[mr.x]

http://www.vancouversun.com/3729509.bin?size=620x400

VANCOUVER — A rezoning application for a $500-million 'Burrard Gateway' project has been pitched to the City of Vancouver by Reliance Properties and Jim Pattison Developments.

The application involves 23 separate city lots, 14 owned by Reliance Properties and nine by Jim Pattison Developments. The project would require the landowners to consolidate their holdings.

"This proposed development is designed to create a dramatic entrance to Vancouver's downtown area as people crest the Burrard Bridge heading north on Burrard Street," Reliance Properties president Jon Stovell said in a news release.

The lots are located on Burrard and Hornby, north of Drake. The proposal features three towers and would include strata and rental housing as well as office and retail space.

"We want to create a vertical operation that minimizes the footprint at street level. The showroom will be like a three-storey glass jewel box, with all of the service areas on four underground levels. It will be the only full service downtown dealership serving the many people who live and work in the area," Jim Pattison Auto Group president Bill Harbottle said in a news release.

Looking ahead, the application process will include public open house meetings, a public hearing and a review by the tall building design panel.
© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun


Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/Burrard+Gateway+project+proposed+area+north+Drake/3729505/story.html#ixzz13Ur2pOfe

[officedweller]

Great location for a landmark building
- so why does the "spire" face the corner of Drake & Hornby??
It should face directly towards Burrard Bridge (even if that means facing the middle of the site) - OR the design should be more uniform to eliminate the front & back aspects of the tower.
Take a cue from the Marine Building.

[vanman]

That looks like something out of a Toronto suburb. I wonder who the architect is.

[Hed Kandi]

Is this one of the proposed view cone sites?

[PaperTiger]

Sometimes I suspect developers put things forward with obvious flaws so that the UDP has something to latch onto. Then they make the obvious changes and say "Look. We did what you asked. Aren't we good , community minded developers?" Presto, 1-7 non-support becomes 7-1 support.

[Locked In]

Agreed, not a particularly impressive first rendering. A bit more info from the press release (http://www.pitchengine.com/relianceproperties/jimpattisondevelopmentsandreliancepropertiesproposelandmark%E2%80%98burrardgateway%E2%80%99mixedusedevelopment/97369/):


As currently proposed, the development consists of three towers of 13-, 36- and 48-storeys and a seven-storey podium with a total built space of more than 750,000 square feet. Uses would include market strata and rental housing, office and retail space and a flagship Toyota dealership for North America.


and I can't resist posting the ridiculous opening line from CBC's article (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2010/10/26/bc-developers-vancouver-high-rise.html):


Two big Vancouver companies are proposing to build three new downtown towers near the Burrard Bridge that could impair the view of the North Shore Mountains from Queen Elizabeth Park.


Based on this photo from the display boards for the latest Higher Buildings open houses, I doubt you'll even be able to see the tower behind the trees:

http://lh5.ggpht.com/_9FW9P3-u1EI/TMdT9i0HjkI/AAAAAAAADrc/Yy18BCteWuA/s800/queeneview.JPG

[Locked In]

That looks like something out of a Toronto suburb. I wonder who the architect is.

According to the Vancouver Sun article (http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Burrard+Gateway+project+proposed+area+north+Drake/3729505/story.html), the project's architect is IBI/HB - Jim Hancock was the architect at the press conference. Also from that article:


The project would include a flagship “glass cube” Toyota dealership, replacing the one that’s now there.

As proposed, the development consists of three towers of 13, 36 and 48 storeys, another seven-storey residential/commercial building fronting on Hornby Street, a 50,000-square-foot three-storey Toyota dealership (including four levels of service facilities below ground) with a total space of more than 750,000 square feet. Uses would include market strata and rental housing, office and retail space, the Toyota dealership and several community amenities including a 5,200-square-foot daycare centre, a car-share program, parking for nearly 800 bikes, community gallery space, and money for rental housing in the Downtown Eastside.

There would be about 600 residential units in the project, designed to achieve LEED gold status with an emphasis on energy savings.

According to the proposal, the current height limit of 364 feet for the main tower would be increased to 466 feet — as tall as One Wall Centre — and the permitted floor space for the project increased from 379,500 square feet to 774,318 square feet.

Jim Pattison Auto Group president Bill Harbottle said the project would establish a new standard for auto dealerships. “This represents an opportunity to launch the next generation of urban automobile dealerships. It’s a vertical operation over seven floors, with a glass showroom.

“We believe it will be Toyota’s flagship location in North America.”


http://www.vancouversun.com/business/3730107.bin?size=620x400

http://www.vancouversun.com/business/3730099.bin?size=620x400

http://www.vancouversun.com/business/3730102.bin?size=620x400

Source: Vancouver Sun (http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Burrard+Gateway+project+million+makeover/3729505/story.html)

[Metro-One]

Love the height increase, but I also agree the tower design needs to be upgraded. It does look better in the model shown above than in the render.

