HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Jul 24, 2016, 5:22 AM
christmas christmas is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 367
424 & 454 West Pender St. | 32.2m x 2 | 11fl x 2 | Proposed

I think this deserves its own thread.

424 W. Pender

72 units of secured market rental housing;
commercial space on the ground floor;
floor space ratio (FSR) of 8.14;
4 car-share, 1 disability and 1 standard parking space;
90 bicycle parking spaces; and
a building height of 32.2 m (105 ft.)

454 W. Pender

68 units of secured market rental housing;
commercial space on the ground floor;
floor space ratio (FSR) of 8.56;
4 car-share parking spaces;
86 bicycle parking spaces; and
a building height of 32.2 m (105 ft.)

All information retrieved from the two links below.
http://former.vancouver.ca/commsvcs/...nder/index.htm

http://former.vancouver.ca/commsvcs/...nder/index.htm


424 W. Pender - New renderings - from the revised application (July 8th)

http://former.vancouver.ca/commsvcs/...Renderings.pdf

454 W. Pender - New renderings - from revised application (July 8th)

http://former.vancouver.ca/commsvcs/...Renderings.pdf
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Jul 24, 2016, 7:24 AM
retro_orange retro_orange is offline
retro_orange
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: East Van
Posts: 2,030
Nice, thanks! I like the changes they made to 454 too, now they look a bit different and the massing fits in well with the neighborhood.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Oct 30, 2016, 12:25 AM
christmas christmas is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 367
At the October 18, 2016 Regular Council Meeting, Council referred this application to Public Hearing

[IMG] [/IMG]
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Oct 30, 2016, 2:31 AM
BobLoblawsLawBlog's Avatar
BobLoblawsLawBlog BobLoblawsLawBlog is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 433
I wish it did a better job of blending in to the older architecture. It's not impossible to get it done right, right?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Dec 17, 2016, 3:35 AM
christmas christmas is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 367
Quote:
This application has been approved by Council at Public Hearing on November 15, 2016
http://rezoning.vancouver.ca/applica...nder/index.htm
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Dec 18, 2016, 8:53 PM
BodomReaper BodomReaper is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Metro Vancouver
Posts: 945
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLoblawsLawBlog View Post
I wish it did a better job of blending in to the older architecture. It's not impossible to get it done right, right?
100% disagree. That's how we get the Chinatown garbage of having "multiple facades", usually with boring plain brick. Also see the St. Lawrence district of Toronto filled with hideous 90s condos that were forced to look old-timey. You can *always* tell when a building is an imitation, and it always looks worse than the original.

I much prefer London's approach of blending hyper-modern architecture with old buildings. Makes for a much more authentic, stimulating streetscape - not a wannabe Disneyworld.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Dec 19, 2016, 12:50 AM
a very long weekend's Avatar
a very long weekend a very long weekend is offline
dazzle me
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: 94109
Posts: 783
what a great pair of projects. it takes down one of vancouver's worst eyesores, that corner parking lot, and rental housing downtown is desperately needed, 100 more buildings like this could go up and it would hardly make a dent in rents. one quibble is that these are much shorter than one might have liked, adding only 140 units in a locale that could absorb a dozen times that. but still, on balance, it's a great project for that corner.

congratulations!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Dec 19, 2016, 1:57 AM
osirisboy's Avatar
osirisboy osirisboy is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Vancouver BC
Posts: 5,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by BodomReaper View Post
100% disagree. That's how we get the Chinatown garbage of having "multiple facades", usually with boring plain brick. Also see the St. Lawrence district of Toronto filled with hideous 90s condos that were forced to look old-timey. You can *always* tell when a building is an imitation, and it always looks worse than the original.

I much prefer London's approach of blending hyper-modern architecture with old buildings. Makes for a much more authentic, stimulating streetscape - not a wannabe Disneyworld.
Totally disagree!! You can actually build new that looks like it's old. It doesn't have to look fake or gimmicky. There was a thread a while back I think in the canada section showing great examples of this (can't find it).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Dec 19, 2016, 6:57 PM
BobLoblawsLawBlog's Avatar
BobLoblawsLawBlog BobLoblawsLawBlog is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 433
Quote:
Originally Posted by BodomReaper View Post
100% disagree. That's how we get the Chinatown garbage of having "multiple facades", usually with boring plain brick. Also see the St. Lawrence district of Toronto filled with hideous 90s condos that were forced to look old-timey. You can *always* tell when a building is an imitation, and it always looks worse than the original.

I much prefer London's approach of blending hyper-modern architecture with old buildings. Makes for a much more authentic, stimulating streetscape - not a wannabe Disneyworld.
Well Prince Charles says otherwise.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0iriNIKeBLY

Look at his town Poundbury. Although it doesn't look 100% authentic but it does look quite nice.




