The staff report recommended that Council should direct them to process the rezoning application. Council duly followed that recommendation, adding the additional references to the freebie performance/rehearsal space and the need to replace the SRO rooms that the developer has chosen to leave empty for many years. The other content of the report is additional information, much of it drawing attention to the ways in which the proposal ignores or directly contradicts existing policy.

There was another report at the same meeting seeking similar guidance on a residential tower proposed to replace the MacBlo building parkade. It had a similar recommendation from staff, to process the rezoning recognising it contradicts existing policy for that part of the CBD. In that case Council told the developer to resubmit something that was closer to meeting existing policy.

In the recommendation report to a future Council, assuming the developer of 800 Granville is ok with the extra requirements Council added, all the contradictions of scale, massing, loss of light, proximity to residential towers will still be reported, if they're still true, and a future Council might decide that the adverse impacts don't make it worth approving the office block. It's not as if the developer is limited to tiny buildings. Existing zoned density and available heritage bonus space could see a large redevelopment with a significant amount of additional space - just not as large as the current proposal.

Staff did recommend the proposal move on to the next stage of the process but at the same time identified “no compelling public interest to construe a benefit on this property that would not be available to other nearby properties. "

So it’s a recommendation to move forward, but denied the obvious existence of the public benefit this proposal would bring to the area. So another words you endorse this proposal to move onto the next step but are stating quite clearly in your report that the very basis of what makes this proposal “work” is nothing the provides any benefit to the public in general which should garner special consideration. So it’s a non-endorsement endorsement. So in other words yes we’ll recommend your proposal to move to the next level, but we don’t see any reason why your proposal should be treated any different than what’s currently allowed on those sites, or what’s allowed through current zoning as it stands. That’s a joke, and the developer rightfully called the report out. The asks from councillors was actually reasonable, and something the developer could work with (as of now).

[GenWhy?]

I don't think the report mentions "public benefit". Think it's referencing public interest in granting private benefits.

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

Staff did recommend the proposal move on to the next stage of the process but at the same time identified “no compelling public interest to construe a benefit on this property that would not be available to other nearby properties. "

So it’s a recommendation to move forward, but denied the obvious existence of the public benefit this proposal would bring to the area. So another words you endorse this proposal to move onto the next step but are stating quite clearly in your report that the very basis of what makes this proposal “work” is nothing the provides any benefit to the public in general which should garner special consideration. So it’s a non-endorsement endorsement. So in other words yes we’ll recommend your proposal to move to the next level, but we don’t see any reason why your proposal should be treated any different than what’s currently allowed on those sites, or what’s allowed through current zoning as it stands. That’s a joke, and the developer rightfully called the report out. The asks from councillors was actually reasonable, and something the developer could work with (as of now).

It is entirely possible that someone (though certainly not met) could look at the list of benefits generated by this project and the very long list of bylaw violations, and conclude the violations outweigh the benefits.

Granville is pretty unique in that section of downtown, only matched by parts of Yaletown, in that it's low rise buildings which allow the street and sidewalk to experience full sun most of the day. Plus, I wouldn't blame people for wanting institutions like the Orpheum and Commodore to be preserved as-is for the rest of history. Once you allow this development it is a slippery slope and you can kiss goodbye to the current built form of Granville.

I'm a realist and I don't believe entertainment venues with limited use cases and small capacities will survive in such an expensive downtown without making some serious changes. But I wouldn't call someone dumb or ignorant if they have a different opinion and interpret the facts differently.

[TwoFace]

It wouldn't surprise me if Bonnis has no intention of doing this and are just speculating so they can sell the whole turn key package. I would also put 600 Robson in that basket as well.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by TwoFace

It wouldn't surprise me if Bonnis has no intention of doing this and are just speculating so they can sell the whole turn key package. I would also put 600 Robson in that basket as well.

I dunno they held pretty tight through the Hollywood redevelopment.

[TwoFace]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

I dunno they held pretty tight through the Hollywood redevelopment.

That also sat for years. I miss it's previous life as a cinema.

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

I don't think the report mentions "public benefit". Think it's referencing public interest in granting private benefits.

Tomato tomAto 🍅

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

It is entirely possible that someone (though certainly not met) could look at the list of benefits generated by this project and the very long list of bylaw violations, and conclude the violations outweigh the benefits.

Granville is pretty unique in that section of downtown, only matched by parts of Yaletown, in that it's low rise buildings which allow the street and sidewalk to experience full sun most of the day. Plus, I wouldn't blame people for wanting institutions like the Orpheum and Commodore to be preserved as-is for the rest of history. Once you allow this development it is a slippery slope and you can kiss goodbye to the current built form of Granville.

I'm a realist and I don't believe entertainment venues with limited use cases and small capacities will survive in such an expensive downtown without making some serious changes. But I wouldn't call someone dumb or ignorant if they have a different opinion and interpret the facts differently.