Anyways, if people are worried about loosing the view of the mountains from QEP then they should be more concerned with the local trees growing into the view than these new towers. Also, I always thought the point f the view from QEP was to look down onto Vancouver city, with the mountains only being a backdrop to the tower focal points? There are no limits on the number of areas one can get good views of mountains in BC, haha, but there are limits on good views of a pleasing major city skyline.

PS, if you really want your blood to boil read the comments below the CBC article. Sigh...

[Architype]

Great project, great location, it's going to look quite impressive driving over the bridge.

[officedweller]

The recesses on the facade look interesting, as do the offset balconies.

The building really should face Burrard Bridge - at that height, its the distant/far views that count.

[EastVanMark]

How can you allow this height at this location yet keep the CBD capped at 600' (with a tiny sliver that gets more)? A 450' tower at this location will do way more to views than a 750' tower in the CBD further north of this site.:shrug: :koko:

[wrenegade]

I'd like to see some better renders before I am too critical about the design, but so far it doesn't look like something worth writing home about.

[SpongeG]

Love the height increase, but I also agree the tower design needs to be upgraded. It does look better in the model shown above than in the render.

Anyways, if people are worried about loosing the view of the mountains from QEP then they should be more concerned with the local trees growing into the view than these new towers. Also, I always thought the point f the view from QEP was to look down onto Vancouver city, with the mountains only being a backdrop to the tower focal points? There are no limits on the number of areas one can get good views of mountains in BC, haha, but there are limits on good views of a pleasing major city skyline.

PS, if you really want your blood to boil read the comments below the CBC article. Sigh...

I know eh
all it would block out is the development up the mountains - the money part of the mountains is clearly visible - what do people in this city want? a logging down by the bay? :rolleyes:

[SpongeG]

The application involves 23 separate city lots, 14 owned by Reliance Properties and nine by Jim Pattison Developments. The project would require the landowners to consolidate their holdings.

does this include the stuff like the 7-11 on davie?

[Delirium]

there's a website for this project but it won't be live until Oct.29th.

www.burrardgateway.ca

[geoff's two cents]

Great project, great location, it's going to look quite impressive driving over the bridge.

With some design modifications, it surely will.

I wonder, though, about how the building itself will contribute to the surrounding neighbourhood, which is at present something of a dead zone for pedestrians - particularly along Drake between the Burrard and Granville. I'd like to see something in this proposal that livens up the community around it, and I'm not sure a large car dealership will accomplish this - even with the other amenities proposed. A grocery store, for instance, in addition to said car dealership, would provide an anchor destination that would benefit surrounding businesses by attracting additional customer traffic and pedestrian activity. It's also an amenity lacking in the immediate area, especially considering the residential density.

In an ideal world, in my opinion, the giant glass cube would be above a destination like a grocery store that attracts regular customer traffic. This way, the dealership would get its much-needed visibility without hampering the liveability of the surrounding neighbourhood - like, say, the south end of the Burrard street bridge.

[mr.x]

The Global BCTV News report on the web has further renderings, personally I'm quite looking forward to this....love the facade. I don't think the renderings that have been posted here do it justice.

However, the whole "how it will revitalize the neighbourhood"...with the current configuration, I highly doubt it considering its anchor is suppose to be a Toyota dealership? loll, everyone gets a new car every week. I agree, something like a grocery store would fit well (although I do think the grocery store market in downtown is becoming oversaturated) so I'd go for something else instead...otherwise, this will just end up being a really big condo building - a larger version of the ones on Coal Harbour or Concord Pacific Place: it will do little to add vibrancy to the neighbourhood.

[officedweller]

I wonder how many parcels are going to be consolidated? i.e. does it go all the way to Davie Street (7-11)?
I think the old Galloways and the store next to it were for sale at one time.
If that's the case, it could strengthen retail on Davie by having an entrance to the supermarket there.
I don't think that Drake should be a focus for retail, but Davie or Hornby off-Davie could be good for supermarket frontage.
I don't see Burrard in that area as being a walkable pedestrian area,
so the glass cube dealership is OK with me in a "ceremonial streetscape" sort of way..

You can make out the site in this Global Air Photo
- seems like it could go all the way to Davie if they bought out enough properties
- I'll bet that's where the 34 storey tower is located (closer to Davie)
- seems like the positioning based on the model and the render:

http://www.globalairphotos.com/images/bc/vancouver/2010/vch2010_0114.jpg
http://www.globalairphotos.com/large/BC/Vancouver/Downtown/2010/0114/2

[hollywoodnorth]

great stuff! Go JIMMY Go!

