424 & 454 West Pender St. | 32.2m x 2 | 11fl x 2 | U/C

[christmas]

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

[retro_orange]

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.

[christmas]

At the October 18, 2016 Regular Council Meeting, Council referred this application to Public Hearing

[IMG] [/IMG]

[BobLoblawsLawBlog]

I wish it did a better job of blending in to the older architecture. It's not impossible to get it done right, right?

[BodomReaper]

Originally Posted by BobLoblawsLawBlog

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.

[osirisboy]

Originally Posted by BodomReaper

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).

[BobLoblawsLawBlog]

Originally Posted by BodomReaper

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.

[BodomReaper]

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

[mcminsen]

From the first page.

Originally Posted by christmas

At the October 18, 2016 Regular Council Meeting, Council referred this application to Public Hearing

[Jimbo604]

Originally Posted by christmas

At the October 18, 2016 Regular Council Meeting, Council referred this application to Public Hearing

Heritage shmeritage, what about a shortage of downtown density?

Also can we not build at least as tall as the building that has been on the end of the block for a million years?

Probably no but don't blame me when there is no developable land/density in the CBD. Or when increasingly larger/taller buildings get demolished due to lack of land. Or when there is increased pressure on surrounding neighborhoods because we squandered all the space in the CBD. bah humbug

[officedweller]

So 2 more floors to go?

Originally Posted by christmas

[christmas]

This application has been approved by Council at Public Hearing on November 15, 2016

http://rezoning.vancouver.ca/applica...nder/index.htm

[a very long weekend]

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!

[christmas]

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

[mcminsen]

Excavation has started now at the corner of West Pender and Richards.




March 9 '20, my pics

[mcminsen]

source: https://vancouver.skyrisecities.com/...4-454-w-pender

[officedweller]

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.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by officedweller

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.

[officedweller]

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.

[fredinno]

Why couldn't they get higher building heights here? I'm pretty sure it's not part of Gastown...