SkyscraperPage Forum - 750 Pacific Blvd | 87.5M

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)

- Downtown & City of Vancouver (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=163)

- - 750 Pacific Blvd | 87.5M | Proposed (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=200271)

750 Pacific Blvd | 87.5M | Proposed

Okay we knew this was coming and we've discussed the initial vision. They have now made a official proposal. Here it is...

Quote:

James K.M. Cheng Architects Inc. has applied to the City of Vancouver to amend the existing CD-1 (Comprehensive Development) District By-law for 750 Pacific Boulevard. The proposed amendment would change the CD-1 (349) By-law to include residential (130 525 m²), commercial (32 515 m²),and community centre (5 338 m²) uses, with a Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 3.9. The residential use will provide 1,700 to 2,000 dwelling units. The commercial use will provide retail, office, hotel, restaurants, and cafes. The community centre and associated uses include a daycare for 69 children, an ice rink, and sports science centre. All required parking will be below grade. The buildings will vary in height and be up to a maximum of 30-storeys (87.5 m) to meet view cones.

Thanks for posting this, Jlousa.

massing study - not the final design

http://img841.imageshack.us/img841/8093/concordy.jpg
Source: http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/plannin.../1.12_view.pdf

And hopefully all these new residents understand that they will be living next to a stadium, with noise and lights and electronic billboards, in an entertainment district with more lights, signs, noise, a casino, bars, hotels, etc....

haha, well, I am dreaming, this is vancouver, they will all complain as soon as they move in...

Looks nice though!

At least the proposal looks different, so +1 from me.

So it's finally an official proposal or what?

Best proposal Vancouver has seen yet.

I'm not terribly impressed overall.

The Uses Diagrams PDF appears to indicate that two sides of the civic plaza will be residential from Level 2 up - that doesn't seem conducive to creating a lively public space (in general and for events...).

So bland, and the one "interesting" building just blocks the view of the BC Place roof.

This is about as uninspired as it gets.

I'm dumbfounded as to how James Cheng can go and endorse Bjarke Ingles 1400 Howe project and then come out out without a design as insipid as this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Locked In (Post 5755716)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pinion (Post 5755798)

So bland, and the one "interesting" building just blocks the view of the BC Place roof.

:previous:

I'm not big on it either. Surely, with its pool of architectural talent, Vancouver can come up with a sleeker design than this.

What about our beloved neighbourhood casino?

Looks ok, could be better. I agree about the building blocking the view of the stadium, and people won't want to live there anyway. Maybe it will get presold and people will take a bath once it's built, like some units at the Capitol.

Looks promising. It's no Bjarke and ingles, but it's different and a prominent landmark for the site. The improtant thing would be how they treat the plaza below the arch and the surround ing public space, and what if any amenity would be on the arch roof (roof top observation deck? publicly accessible garden?)

NB, the arch building is residential, so i don't think any amenity on the roof will be for the public.

I hope this is just a rough idea until it gets further along.
I love the arch idea, but over all this looks as 1985 as what's already there.

Guys, if you look at the "Key Project Features" pdf, you can clearly see that these renderings are simply intended to show massing and the project will not end up looking exactly like this for a variety of reasons - among them: a)there are no balconies, b)the glass is reflective, c)there are no mechanical penthouses, and d) the glass won't likely be clean curtainwall and will incorporate spandrels and mullions.

The comments here that these renderings are bland or appear like a 1985 project are funny because the next iteration, once they incorporate the above items and knowing James Cheng, will likely be far more ugly...

really looks like the result of a first year architect's charrette. like cheng is a really uninaginative architect, but this one looks like he must have handed it off to his teenaged son. and that arch building is a tour de force of decontextualized design bordering on anomie - impressively bad design, impressively poor relationship to site and locale, impressively arrogant and anti-popular stand viz the broad consensus on the form the city ought to take.

my guess is that if this is anything like the final proposal, this will, again very impressively, meet such virulently hostile opposition during the approvals process that the entire project will be reworked.

Agreed that it's just a massing study - the concern of course, is that the arch building is still there!!

I like the retail/restaurant uses right up along the seawall.

Personally, I think that the sites along Pacific Boulevard are probably sites where the buidlings could be "one-sided" - with elevator cores facing BC Place and suites facing water views to the south.

That arch building would have made a tremendous sky terrace for a casino and/or major hotel development. Too bad this project will just be yet another "mixed use" building which in Vancouver terms means 99% residential with a coffee shop on the ground floor.:yuck: To add insult to injury it appears the historic BC Pavilion will be lost as well:( That means yet another reminder of Expo 86 will be lost forever.:(

Quote:

Originally Posted by EastVanMark (Post 5756315)

I think you forgot about the A&W....I'm pretty sure there's going to be an A&W... :jester:

All joking aside, I would have hoped the BC Pavilion / Enterprise Hall / Casino would be retained too, I mean, it matches with the green angular glass of the new BC Place now too! But wasn't it said that it had HVAC issues or the glass enclosure was problematic?

Boxy and blaaaah. we're ruining good opportunities.