[SpongeG]

did y'all know there is a Scion dealer next to the 7-11? it took over that auto service place...

[Chikinlittle]

Some elements of the design remind me of the Residences at Hotel Georgia.

[jsbertram]

Is this one of the proposed view cone sites?

The corner of Drake & Hornby is listed as one of the proposed sites for a 500' building, so this may get all of its approvals under the current allowances, but I wouldn't be surprised to see a 'growth spurt' if the revised 500' height is allowed and the building can get re-approved to the new height before construction starts next year.

[jlousa]

My understanding is that a supermarket will in fact be part of the plan. Guess we'll have to wait a touch longer for them to announce it.

[entheosfog]

does this include the stuff like the 7-11 on davie?

and the two old houses, I wonder. It would be nice if they could be saved, fixed up and moved like with the Richard's site.

[jsbertram]

did y'all know there is a Scion dealer next to the 7-11? it took over that auto service place...

Isn't Scion == Toyota?

If so, Burrard Toyota probably took that space to keep the impression that Scion is distinct from Toyota.

I read recently they are chasing the 20-30 year-old 'new home, new job, new car' market & created the Scion brand because they didn't want their audience to associate these vehicles with Toyota (ie: Moms Corolla).

Somehow Scion and Toyota will be melded into the new dealership Cube in the new development.

[dleung]

Ugly proposal so far. It's annoying when "green features" are used to sell a building to the udp. A minimum standard should be met, after which no amount of greenwashing should even factor into whether a design is approved or not. As it is right now, the towers are shapeless and needlessly complicated.

[SpongeG]

yes scion is part of the toyota company
I knew there were finally coming to canada but i didn't know they had dealerships already - its very small kinda "urban" i guess

[wrenegade]

Just took a quick look on vanmap, 23 properties seems to be everything on Burrard from Drake to the newish tower, and everything on Hornby from Drake up to and including the old Ootmar Automotive (is this now Scion?). The brown building with the angled siding is tied to the building that sits mid-block on Davie and would not be included.

[Dylan Leblanc]

Wow, great proposal! I like the design, and don't think the tower needs to be oriented towards the Burrard Bridge. The way that it is angled slightly away from the bridge is neater in my opinion.


Here's the video on GlobalBC - http://www.globaltvbc.com/video/index.html?releasePID=1iRr9dNM4Fcf8oplDRZsuAkk6OrmcOAA

[Metro-One]

Hey, thanks for posting, that is the first non bias news story I have seen on the proposals, the first thing CBC and News 1130 said in their coverage is "loss of mountain views," calling the buildings massive in a negative context, etc...

[officedweller]

Thanks for posting

- the site plan shown in the Global newscast shows the northern boundary of the site being the same as the northern lot line of the Altadena (the newer condo on Burrard Street) - so it will not reach Davie Street.

[Dylan Leblanc]

This G&M article has a pdf which contains the site outline (though not a site plan) - http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/office-space-making-a-comeback-in-vancouvers-core/article1774079/

[WarrenC12]

The view cone thing in this city makes me laugh. Who cares what you can see from QEP? And honestly, based on that graphic earlier, we could rebuild the Twin Towers at Robson Square and you'd still have a fantastic mountain view.

I live on the 10th floor in Yaletown and I can hardly see a sliver of a mountain. :rolleyes:

[phesto]

Thanks for posting

- the site plan shown in the Global newscast shows the northern boundary of the site being the same as the northern lot line of the Altadena (the newer condo on Burrard Street) - so it will not reach Davie Street.

2 of the 3 lots on Davie are currently for sale...so don't be surprised if it reaches Davie by the time it formally goes through rezoning.

[twoNeurons]

Forget Scion, I want a Daihatsu(also Toyota) Gino!
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e2/Daihatsu_Trevis_vl_green_2006_EMS.jpg/752px-Daihatsu_Trevis_vl_green_2006_EMS.jpg

[officedweller]

2 of the 3 lots on Davie are currently for sale...so don't be surprised if it reaches Davie by the time it formally goes through rezoning.

That would be good for it.

[trofirhen]

Burrard Gateway seems like a rather exciting project, extending that central city feeling south to the foot of the West End. I just hope the buildings are sleek and snazzy. {if you want MY definition of sleek and snazzy, One Wall Centre is the closest to it, in Vancouver}

Those people who get uptight about mountain views being lost seem either small-town thinkers stuck in the past, or people whose own views will be cut off. I have some sympathy for them, but as for the small-town "let's keep it like yesteryear" folks: go move to Spuzzum.

[Coldrsx]

"Those people who get uptight about mountain views being lost seem either small-town thinkers stuck in the past, or people whose own views will be cut off."

You buy a car with a sunroof and then you are told it needs to be covered, you pissed off?

