HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Metro Vancouver & the Fraser Valley


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #81  
Old Posted Jun 28, 2017, 9:51 PM
Shift Shift is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,944
Nice. This is going to fit in so nicely with what's already down there and really complete the riverfront.

Was there on Monday and took a few pics:







From the site:



Some nice palms along the boardwalk:

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #82  
Old Posted Jun 28, 2017, 10:01 PM
Cypherus's Avatar
Cypherus Cypherus is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,756
Glad this got passed. Probably not the best location of these towers being so close to the mighty Fraser, but I am sure all factors were taken into account when developing the proposal.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #83  
Old Posted Jun 28, 2017, 10:08 PM
CanSpice's Avatar
CanSpice CanSpice is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: New Westminster, BC
Posts: 2,192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon View Post
The rezoning didn't add any new density, and reduced the view impacts. So it wasn't much of a stretch from what was approved previously.
Ha! You didn't see the comments on Facebook then. The armchair warriors were up in arms about how the city shouldn't allow any towers there, let alone two.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #84  
Old Posted Jun 28, 2017, 10:50 PM
LeftCoaster's Avatar
LeftCoaster LeftCoaster is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Toroncouver
Posts: 12,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon View Post
The rezoning didn't add any new density, and reduced the view impacts. So it wasn't much of a stretch from what was approved previously.
Sure, but you're applying logic to NIMBYs, and that rarely works well.

Beedie's project in China Town was in fitting with the community plan but that didn't stop every nut from coming out and complaining.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #85  
Old Posted Jun 29, 2017, 12:47 AM
madog222 madog222 is online now
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 2,689
The local paper's story on the approval says Bosa is calling this 'Pier West'.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #86  
Old Posted Jun 29, 2017, 1:15 AM
Metro-One's Avatar
Metro-One Metro-One is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 16,837
Well I tried to do a joke with an Adam West picture but never realized what a fucking nightmare it is to try and copy an image location on my IPhone
__________________
Bridging the Gap
Check out my Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/306346...h/29495547810/ and Youtube channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCV0...lhxXFxuAey_q6Q
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #87  
Old Posted Jun 29, 2017, 1:59 AM
urbancanadian urbancanadian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 671
Quote:
Originally Posted by madog222 View Post
The local paper's story on the approval says Bosa is calling this 'Pier West'.
The renders show that name as well.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #88  
Old Posted Jun 29, 2017, 2:30 AM
Metro-One's Avatar
Metro-One Metro-One is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 16,837
This is going to be a very exciting project to watch.

I hope they continue with the theme and add a coupe more palm trees along the boardwalk / riverfront. (or at the very least anything except maples...)
__________________
Bridging the Gap
Check out my Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/306346...h/29495547810/ and Youtube channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCV0...lhxXFxuAey_q6Q
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #89  
Old Posted Jun 29, 2017, 3:31 AM
Alex Mackinnon's Avatar
Alex Mackinnon Alex Mackinnon is offline
Can I has a tunnel?
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: East Van
Posts: 2,097
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanSpice View Post
Ha! You didn't see the comments on Facebook then. The armchair warriors were up in arms about how the city shouldn't allow any towers there, let alone two.
I saw them. I tauntingly hearted the posts where people where posting the size of the builldings.
__________________
"It's ok, I'm an engineer!" -Famous last words

Last edited by Alex Mackinnon; Jun 29, 2017 at 3:47 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #90  
Old Posted Jun 29, 2017, 4:44 PM
Caliplanner1 Caliplanner1 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 692
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon View Post
The rezoning didn't add any new density, and reduced the view impacts. So it wasn't much of a stretch from what was approved previously.
The taller buildings should afford/free up more potential green areas for recreational use.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #91  
Old Posted Jun 29, 2017, 4:54 PM
CanSpice's Avatar
CanSpice CanSpice is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: New Westminster, BC
Posts: 2,192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caliplanner1 View Post
The taller buildings should afford/free up more potential green areas for recreational use.
They do, but only for residents of the buildings. Both the three-tower and two-tower plans had a large chunk of the property deeded off to the city to add to Pier Park, that didn't change at all.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #92  
Old Posted Jun 29, 2017, 6:56 PM
Pinion Pinion is offline
See ya down under, mates
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 5,167
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeftCoaster View Post
Sure, but you're applying logic to NIMBYs, and that rarely works well.

