800 Granville Street | 79m | Proposed

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Does "revitalize Granville Street" mean just more daytime office workers? Anyone read anything different from all the interviews? I mean, I know Bonnis wants to maximize their property.

I usually hear about fixing Granville in the realm of lots of big venues are either closed and have people roughing it outside them or they are only open on weekends and at night, not that more development needs to occur.

Well, you can't really reopen venues without foot traffic - and this one should have plenty. Ditto the Cineplex redevelopment across the street.

Originally Posted by seamusmcduff

From an architectural and urban design perspective this project is terrible. It's a giant glass wall plopped on top of an entire block. It's a monolith that doesn't fit anywhere in any city. Having a bit of wavy glass doesn't fix the imposing nature of the design, there's no articulation to let light through or give visual interest. It's not set back to reduce the effect of making Granville feel like a canyon, or let the heritage buildings shine. It doesn't respect the heritage at all.

Feel free to let Singapore, New York, San Fran and Toronto know they're doing it wrong.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Well, you can't really reopen venues without foot traffic - and this one should have plenty. Ditto the Cineplex redevelopment across the street.

Sorry meant pre-COVID, where (closed venues) venues don't open till 8pm, for instance which causes lots of issues.

I might have misinterpreted this as they want to solve the pre-COVID Granville problems with this and not the current situation. I mean... hopefully we can do something before this is complete (soonest in maybe 5 years?).

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Does "revitalize Granville Street" mean just more daytime office workers? Anyone read anything different from all the interviews? I mean, I know Bonnis wants to maximize their property.

I usually hear about fixing Granville in the realm of lots of big venues are either closed and have people roughing it outside them or they are only open on weekends and at night, not that more development needs to occur.

When exactly did they buy that property? I'd be more sympathetic if they didn't make veiled threats that the Commodore isn't viable and might be torn down unless they get their way.

One new building isn't going to magically transform Granville Street. I wonder if they even asked the symphony if they wanted a 300 seat theatre? Is the Orpheum Annex even fully booked?

[Migrant_Coconut]

The Orpheum is used for more than VSO concerts. For example, I know firsthand that the Nat Geo Live events are often nearly sold-out.

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Sorry meant pre-COVID, where (closed venues) venues don't open till 8pm, for instance which causes lots of issues.

I might have misinterpreted this as they want to solve the pre-COVID Granville problems with this and not the current situation. I mean... hopefully we can do something before this is complete (soonest in maybe 5 years?).

So did I (sorry, should've made that clear). My personal experience with Granville is a mixed bag - sometimes it's packed, sometimes deserted. I'm thinking that a whole lot more offices and storefronts, if successful, would encourage a steadier volume of people and more reopenings.

After all, it's the middle of downtown. No danger of having more amenities than consumers.

[seamusmcduff]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Well, you can't really reopen venues without foot traffic - and this one should have plenty. Ditto the Cineplex redevelopment across the street.



Feel free to let Singapore, New York, San Fran and Toronto know they're doing it wrong.

I don't see those cities doing entire block long buildings with a consistent glass glass façade. Street canyons can be fine if there's enough visual interest, this doesn't have that at all. If you have examples of this form of development in those cities I would like to see it. For reference this is ~130m of consistent glass facade treatment with no architectural details or articulation aside from a few fins and a slight bump near the base above the existing buildings. At the pedestrian experiential level, as well as those viewing from afar, it's a 130m glass wall.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by seamusmcduff

I don't see those cities doing entire block long buildings with a consistent glass glass façade. Street canyons can be fine if there's enough visual interest, this doesn't have that at all. If you have examples of this form of development in those cities I would like to see it. For reference this is ~130m of consistent glass facade treatment with no architectural details or articulation aside from a few fins and a slight bump near the base above the existing buildings. At the pedestrian experiential level, as well as those viewing from afar, it's a 130m glass wall.

ION Orchard (come to think of it, much of Orchard Road in general), Hudson Yards, 5 Manhattan West next to it, Salesforce and James Thompson Centers, several parts of Eaton Centre. Sure, this is intimidating to the average small-towner, but not much more so than any other metropolitan downtown.

[seamusmcduff]

-ION- interesting facade treatment, plenty of massing variation, podium mall portion seems to be no more than 6 floors with the tower portion significantly set back, not really similar to whats proposed.

Hudson yards-Bland super talls in a office park like layout. Street interaction along the portion I'm assuming your talking about that completely kills any possibility of street life. Is this really what we want to do to a heritage district that is one of the few places for nightlife in the city? The tower heights aren't an issue, they're still set back enough, but the podium creating a giant wall might create possibly the least interesting street in manhattan.