As much as they might be a PITA, view corridors are actually very much great foresight for future generations and a true legacy for the city thank you very much.

What if the original wealthy Vancouverites from CPR decided to settle Stanley Park and make it private land instead of turning it over as a public park to protect it and retain it in perpetuity.

huh cowboy?

[quobobo]

As much as they might be a PITA, view corridors are actually very much great foresight for future generations and a true legacy for the city thank you very much.

What if the original wealthy Vancouverites from CPR decided to settle Stanley Park and make it private land instead of turning it over as a public park to protect it and retain it in perpetuity.

1) It's not like there's a lack of places where you can see the mountains in Vancouver. Sure, it's nice to see the mountains from Broadway. It'd be just as nice to see some tall buildings.

2) Given that Stanley Park is largely useless (too far from anywhere but the boring yuppified West End and Coal Harbour), I'd be okay with that. That said, the loss of a huge park used by tons of people is not the same as changing some views.

[mr.x]

"Those people who get uptight about mountain views being lost seem either small-town thinkers stuck in the past, or people whose own views will be cut off."

You buy a car with a sunroof and then you are told it needs to be covered, you pissed off?

As much as they might be a PITA, view corridors are actually very much great foresight for future generations and a true legacy for the city thank you very much.

What if the original wealthy Vancouverites from CPR decided to settle Stanley Park and make it private land instead of turning it over as a public park to protect it and retain it in perpetuity.

huh cowboy?

I don't even know where to start...apples and oranges. And you can see mountain views from almost anywhere.

Stringent View corridors, which are btw ridiculously arbitrary, inhibit the economic well-being of the city.

And yes, what about people who want to see some nice tall buildings?

[Dylan Leblanc]

The view corridors are silly. There is no end to the areas of the city where the mountains can be seen. If downtown were built up with taller skyscrapers it would impact only a tiny fraction of the available mountain views.

Anyways, I think I read in one of the news articles that the 13 storey building proposed for Burrard Street will be an office builing. Did anyone else catch this?

[SpongeG]

yah - in the piece by frances bula she led it with the office component

[SpongeG]

I don't even know where to start...apples and oranges. And you can see mountain views from almost anywhere.

Stringent View corridors, which are btw ridiculously arbitrary, inhibit the economic well-being of the city.

And yes, what about people who want to see some nice tall buildings?

don't read the comments at CBC

one of them wants Vancouver to return to the way it was in the 1970's/1980's when it was simpler and the mountions were clearly viewed :rolleyes:

[officedweller]

I agree that the view corridors are arbitrary - step a few feet to one side or allow a tree to grow and - poof - it's blocked.

Compare to NYC - which allowed a proposal for a tall building a few blocks from the Empire State Building that was criticized for interfering with the views of the Empire State Building and its presence on the skyline.

You don't have a right to a view - you could buy on the seawall and trees grow in the park across the street.

Look at the old buildings here (Vancouver Block, Seymour Building, etc.) and in other cities - they were built in anticipation of other buildings butting up against them with light wells
- they weren't built with the view "I was here first, get out of my way".

[wrenegade]

Yes. No mention of a grocery store either. Link to the PDF below:

http://beta.images.theglobeandmail.com/archive/00968/Burrard_Gateway_-_F_968169a.pdf

[officedweller]

I was wondering about that too - maybe the lot size is too small for two towers and a grocery store (since the alley is staying put)? i.e. two elevator cores piercing through the ground level retail space on the Hornby side, and the car dealership taking up the bulk of the Burrard side.
The prototype to follow would be Metropolitan Towers and Nestors, where the large retail space is offset to one side (but still on the small side). Maybe if they do get the Davie frontage, they'll add the grocery store. .

[p78hub]

The comments on the CBC story are hilarious. Overreaction, much? With that said, I support this. The Toyota dealership as it stands now is really not interesting to look at and doesn't fit with the rest of the neighbourhood.

[SpongeG]

I was wondering about that too - maybe the lot size is too small for two towers and a grocery store (since the alley is staying put)? i.e. two elevator cores piercing through the ground level retail space on the Hornby side, and the car dealership taking up the bulk of the Burrard side.
The prototype to follow would be Metropolitan Towers and Nestors, where the large retail space is offset to one side (but still on the small side). Maybe if they do get the Davie frontage, they'll add the grocery store. .

the one rendering looks like it has 3 towers - a short one on burrard for office and two on hornby

[officedweller]

the one rendering looks like it has 3 towers - a short one on burrard for office and two on hornby

Yeah, but it looks like the alley is remaining in place, so if the Toyota dealership takes up the above ground and underground space on Burrard, the only place left for a grocery store is on the Hornby side - where there are 2 towers and 2 elevator cores - like Metropolitan Towers.