Beedie's project in China Town was in fitting with the community plan but that didn't stop every nut from coming out and complaining.
People went apeshit over a six storey condo one block away from Lonsdale recently too. The whole area is at least four storey condos already.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #93  
Old Posted Jun 29, 2017, 9:40 PM
Prometheus's Avatar
Prometheus Prometheus is offline
Reason and Freedom
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Vancouver/Toronto
Posts: 4,015
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeftCoaster View Post

Beedie's project in China Town was in fitting with the community plan but that didn't stop every nut from coming out and complaining.
Or the city siding with those nuts.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #94  
Old Posted Jun 30, 2017, 8:17 PM
Vin Vin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 8,280
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prometheus View Post
Or the city siding with those nuts.
And that's not an assumption.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #95  
Old Posted Jul 4, 2017, 7:47 PM
Pinion Pinion is offline
See ya down under, mates
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 5,167
I thought this was a good article from a New West councillor:

Quote:
What is arguably the highest-profile development proposal in my time on Council was given a development variance by Council last week. Bosa Development (not to be confused with Bosa Properties who are building the nearby River Sky. These are two separate companies) plans to fill the parking lot between the Fraser River Discovery Centre and Westminster Pier Park with two residential towers and a 3-story commercial building, while dedicating a bunch of the space to expansion of public park space on the waterfront. The big news seems to be the 53-story height of the tallest building, but there is (as always) much more to the story. As there is a bit of uninformed chatter in the community about this development, it is worth me going through my impressions about this variance, and how I made my decision on which way to vote.

The background for this development pre-dates my time on Council. Back in the early 2000s , this site was zoned for 5 towers and 1,000 residential units to be built upon a multi-story parking pedestal. As the Downtown Community Plan changed and North Fraser Perimeter Road was shelved, this model of an elevated parking pedestal no longer met the vision of the City to connect the waterfront to Downtown and keep it public space. The previous Council worked with the owner of the time (Larco Properties) to re-imagine the space so that parking could be placed below grade, the number of towers could be reduced to three, and the number of residential units reduced to 820. After a Public Hearing on September 29, 2014, that rezoning was adopted by the City in November, 2014, just before the last Municipal elections.

The process that occurred over the last year was not a rezoning. The owner of the land has the right under existing zoning to build that 3-tower 820-unit development. However, for reasons that no doubt result from serious number-crunching at Bosa, they requested to change this project footprint from three towers to two, and to reduce the number of residential units to 665. They still committed to giving the City about two acres of public park and to build the full allotment of parking (mostly under grade except for 20 surface spots). They are now committed to meet and exceed the City’s Family Friendly Housing Policy by building mostly 2- and 3-bedroom units. To do this, they want to make the two towers larger than those proposed in 2014, and they re-designed the landscaping to move the towers out of direct line of existing towers on Columbia Street, and to better accommodate rail setbacks and traffic flow through the site, and to build a 9m-wide boardwalk across the riverfront. These changes did not require rezoning (the FSR has not increased, and the number of units has gone down), but variances of the development permits.



It is important to emphasize that: the decision Council had before it was to grant the variances or not, we were not deciding whether buildings could be built on the site or not. The developer had their zoning in hand, and could have proceeded with the 2014 plan; Council had to decide if the 2017 plan was a better one for the City.

The public consultation and delegations to Council brought forward a few concerns, which create a good framework to answer that question:

Too much density: This general concern was that this project brought too many people or too much traffic to downtown. As previously described, the variance actually reduces the number of units in the development by 20%. If density is your concern, the variances are your friend. Building density within a 5-miunte walk of two SkyTrain stations is completely consistent with our City’s pending OCP, with the Regional Growth Strategy, and with our larger regional desire to manage automobile traffic by providing people better access to alternatives – the opportunity to live, work, play and learn within a short walk of major transit infrastructure.

What about our views?: Every building in downtown blocks someone else’s view of the river, and this is simply the easternmost development of a line of buildings stretching along the Quayside. However, this variance shifts from 3 towers 34m apart to two towers 50m apart, which opens up more view corridors and reduces the blockage of river views from existing buildings.