And by the way, we've been doing Faux-Historisism for hundred of years. There's a reason it's called the Renaissance.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Dec 19, 2016, 9:10 PM
BodomReaper BodomReaper is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Metro Vancouver
Posts: 945
So you wish that The Exchange would have been forced to look like the Old Stock Exchange building, instead of giving us the beautiful contrast we have now?

I'm referring to what we can expect from ordinary Canadian condo developments.

It's tragic that a large neighborhood in Toronto is forced to look like this:



And don't forget the multiple faux-facade requirements in Vancouver. Wow, I thought these were 3 separate buildings! Those clever city planners.


Source
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Dec 19, 2016, 9:15 PM
BobLoblawsLawBlog's Avatar
BobLoblawsLawBlog BobLoblawsLawBlog is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 433
I'm not saying it should look like that. Look at the pictures I showed you.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Dec 19, 2016, 10:01 PM
christmas christmas is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 367
If you're gonna use an instance of Toronto's developments, why not show the good ones as well?
Cause this is precisely what I wish to see in Vancouver

383 Sorauren Ave Toronto








51 Camden Street





PJ Condos currently under construction

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Dec 19, 2016, 10:32 PM
logan5's Avatar
logan5 logan5 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Mt.Pleasant
Posts: 5,222
Quote:
Originally Posted by BodomReaper View Post
So you wish that The Exchange would have been forced to look like the Old Stock Exchange building, instead of giving us the beautiful contrast we have now?

I'm referring to what we can expect from ordinary Canadian condo developments.

It's tragic that a large neighborhood in Toronto is forced to look like this:



And don't forget the multiple faux-facade requirements in Vancouver. Wow, I thought these were 3 separate buildings! Those clever city planners.


Source
The "multiple facade" gives the building "contrast". It's ok if the Exchange Building does it, but not any others? It sounds like flimsy shot attempt at the CoV.

When you have large frontages, I believe strongly in breaking up the massing, otherwise you're left with a huge blank wall, as seen in the Toronto example you provided.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Dec 19, 2016, 11:43 PM
Vin Vin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 5,969
Quote:
Originally Posted by logan5 View Post
The "multiple facade" gives the building "contrast". It's ok if the Exchange Building does it, but not any others? It sounds like flimsy shot attempt at the CoV.

When you have large frontages, I believe strongly in breaking up the massing, otherwise you're left with a huge blank wall, as seen in the Toronto example you provided.
I think by having limited imagination, CoV planners think that all large facades would "look like a blank wall", and therefore need to be broken up, resulting in the ugly buildings we have here. The upcoming 8X tower on Helmcken and Richards is an example.

Large facades do not have to look featureless. Examples provided by Christmas, etc, show just that.


Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Mar 10, 2020, 9:47 AM
mcminsen's Avatar
mcminsen mcminsen is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Downtown Vancouver
Posts: 6,918
Excavation has started now at the corner of West Pender and Richards.




March 9 '20, my pics


Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Mar 10, 2020, 9:57 AM
mcminsen's Avatar
mcminsen mcminsen is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Downtown Vancouver
Posts: 6,918
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted Mar 10, 2020, 6:16 PM
officedweller officedweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 31,355
It'll be interesting to see how that one turns out, as it's trying to mimic the heritage building on the far corner of the same block.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted Mar 10, 2020, 6:54 PM
Changing City's Avatar
Changing City Changing City is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 1,776
Quote:
Originally Posted by officedweller View Post
It'll be interesting to see how that one turns out, as it's trying to mimic the heritage building on the far corner of the same block.
I agree it's trying to match the massing of the office building. It's actually a higher density - over 8 FSR. The style however seems to me to be much more contemporary, which I appreciate given the context of several surrounding heritage buildings including the restored SRO hotel across the lane to the south (which is 'only' 5 FSR). I prefer modern buildings to look the part, and I think this one could look really good.
__________________
Contemporary Vancouver development blog, https://changingcitybook.wordpress.com/ Then and now Vancouver blog https://changingvancouver.wordpress.com/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted Mar 10, 2020, 9:15 PM
officedweller officedweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 31,355
Yeah, I was thinking of the massing and the cornice lines, which match up well.
I think it's good that they are not side-by-side, as that would probably be too "matchy-matchy", even with the modern windows, etc.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted Mar 10, 2020, 9:34 PM
fredinno's Avatar
fredinno fredinno is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Langley, BC
Posts: 1,653
Why couldn't they get higher building heights here? I'm pretty sure it's not part of Gastown...
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


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 5:44 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.