[Metro-One]

In my view it is not taller towers downtown destroying the view of the mountains, but having sprawling sub divisions being built high up their slopes that is. Maybe allowing extra height and density downtown and along the North Shore waterfront will help curb this forest removal blight...

[jlousa]

Coldrsx is completely right the viewcones are one of the best things ever implemented by city council. People may only seem them as providing views from a few set points, but fail to realize that working backwards those cones allow sunlight to enter across the core from the south. It was completely unintended but has done wonders for livability in our core.
Sprawl will happen regardless with a growing population, you could build hundreds of additional 60storey towers and you would still have people buying sfhs out in Ladner/Maple Ridge/Panorama Ridge etc different market completely. We aren't HK, if you eliminated sfhs in the region somehow, you would see a significant portion of that segment of the population leave.
The city is not short sighted people, our view cones are copied world wide for a reason. I understand this is a skyscraper forum, but urbanism is much more important. Take any of the cities that are on top of the most liveable lists and see how they fare skyscraper wise.

Back on topic, I'm not so sure the last few properties will make it into this project, they would've had their chance to sell but probably held out for more money, now they've realized they missed the boat and will be worth less as they will have limited developablity. A little surprised of no mention of a supermarket but I still think it's on the table.

[dreambrother808]

People may only seem them as providing views from a few set points, but fail to realize that working backwards those cones allow sunlight to enter across the core from the south. It was completely unintended but has done wonders for livability in our core.

I am often grateful for the amount of sunlight we have downtown compared to some other major cities.

[Architype]

Parts of downtown (residential areas) are so built up that there are no possible views of any consequence anyway. This is not a way I enjoy living; fortunately I can have a nicer view and more sunlight by not living downtown.

[dleung]

Sprawl will happen regardless with a growing population, you could build hundreds of additional 60storey towers and you would still have people buying sfhs out in Ladner/Maple Ridge/Panorama Ridge etc different market completely. We aren't HK, if you eliminated sfhs in the region somehow, you would see a significant portion of that segment of the population leave.

that needs to change. The most beautiful vistas in the region can't be wasted on only the 60 thousand people in SFH's on the north shore. They all need to be redeveloped as higher density, not downtown scale... more like Argyle or The Properties by Quigg in west van.

[EastVanMark]

The view cones came about to this city much in the same way that neon signs were outlawed. Its an idea that was born amongst a small group who decided they knew what's best for the rest of us. The view cones have been modified over the years, and with them some higher buildings have been built with little effect on the views. As for this "more sunlight" argument, the exact same effect can be accomplished by constructing buildings further apart. Besides, Ive yet to see any science supporting the notion that 40 floors allows enough sunlight while 41 doesn't allow enough.

[wrenegade]

Coldrsx is completely right the viewcones are one of the best things ever implemented by city council. People may only seem them as providing views from a few set points, but fail to realize that working backwards those cones allow sunlight to enter across the core from the south. It was completely unintended but has done wonders for livability in our core.
Sprawl will happen regardless with a growing population, you could build hundreds of additional 60storey towers and you would still have people buying sfhs out in Ladner/Maple Ridge/Panorama Ridge etc different market completely. We aren't HK, if you eliminated sfhs in the region somehow, you would see a significant portion of that segment of the population leave.
The city is not short sighted people, our view cones are copied world wide for a reason. I understand this is a skyscraper forum, but urbanism is much more important. Take any of the cities that are on top of the most liveable lists and see how they fare skyscraper wise.


I do agree that the view cones have had a very positive side effect in the amount of light in the core, but there are some areas where the view cones hinder development where the effect on the amount of light on the street level would be minimal. I'm specifically thinking about the area from Seymour east on Georgia street. It is so wide open and it would be fantastic to have some landmark buildings along that corridor.

This discussion should probably be moved to the hight limit or view cone thread.

[officedweller]

Sunlight to the street has more to do with building separation (80ft in Downtown South) than the view cones - you could build shoulder to shoulder at 10 storeys, be well under view cones and hugely shadow the streets.

In my view, who wouldn't see either sky, water or mountains in the course of their daily grind in Vancouver? And in order to even take advantage of many of the view cones (i.e. south False Creek seawall) you're already outside enjoying the landscape!

[Hed Kandi]

http://www.straight.com/files/gallery/adhoc/burrarddevelopment.jpg

http://www.straight.com/files/images/inline/balconies.jpg

http://www.straight.com/article-354722/vancouver/burrard-project-may-include-art-gallery

[Dylan Leblanc]

super cool!

[mr.x]

^ loving it! Needs work, but it's a good start.


Sunlight to the street has more to do with building separation (80ft in Downtown South) than the view cones - you could build shoulder to shoulder at 10 storeys, be well under view cones and hugely shadow the streets.

