555 W Cordova | 114.7M | 26Fl | Proposed - Page 23

Migrant_Coconut · #**441** Posted **Jan 15, 2021, 2:53 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jollyburger

I guess the onus is on Cadilac Fairview to figure a way to push this project through if they want to get it built. I don't know the minutiae of Vancouver politics but I assume it's an uphill battle at this point.

Is it? City Council's been pretty good at approvals so far - all they need to do is swing Fry and two NPA members and they're golden.

Feathered Friend · #**442** Posted **Jan 15, 2021, 4:23 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Is it? City Council's been pretty good at approvals so far - all they need to do is swing Fry and two NPA members and they're golden.

This is actually a development application, as the density is already allowed under the existing zoning. As such, this is a decision for the Development Permit Board, which is comprised of the deputy city manager, the director of planning, and the director of engineering.

Had this been a decision for council, it almost certainly would have been approved years ago under the Vision majority. I'm pretty sure this council has also unanimously approved every office project too, though Hardwick might have opposed or abstained on one or two. Either way, Fry wouldn't be the swing vote, as that role usually falls to Wiebe or Kirby-Yung (who are generally yes votes) or Boyle (who often opposes anything that has significant backlash).

Migrant_Coconut · #**443** Posted **Jan 15, 2021, 6:03 AM**

Got it. In that light though, unless one of those three have a grudge (clarification: the deputy CM & directors), there really shouldn't be a problem - even the Heritage Commission and the UDP are on board.

jollyburger · #**444** Posted **Jan 15, 2021, 6:32 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Is it? City Council's been pretty good at approvals so far - all they need to do is swing Fry and two NPA members and they're golden.

Why would they keep withdrawing?

Migrant_Coconut · #**445** Posted **Jan 15, 2021, 6:41 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Why would they keep withdrawing?

Withdraw from what? If you mean City Hall, FF already explained it to me above.

officedweller · #**446** Posted **Jan 15, 2021, 11:19 AM**

CF withdrawing the application from consideration?

I almost think they should just submit an application for a monolithic 12 storey brick tower that would "match" the neighbourhood.

Feathered Friend · #**447** Posted **Jan 15, 2021, 11:53 PM**

I've often wondered why the applicants gave in and put the proposal on hold back in 2015, and for that matter why they may have done so again.

Per the opposition group:

Quote:

Cadillac Fairview Asks to Postpone its Entire Review Process.
The City of Vancouver website contains the following information "Upon the applicant's request, the Development Permit Board and related advisory panel meetings have been postponed until further notice." Cadillac Fairview made this decision following an 8 to 2 defeat of the Waterfront Station office tower proposal at the Vancouver Heritage Commission on December 7, 2020. Cadillac Fairview's proposal had been scheduled to be reviewed by the Gastown Historic Area Planning Committee and Urban Design Panel prior to a March Development Permit Board decision.

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.p...86220264755696

That said, I'm not sure whether the application is officially back on hold, but its review by the Gastown Historic Area Planning Committee was cancelled a couple days before their December meeting, and its Development Permit Board date has been cancelled too.

logan5 · #**448** Posted **Jan 16, 2021, 12:12 AM**

Why not just scrap the super sophisticated fancy glass design and do your good old basic Art Deco tower. Probly would’ve been in the construction phase by now.

Migrant_Coconut · #**449** Posted **Jan 16, 2021, 2:58 AM**

Because A) it's already barely profitable (so a conventional block with even less floorplate would be worse), and B) the opposition doesn't want any towers at all and would also block a classically-themed one.

LeftCoaster · #**450** Posted **Feb 11, 2021, 6:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by logan5

Why not just scrap the super sophisticated fancy glass design and do your good old basic Art Deco tower. Probly would’ve been in the construction phase by now.

The issue isn't the design.

As you heard above and from the heritage meeting minutes the NIMBYs trying to block this tower are against any tower here at all. They also want the the hub plan reduced in scope.

They are all retired and not particularly concerned with the creation of job space of living space since they 'already go theirs". They just want a series of parks and plazas to enjoy in their retirement.

LeftCoaster · #**451** Posted **Feb 11, 2021, 6:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Got it. In that light though, unless one of those three have a grudge (clarification: the deputy CM & directors), there really shouldn't be a problem - even the Heritage Commission and the UDP are on board.

This is not a rezoning, the tower is compliant with its zoning, so this is only a DP application.

Which makes it all the more outrageous the fight it is facing.

jollyburger · #**452** Posted **Feb 11, 2021, 7:45 PM**

You would think people involved with urban planning would be more realistic about actually funding their grand visions.

madog222 · #**453** Posted **Feb 18, 2021, 8:07 AM**

As posted by jollyburger in the Office Market Discussion thread.

From Avison Young 2020 Year End Office Market Report

Quote:

A series of delays, first due to COVID-19 and then again towards the end of 2020, pushed back the project’s development permit application hearing until mid-2021. Construction is contemplated to start in early 2022 and complete in early 2025.

Feathered Friend · #**454** Posted **Oct 5, 2021, 11:19 PM**

Quote:

Just in time for Halloween, the return of in-person Urban Design Panel reviews reveals an ice pick invader roams the corridors of Vancouver City Hall. Despite offering room for 2,000–2,500 new jobs, this office building has faced 6 years of review, with more ahead.

https://www.instagram.com/p/CUqkGe-J...vjC0Tz8w0kL0hU

rofina · #**455** Posted **Oct 5, 2021, 11:31 PM**

6 years of review. And its still in limbo. Let alone permitting and construction.

Here comes another decade plus in the making, not particularly remarkable building of stubby proportions.

Lol.

officedweller · #**456** Posted **Oct 6, 2021, 12:47 AM**

You'd think it would be considered out of style by now.
320 Granville changed from an angular design to a curvey one.
If they changed the design, they would lose the baggage of the "icepick".

jollyburger · #**457** Posted **Oct 6, 2021, 2:27 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by officedweller

You'd think it would be considered out of style by now.
320 Granville changed from an angular design to a curvey one.
If they changed the design, they would lose the baggage of the "icepick".

But their baggage is the building location so I doubt any architectural change will matter.

Migrant_Coconut · #**458** Posted **Oct 6, 2021, 2:30 AM**

Indeed. Switching to (let's say) a conventional Art Deco block design would cost them a fair amount of space... and there'd still be protests.

a very long weekend · #**459** Posted **Oct 6, 2021, 2:35 AM**

Still an awesome building.

logan5 · #**460** Posted **Oct 6, 2021, 2:56 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by a very long weekend

Still an awesome building.

Just another seafoam green tower.