Just gonna stop there, but I think you get my point. Again to be clear, I don't care about the scale or size of the building, that's not my issue. My issue is that the massing, form, and architecture are terrible and are only a detriment to the feel of the street and the surrounding areas. Honestly having two or three much taller towers that are properly set back would be so much better. In those situations the towers are not the focus, and usually let the heritage portion do that talking. If you want to create a block long wall along this street that's just as prominent as the heritage portion, you can't have subpar architecture, you need to have it be as architecturally interesting and appealing as the forms it is now competing with, which this is not.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by seamusmcduff

-ION- interesting facade treatment, plenty of massing variation, podium mall portion seems to be no more than 6 floors with the tower portion significantly set back, not really similar to whats proposed.

Hudson yards-Bland super talls in a office park like layout. Street interaction along the portion I'm assuming your talking about that completely kills any possibility of street life. Is this really what we want to do to a heritage district that is one of the few places for nightlife in the city? The tower heights aren't an issue, they're still set back enough, but the podium creating a giant wall might create possibly the least interesting street in manhattan.

Just gonna stop there, but I think you get my point. Again to be clear, I don't care about the scale or size of the building, that's not my issue. My issue is that the massing, form, and architecture are terrible and are only a detriment to the feel of the street and the surrounding areas. Honestly having two or three much taller towers that are properly set back would be so much better. In those situations the towers are not the focus, and usually let the heritage portion do that talking. If you want to create a block long wall along this street that's just as prominent as the heritage portion, you can't have subpar architecture, you need to have it be as architecturally interesting and appealing as the forms it is now competing with, which this is not.

So a fancy awning or two-toned cladding or more wavy shapes are the fine line between "acceptable" and "so ugly that nobody will ever want to walk there?" That's actually funny - especially so because I've always found the shape of ION tacky and ridiculous. I suppose that makes the Museum of Pop Culture a masterpiece.

And if you've ever seen the back or sides of it (or Wisma beside it) for yourself, you'd know that it's as "bland" as Hudson Yards, yet it's almost as crowded as the front. Evidently, pedestrians don't look up that far, or just don't care enough, in which case the current podium is sufficient. Nobody liked the Pompidou Centre or the WTC on Day 1 either.
In fact, the more people argue, the more I like it. It doesn't apologize for itself by trying and failing to blend in with the old; it simply acknowledges it, then rises to something new above it.

Towers, unless short enough to be ineffective, would block even more sun than this would regardless of setback. Automatic controversy, violation of multiple height bylaws, half as much floorplate and no canopy for the high street. Pass.

[seamusmcduff]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

So a fancy awning or two-toned cladding or more wavy shapes are the fine line between "acceptable" and "so ugly that nobody will ever want to walk there?" That's actually funny - especially so because I've always found the shape of ION tacky and ridiculous. I suppose that makes the Museum of Pop Culture a masterpiece.

And if you've ever seen the back or sides of it (or Wisma beside it) for yourself, you'd know that it's as "bland" as Hudson Yards, yet it's almost as crowded as the front. Evidently, pedestrians don't look up that far, or just don't care enough, in which case the current podium is sufficient. Nobody liked the Pompidou Centre or the WTC on Day 1 either.
In fact, the more people argue, the more I like it. It doesn't apologize for itself by trying and failing to blend in with the old; it simply acknowledges it, then rises to something new above it.

Towers, unless short enough to be ineffective, would block even more sun than this would regardless of setback. Automatic controversy, violation of multiple height bylaws, half as much floorplate and no canopy for the high street. Pass.

With the ION I never commented on whether I like it or not, I agree that is pretty terrible as well. I was just pointing out that it's not really comparable to this proposal.

Earlier you said "Feel free to let Singapore, New York, San Fran and Toronto know they're doing it wrong.", suggesting that these "world class" cities know what they are doing, and they know better than us what makes a good development. And then you admit that one of the examples you used for this being done in a world class city is tacky and ridiculous.

Why do you think that it being done in one of these cities means it's the right thing to do, when you yourself admit that they sometimes get it wrong? all the examples you shared are examples of them getting it wrong in my mind, yet you seem to excuse it because they must know better than us.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by seamusmcduff

With the ION I never commented on whether I like it or not, I agree that is pretty terrible as well. I was just pointing out that it's not really comparable to this proposal.

Earlier you said "Feel free to let Singapore, New York, San Fran and Toronto know they're doing it wrong.", suggesting that these "world class" cities know what they are doing, and they know better than us what makes a good development. And then you admit that one of the examples you used for this being done in a world class city is tacky and ridiculous.

Why do you think that it being done in one of these cities means it's the right thing to do, when you yourself admit that they sometimes get it wrong? all the examples you shared are examples of them getting it wrong in my mind, yet you seem to excuse it because they must know better than us.

If it’s not comparable, then you agree 800 Granville isn’t a bad design? Art is subjective; I’m sure that there’s somebody who likes both it and the ION, or who likes one and not the other.