In my view, who wouldn't see either sky, water or mountains in the course of their daily grind in Vancouver? And in order to even take advantage of many of the view cones (i.e. south False Creek seawall) you're already outside enjoying the landscape!

Well said!!!

[Coldrsx]

Reminds me of the Shangri-la Toronto... well a little bit.

Love the balconies.

[Denscity]

Why isn't the tallest tower actually on burrard? View cones?

[LeftCoaster]

Just a small complaint but can someone change the title to height in metres?

466 feet means very little to me.

[Metro-One]

It is 142 meters. I feel the same way, why do we continue to discus towers in feet in Canada? Feet also means very little to me. When judging building height I need meters as well. Under 100 is a short tower, 120 is a decent height tower, 140+ is tall for Vancouver (and looks decently tall from the pedestrian perspective), 150 is the threshold for a true skyscraper (Vancouver currently has 3, one of the u/c), 200 is big (monolithic for Vancouver, hehe), 300 is a super-tall, and anything above 500 is ridiculously tall.

[martinishaker]

The Georgia is 100 feet taller than Capital and Patina

[SpongeG]

Why isn't the tallest tower actually on burrard? View cones?

thats where the toyota dealership is - business on burrard - residential on hornby

[wrenegade]

I would kinda like the heights in feet, or both. Yes Canada is metric, but most development is still done in feet, sq. ft, etc.

[dleung]

thats where the toyota dealership is - business on burrard - residential on hornby

Why can't they stick the tower over the dealership? Vancouver's really annoying with the "here's the podium; there's the tower" mentality..

[Yume-sama]

The renders are very nice~

[peters]

www.burrardgateway.ca

[officedweller]

Why can't they stick the tower over the dealership? Vancouver's really annoying with the "here's the podium; there's the tower" mentality..

Probably the desire for column free space in the showroom and/or a "grand" lobby for the residential tower (which generally means directly adjacent to the elevator core. Vancouver doesn't have any skylobbies as far as I know...(other than the Pan Pacific Hotel)

[jlousa]

I wonder if a certain member could provide us with additional details about the project... like is the supermarket option still on the table, and just how involved is Toyota in what will become their Flagship dealership.

[sono65]

Why do they keep saying it's the same height as One Wall? One Wall is 157.7 m to the spire. This is only 142 m. Are they saying it's 142 m to the roof? Then mechanical and what-not puts it up to One Walls height of 157.7 m?

[officedweller]

Why do they keep saying it's the same height as One Wall?

Probably because both are 48 storeys...

[wrenegade]

More renderings:

From Hornby & Davie:

http://www.hoodsurf.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/burrard-gateway-6.jpg

From Horby & Drake:

http://www.hoodsurf.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/burrard-gateway-5.jpg

South elevation (Drake):

http://www.hoodsurf.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/burrard-gateway-7.jpg

Image credit: Hoodsurf (http://www.hoodsurf.com/2010/10/29/a-few-more-burrard-gateway-renderings-and-tidbits/)

[Hed Kandi]

This tower is just awful. And those balconies...I have no words to describe my distaste for them.

[SpongeG]

i like it - it looks like the grocery store could be on hornby

[wrenegade]

Doesn't really look like it. Unfortunately this is the largest photo I could find.

http://media.nscdn.com/uploads/member/pictures/1288393182Burrard_Gateway_Site_plan.jpg

Photo via burrardgateway.com

[SpongeG]

oh well not like we need a nother friggin pattison store downtown anyway

[wrenegade]

oh well not like we need a nother friggin pattison store downtown anyway

Perhaps not, but it would be nice to save a Nesters in this development. Maybe they can acquire the rest of the block on Hornby and put one there. Probably won't happen, but I don't really see anywhere else they could fit +/- 25,000 sq. ft. of grocery store.

[officedweller]

http://www.straight.com/files/images/inline/balconies.jpg

http://www.straight.com/article-354722/vancouver/burrard-project-may-include-art-gallery

The thing I don't like about the balconies is that they'll shadow the floors below.
So on every second floor, the east side of the corner will have an oppressive balcony above blocking the sky, and on every other second floor on the south side you'll have the same thing. The assymmetry does make it look like one side is better than the other.

Maybe the intent is for sun shading - but living spaces that are recessed behind balconies are already dark enough - you don't need an extra overhang above making them even darker.

[SpongeG]

the area could use a grocery store for sure

[trofirhen]

This tower is just awful. And those balconies...I have no words to describe my distaste for them.
:previous:
I don't care for it either. It is too hybrid looking, and that lends it a bizarre kind of look, with that big zig-zag, plus the "honeycomb" effect.
I wish that Vancouver could come up with a few more elegant classics (in whatever style is voted for) but not these things that look as if they were designed by someone ... (or something??) ... from outer space.