Well said.
And yes Granville is unique but it is also suffering (in my opinion due to bad civic policy) and the time for half measures (there have plenty) is over as they are proven failures. The city has gone crazy with their sunlight obsession actually going as far to articulate scaling back or even turning down a project because of 15 minutes of sunlight. Sorry but it’s hard to use other words than stupid for such actions. Besides, the location of this proposal won’t affect sunlight to any degree.

The institutions like the Orpheus and Commodore WILL be preserved as is. It’s just that now it will have a protective cover on them, thus ensuring even longer life. However I would buy into that a lot more if the City did more to help the Orpheum-but they don’t. They’ve had opportunities but missed the boat each time.

Also, have no problems with someone taking a stand and voicing there objections to any particular project, but I draw the line at the double faced antics of allowing the proposal to move forward, but disparaging it at the same time for unfounded reasons.

Such actions are gutless and highlight the ineptness of staff in this regard. I will refrain from any name calling as I agree it’s uncalled for

[GenWhy?]

Pretty sure it's a legal thing where Staff have to follow their own policy and district schedules. Not that I love zoning, but if Staff passed this as is, it kinda just writes off all DD area policy and zoning. In essence, I think, Staff would be declaring all policy and zoning moot.

Staff reviews the policy and there is no wiggle room as is, unless, as Staff requested, a change in policy, which has to come from Council. We've seen successful non-conforming rezoning applications in the past and they are very much aligned with policy it's just that there was no avenue to pursue a formal rezoning in that area at that time.

[EastVanMark]

Then staff need to keep their yappers shut and not pass the thinly veiled criticism along at the same time. Identify it doesn’t meet current zoning guidelines and move along. No need for editorializing, or if you do they need to e called out for it

[Migrant_Coconut]

This is Bureaucracy 101. Officially, their hands are tied and there's nothing they can do about it... unofficially, they can ask Council to go over their heads while they offer some token protest.

[EastVanMark]

That’s fine. But then you open yourself up to criticism.
Heat, kitchen, etc

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

....
The institutions like the Orpheus and Commodore WILL be preserved as is. It’s just that now it will have a protective cover on them, thus ensuring even longer life. However I would buy into that a lot more if the City did more to help the Orpheum-but they don’t. They’ve had opportunities but missed the boat each time....

Was there something particular you were thinking about in regards to the Orpheum? While they don't seem to put that much into the building visibly it seems to be in good shape. I'm not sure how they would handle having to close it for this construction.

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Was there something particular you were thinking about in regards to the Orpheum? While they don't seem to put that much into the building visibly it seems to be in good shape. I'm not sure how they would handle having to close it for this construction.

Well the HVAC equipment could be upgraded, and I believe some of the seals around the upper windows need to be removed, but don Get me wrong it’s not dilapidated or anything, but when one drives by the southern addition to the building, it’s painfully obvious the city isn’t optimizing it’s asset. A LOT more could be done.

[phesto]

The rezoning app is now live: https://www.shapeyourcity.ca/800-876-granville-st

[madog222]

Originally Posted by phesto

The rezoning app is now live: https://www.shapeyourcity.ca/800-876-granville-st

Thanks, it looks like all the renders are the same as what we've seen before. Though I don't think we've seen a view of the lane side yet with a big cut out for separation to the Capitol Residence building.




And here's the 4th floor layout with restaurant, new theater, and terrace.


Images from Perkins&Will https://www.shapeyourcity.ca/800-876-granville-st

[officedweller]

The cut-out for the Capitol is nice, though a gap would have been nicer.
Massive universal washroom.
I wonder what the line-ups will be like for that?

PS - I still don't like the 2 storey video screen that wraps around
- only because it disconnects the heritage facades from the building behind.
The heritage facades will appear to "float" as a result, giving a "Disney" or theme-park look to the frontage,
especially when the screens are not in use.


https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/800-...ng-application


https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/800-...ng-application


https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/800-...ng-application

There should also be some sort of a grand entrance at the break in the heritage facades with sophisticated detailing
(which could be modern) as opposed to the standard commercial glass frontages shown right now.

Playing off the wood soffits above, they could add wood ornamentation, like Kengo Kuma's canopy at Hoshakuji Station in Japan:

[LeftCoaster]

Some good points OD. I'm interested to see how the UDP and moreso the heritage board treats this application. While it is sorely needed and a good use, it is imperfect in many ways and will no doubt ruffle some feathers.

[scryer]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

Some good points OD. I'm interested to see how the UDP and moreso the heritage board treats this application. While it is sorely needed and a good use, it is imperfect in many ways and will no doubt ruffle some feathers.

We're about to put a goddamn glass box thing over The Bay and the Sinclair Centre.

The heritage board have bigger battles to fight . And if they don't win those, then they should be abolished IMO.