But I think we're both talking past each other. It’s not about “wrong” or “right” or "knowing better," it’s about how this is par for the course in various larger cities that have decided, independent of each other, that big block projects are a better use for a particular site than an array of towers or an architectural wonder. Projects which, for that matter, fit right in with the urban jungle that's already filtering out light and forming a six-floor canyon at street level.

You say you don’t have a problem with the scale or size, yet you’re deliberately suggesting towers or setbacks or funky shapes that would reduce both scale and size, as well as cost much needed floorplate - since height & density limits along Granville Mall mean that it's already constrained and that towers aren’t possible - for the sake of... pedestrians that probably mostly don’t care either way? Or at least not any more than they do about Pacific Centre across the intersection?

Again, I realize that this would be unprecedented and scary in Edmonton, but I think Vancouver’s far enough along to get used to it.

[seamusmcduff]

^Agree to disagree. I do not believe for a second that just because other cities are doing large scale block developments that it is the right thing to do. We also collectively decided that urban renewal, urban highways, strip malls, power centres, dead office districts, towers in the park, and sprawl were good ideas for our cities (almost the world over with some exceptions). I will continue to stand by my opinion that this form of development is completely out of scale with the human experience, and is not suited for one of Vancouver's only places where a fine grained structure of architecture, frontages, and businesses come together to create a unique place for people to gather and socialize (whether the scene that occurs there is your thing or not). It would be a misuse of the block to remove the experiential typography that has intentionally been preserved there.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by seamusmcduff

^Agree to disagree. I do not believe for a second that just because other cities are doing large scale block developments that it is the right thing to do. We also collectively decided that urban renewal, urban highways, strip malls, power centres, dead office districts, towers in the park, and sprawl were good ideas for our cities (almost the world over with some exceptions). I will continue to stand by my opinion that this form of development is completely out of scale with the human experience, and is not suited for one of Vancouver's only places where a fine grained structure of architecture, frontages, and businesses come together to create a unique place for people to gather and socialize (whether the scene that occurs there is your thing or not). It would be a misuse of the block to remove the experiential typography that has intentionally been preserved there.

The problem with that cop out is that when you agree with the form of development it's enlightened urban planning. And when you disagree it's Vancouver bring "dumb" again. Anyone that has spent five minutes on Granville would question your BS about the typography of the area.

[Denscity]

Granville is many blocks long. One side of one block will not change the whole thing.

[TwoFace]

....

[Changing City]

.... back at you

[GenWhy?]

Tom Lee isn't vacant - Pre-COVID, anyway.

Again, I think Bonnis is just positioning themselves for the upcoming 2022 K1, K2, and K3 updates. Hence why I thought the recent K3 changes were the big deal and not the minor tweak being presented. The ideas Bonnis is suggesting would take talks a few years out in any case with the City.

[DKaz]

Wow. Fantastic building. I hope they build this. The facade of the Commodore and the Orpheum is retained but it's not clear if the establishments themselves get to stay or is it all for show?

[TwoFace]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Tom Lee isn't vacant - Pre-COVID, anyway.

It turns out that it's the "temporary" space for Deloitte till Georgia street is finished.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by DKaz

. The facade of the Commodore and the Orpheum is retained but it's not clear if the establishments themselves get to stay or is it all for show?

Yes, the Commodore would be preserved in its entirety and "bridged" over.
The Orpheum passage would not be affected either.

[seamusmcduff]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

The problem with that cop out is that when you agree with the form of development it's enlightened urban planning. And when you disagree it's Vancouver bring "dumb" again. Anyone that has spent five minutes on Granville would question your BS about the typography of the area.

I mean there's plenty of research behind typology, how fine-grained human scaled streets make people feel more comfortable and keep their interest, among other things I've described. It's not just arbitrary "enlightened" urban planning. Just as there's plenty of research showing why those bad examples of urban planning I gave are bad, there's plenty of research about what people are looking for and find desirable in a street, and the current state of Granville aligns a lot closer to that.

The discussion around the current state of Granville, the clientele, the atmosphere, the state of the buildings etc., is completely separate to this. It obviously has some issues right now, but this would not be the way to fix it, and would be moving things in the wrong direction.

Obviously there is things this proposal does that can maintain the fine grained nature of the street, but what it can't do is address what people find comfortable, appealing, and engaging. Just for example I think the below paper is a pretty interesting indepth review into the street height to width ratio that people prefer, which is between 0.5-1.5, which on my estimation is right where granville sits. One thing that Vancouverism does well is allow for much higher density while maintaining this sense of scale by setting buildings sufficiently back so that they don't contribute to this perceived ratio as much, which this development would not do at all.

"ENCLOSURE AS A FUNCTION OF HEIGHT-TO-WIDTH RATIO AND SCALE: ITS INFLUENCE ON USER’S SENSE OF COMFORT AND SAFETY IN URBAN STREET SPACE"