53 Stories is just too big: Indeed, this will be the tallest building in New Westminster (although similar-sized buildings are currently being planned or built in Burnaby, Vancouver, Coquitlam – essentially anywhere SkyTrain exists), however the variance only increases the height of the tallest building by 6 stories, from 47 to 53 stories. I have consistently said that the real impact of new buildings in the City is felt in the bottom three stories – how the building footprint improves the streetscape – and not at the elevation of the penthouse. One need look no further than Plaza 88 to see that the streetscape impacts are much more important than the ultimate height



The FSR of this development is not increasing, and the buildings have relatively small footprints. By shifting the locations of these buildings on the lot (as done on the variance), there is better flow-through of the site and the vehicle access to the buildings is separated from the boardwalk. In my opinion, we get a better layout of the site for the public, in exchange for a relatively modest increase in height.

What can the city get out of this?: We get two residential buildings bringing residents, customers for the local businesses, and a financially viable development on a piece of land that has sat empty for more than 20 years. The City will get 2 acres of public park space, a re-aligned Begbie Street intersection built to maintain whistle cessation, a second access to Pier Park spanning the rail tracks at the foot of 6th street, a 40-child day care space in the third commercial building, 80 public parking spaces underground, new restaurant spaces, and a re-aligned 9m-wide boardwalk along the waterfront. This will be a phenomenal addition to our Riverfront once it is built.

However, there is something else that came out of the public consultations around this variance that speaks positively towards the development. The construction was originally envisioned to start this fall and result in a closure of the Begbie St rail crossing for up to 18 months. This shocked and concerned local businesses, especially at the River Market, as they are already feeling the pressure of the River Sky construction. After meeting with River Market owners and the Downtown BIA, Bosa agreed to delay the start of construction until after the RiverSky development makes its public parking available to guests of the River Market and adjacent businesses. They also adjusted the construction plan so that the (absolutely necessary) closure of Begbie would only be for a few weeks. The willingness of the developer to delay and adjust their construction schedule like this cannot be emphasized enough – these are real costs the developer is bearing for the benefit of the businesses and citizens of downtown New West.

The use of secant piles instead of steel pile walls and a commitment to using vibratory hammer driving of building piles will reduce construction noise and vibration by about 50% compared to RiverSky. This is also an increased cost the developer is bearing to the benefit of the community.

In summary? Yes, 53 stories is tall, but the density is within the existing plan, and the ground level amenities (and demonstrated will of the developer to be a good neighbour to existing residents and businesses) made this variance easy for me to approve. In my opinion, the changes that made the variances necessary make this a better development overall.
https://patrickjohnstone.ca/2017/07/53-stories.html

Still think the 2005 version would've been better for filling out the skyline but whatever, 53 storeys is cool too, and an obviously improved public space.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #96  
Old Posted Jul 4, 2017, 8:39 PM
Vin Vin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 8,280
The 2014 or 2017 concept should've been applied on buildings around BC Place Stadium, including the new Casino! It opens up nice gaps of views behind.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #97  
Old Posted Jul 11, 2017, 7:04 AM
SpongeG's Avatar
SpongeG SpongeG is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Coquitlam
Posts: 39,154
they have a presentation centre on columbia

2017-07-10_11-52-32 by snub_you, on Flickr
__________________
belowitall
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #98  
Old Posted Jul 23, 2017, 11:04 PM
Klazu's Avatar
Klazu Klazu is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Above Metro Vancouver clouds
Posts: 10,187
The towers will look fantastic in this view.



Reply With Quote
     
     
  #99  
Old Posted Jul 24, 2017, 3:17 AM
Vin Vin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 8,280
How come there is no "LIKE" in this forum?

East Fraser Lands and the Marine Gateway area will look like this in like a million years.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #100  
Old Posted Dec 5, 2017, 6:21 AM
rickvug rickvug is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 150
New render posted at http://www.pierwestbybosa.com. I noticed ads in the local paper as well.

"THE FLAGSHIP OF A VIBRANT WATERFRONT COMMUNITY, COMING EARLY 2018".

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 > Metro Vancouver & the Fraser Valley
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 6:03 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.