Excuse me, ladies and gentlemen, for sounding like my usual intellectually snobbish self, but that is my opinion.

[Prometheus]

The thing I don't like about the balconies is that they'll shadow the floors below.
So on every second floor, the east side of the corner will have an oppressive balcony above blocking the sky, and on every other second floor on the south side you'll have the same thing. The assymmetry does make it look like one side is better than the other.

Maybe the intent is for sun shading - but living spaces that are recessed behind balconies are already dark enough - you don't need an extra overhang above making them even darker.

The design of the balconies is poor for the functional reasons you state. It is also a poor design aesthetically. The alternating balconies make that edge of the building look rough, jagged and disheveled. From a distance, the building looks like a giant knife with nasty serrated teeth.

[itinerant]

I think you guys are off base WRT the balconies. They are south facing on the corner, so get the full range of the sun through the day. Every second floor has one of the two overhang / balcony patterns which shade a different part of the glass wall--but look.. all these suites have full floor to ceiling glass. They would cook otherwise. Additionally, the extra deep overhangs / balconies will likely provide additional sound baffling from the street noise in the intersection below.

The 'waffle' is actually quite a nice feature I think. But I will agree that there may be a bit too much going on in these towers. Is the design feature the serated balcony corner or the honeycomb/waffle. But by enlarge, I think they look quite sharp in contrast to most of the buildings going up. Including the one directly kittty corner at Drake/Hornby on the Ticketmaster site.

[officedweller]

I figure it's for sunshading too - but on dreary days - the overhanging balcony above (it looks like it extends 8-10 ft out (compare to ceiling heights)) seems oppresive. I wouldn't mind having one of the ones without the overhang though.

I don't mind the waffle - now, if that were the only deviation from a sleek glass facade it would stand out so much more.
(BTW - are there balconies within the grid of the waffle?)

The building does come across as background though.

It's not "iconic" because there's too much going on - the facade is too "busy". It's trying too hard. To be iconic there should be a prominent yet simple aspect (feature, style, texture, shape, whatever) that provides immediate impact. This one comes across as - massing, meh, seen it before (first two Wall Centre towers down the street) - oh, wait but look at that interesting detailing... that's not iconic.

i.e. Iconic is Eureka Tower in Mebourne (sleek) - it is not World Tower in Sydney (haphazard, busy)
Remember when those two were being built at the same time?

[Built Form]

Proposed Pattison Toyota tower may have grocery store
Tuesday, 02 November 2010
A new downtown grocery store could be back in play according to the architect behind the new $500 million plan to build a 775,000-square-foot mixed-use complex, including a 48-storey tower, at the corner of Hornby and Drake streets.
Originally the development, put forward by Pattison Developments Ltd. and Reliance Properties Ltd., included a proposed grocery store but that was removed from the working concept before Pattison released renderings last week (See “Rezoning key to $500 million city tower project” – issue 1097; November 2-8 and "$500 million development to redefine downtown skyline " – BIV Business Today, October 27).

“Some of the neighbours have said that they want a grocery store there,” said IBI-HB Architects associate director Jim Hancock. “We’re going to have to digest that because we originally had a grocery store in the project. The city discouraged it so we took it out. If we feel that there’s strength in the neighbourhood for that, we could give it more consideration.”

The grocery store would not replace the three-storey Toyota dealership that would look like a glass cube and front Burrard Street with four levels of service facilities located below ground.

Instead, it would be at the bottom of the 48-storey tower that currently is expected to have a café, art gallery and other small retail-type businesses.

gkorstrom@biv.com

http://www.bivinteractive.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3300&Itemid=61

[djh]

Proposed Pattison Toyota tower may have grocery store
Tuesday, 02 November 2010

[snip]

“Some of the neighbours have said that they want a grocery store there,” said IBI-HB Architects associate director Jim Hancock. “We’re going to have to digest that because we originally had a grocery store in the project. The city discouraged it so we took it out. If we feel that there’s strength in the neighbourhood for that, we could give it more consideration.”

gkorstrom@biv.com

http://www.bivinteractive.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3300&Itemid=61

Raises an interesting question, much the same as the "No Walmart in My Back Yard" argument. Pattison owns some major clout in the grocery market. He could build a huge bargain-price, or high-end grocery store on that location - basically on the edge of Davie Village - and overnight it would bankrupt all of the little stores in that area. Florists, general stores, bakeries, greengrocers, butchers and the like would just not be able to compete. So even though the neighbours are saying they want it, do they realise the potential for it reshaping their beloved neighbourhood and probably leading to many of their favourite Mom and Pop businesses having to close?

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

[officedweller]

Raises an interesting question, much the same as the "No Walmart in My Back Yard" argument.

That was the COPE council at the time. Lots of grocery stores have popped up since and this one would likely be a smaller scale store. Stores can co-exist. Hi-Rise Produce is still on Pacific with Urban Fare around the block, Kin's Farm Market is in City Square with a Safeway.

[204]

overnight it would bankrupt all of the little stores in that area. Florists, general stores, bakeries, greengrocers, butchers and the like would just not be able to compete. So even though the neighbours are saying they want it, do they realise the potential for it reshaping their beloved neighbourhood and probably leading to many of their favourite Mom and Pop businesses having to close?

What? There's already a Safeway on Davie, as well as a Supervalu, not to mention Choices. A large IGA sits on Burrard just a few blocks away. There are more than enough people in the area to support this supermarket. No mom and pop's are going to be bankrupted by this if it goes through. I for one would enjoy not having to trudge 3 or 4 blocks to get some groceries.

[wrenegade]

What? There's already a Safeway on Davie, as well as a Supervalu, not to mention Choices. A large IGA sits on Burrard just a few blocks away. There are more than enough people in the area to support this supermarket. No mom and pop's are going to be bankrupted by this if it goes through. I for one would enjoy not having to trudge 3 or 4 blocks to get some groceries.

Agreed. I would guess the Supervalu has more to worry about than the mom and pops.

[SpongeG]

superripoff - that store is so expensive and they lock the cheese! and at night some guy follows you around - has happened a couple times when my friend and I were there - not a very welcoming store - they would walk further to safeway than deal with supervalue which was much closer or the produce store on davie even shoppers drug mart had better prices

[djh]

That was the COPE council at the time. Lots of grocery stores have popped up since and this one would likely be a smaller scale store. Stores can co-exist. Hi-Rise Produce is still on Pacific with Urban Fare around the block, Kin's Farm Market is in City Square with a Safeway.

Yes, I agree that stores can co-exist. But by the fuss that council made about preventing Walmart within the city boundaries, it would seem that city hall doesn't think they can - at least the old COPE council thought so, and perhaps the current council too, according to the previous comments above:

"...The city discouraged it so we took it out. If we feel that there’s strength in the neighbourhood for that, we could give it more consideration.”

Maybe I was exaggerating a little by saying little stores would be bankrupt overnight. I do think, though, that a marque Pattison store in a neighbourhood would draw away traffic from many of the smaller, dingier or less-competitive stores in Davie Village. People in Vancouver loooove new, so I can definitely see the loyalty to local small businesses disappearing if there's a new No-Frills or Nesters or whatever he decides to put in there.

And as a few others just mentioned, there are a few large supermarkets in the area already, so having one more will crank up the pressure on the small stores even more. They can't compete with the buying power of these stores, or pay the rising rents and simultaneously pay staff decent wages, so they'll have to close.

Not saying it's a good or bad thing, just saying that's what will inevitably happen.

[wrenegade]

new No-Frills or Nesters or whatever he decides to put in there.

No Frills is a Loblaws banner.

Pattison Food Group:

Overwaitea
Save-On
Pricesmart
Nesters
Urban Fare
Cooper's Foods
Buy-Low

[SpikePhanta]

But don't residents nearby to the east want something there?
Like an alternative to a corner store and 711?

[jlousa]

Not surprised by the current revelation, with the amount of towers proposed for the surrounding area there will be enough new demand to support an additional grocery store. I would actually be a little surprised to see a Nestors though and expect if a grocery store were to happen it would be a PriceSmart and involve a slight redesign of the Hornby side.

[Distill3d]

I'd, uh, hate to be "that guy" but, has anyone else not noticed this:

Burrard Gateway | 466ft/42m | 148-fls, 36-fls, 13-fls | 750 000 sqft | Proposed

As excited as I think I'd be if a 148 floor building WAS built or proposed in Vancouver, I just don't think anyone other than Lego men would be able to fit in it if it was only 42m tall. :yes:

[Some guy]

:previous: Can't believe I didn't notice. :haha:

[hankthetank]

The balconies look cool... until you get some drunk guys spitting or spilling beer right onto your balcony below them. AM I RIGHT!?

[golog]

The balconies remind me of:
- VM Houses (http://www.archdaily.com/970/vm-houses-plot-big-jds/) in Copenhagen (built 2005)
- the way Malmo's turning torso tower (built 2001) used a single floorplate which is cost effective, but used a simple rotation to achieve a much grander impact

If the curvy curtain wall of 99 Pender goes ahead, all Vancouver needs to complete trendy bingo is a building with some kind of complex cantilevered shape, or one with big horizontal or vertical sections missing.

I like the balconies, it's nice to experiment. So long as the trends are not built en masse, it's an option or some flavour and not a mistake. It seems that the balcony railings are far enough back that nothing will fall onto them, and the additional exposed concrete ledge will be a great place for a potted plant or just keeping the bike out of the BBQ + hammock patio area