HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Downtown & City of Vancouver


    1090 West Pender Street in the SkyscraperPage Database

Building Data Page   • Comparison Diagram   • Vancouver Skyscraper Diagram

Map Location

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted Dec 16, 2013, 5:53 PM
phesto phesto is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: yvr/bwi
Posts: 2,675
Old school SSPers will recall that there was a proposal for a 15-20 storey office tower on the 1155 West Pender site back in the late 90's, but the market tanked with the dot-com crash and it was shelved.

It's not a big site...only 16,000 SF. It would be very difficult to get to 600 ft in height if it's pure office. Maybe hotel?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted Dec 16, 2013, 8:12 PM
NewWester NewWester is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 353
Quote:
Originally Posted by phesto View Post
Old school SSPers will recall that there was a proposal for a 15-20 storey office tower on the 1155 West Pender site back in the late 90's, but the market tanked with the dot-com crash and it was shelved.

It's not a big site...only 16,000 SF. It would be very difficult to get to 600 ft in height if it's pure office. Maybe hotel?
Or maybe they are looking more longterm for when a lack of other developable sites make it viable to do a taller building. Or maybe they are playing at a longer game and waiting for when a lack of developable realestate means that they might be able to go even taller. I mean, developers kind of get one shot to maximize returns on the property, right?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted Dec 17, 2013, 5:02 PM
LeftCoaster's Avatar
LeftCoaster LeftCoaster is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Toroncouver
Posts: 12,624
Quote:
Originally Posted by phesto View Post
Old school SSPers will recall that there was a proposal for a 15-20 storey office tower on the 1155 West Pender site back in the late 90's, but the market tanked with the dot-com crash and it was shelved.

It's not a big site...only 16,000 SF. It would be very difficult to get to 600 ft in height if it's pure office. Maybe hotel?
Ya but there is the adjacent 2 floor building which is attached to the marriot and I believe houses some of their conference floors etc. I bet it is factored into the marriots GFA so there could be density issues, but it could be combined for much more efficient floorplates and nice new amenities for the marriot.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2014, 12:15 AM
PaperTiger's Avatar
PaperTiger PaperTiger is offline
scared of rain
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Gastown
Posts: 526
Quote:
Originally Posted by officedweller View Post
Pics at the MCM website:

...


http://www.mcmparchitects.com/portfolio/107
Cue the cries for more height.

Though in this case, yeah it actually should be taller.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2014, 12:50 AM
giallo's Avatar
giallo giallo is offline
be nice to the crackheads
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 11,458
^ I was gonna say....

I'm not usually one of the 'height-at-all-costs' people on here, but that does look awfully stumpy - like it's been cut in half or something.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2014, 1:59 AM
East Van East Van is offline
Registered
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: PacificNorthWest
Posts: 713
Looks like the first phase of Bentall V from 10 years ago.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2014, 6:24 AM
Spork's Avatar
Spork Spork is offline
Shoebox Dweller
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,784
Quote:
Originally Posted by giallo View Post
^ I was gonna say....

I'm not usually one of the 'height-at-all-costs' people on here, but that does look awfully stumpy - like it's been cut in half or something.
I welcome this new nickname.

Is the site view cone restricted or is this just market trepidation? I still think it looks like the Bentall popcorn box, or whatever they are marketing it as.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2014, 6:27 AM
officedweller officedweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 38,231
Yup - view cones:
Main one is from Laurel Landbridge C.2.2 to height of 403 ft (from the development proposal on page 1 of the thread)
Proposed height is 403 ft. The taller building nearby is Bentall IV - built before view cones.


http://www.mcmparchitects.com/portfolio/107
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2014, 6:54 AM
officedweller officedweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 38,231
Just realized that I had a pic of the site taken at a meeting last summer.
It should be a bit (1 m) taller than Bentall III on the left of the pic.
I've added a blue star showing the site.


http://imgur.com/jwmgtqu
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2014, 7:14 AM
Vin Vin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 8,218
Damn viewcones, and the City!!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2014, 2:56 PM
Klazu's Avatar
Klazu Klazu is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Above Metro Vancouver clouds
Posts: 10,182
Thanks, officedweller! That view will be completely gone.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2014, 4:37 PM
trofirhen trofirhen is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,829
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaperTiger View Post
Cue the cries for more height.

Though in this case, yeah it actually should be taller.
Quote:
Originally Posted by giallo View Post
^ I was gonna say....

I'm not usually one of the 'height-at-all-costs' people on here, but that does look awfully stumpy - like it's been cut in half or something.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spork View Post
I welcome this new nickname.

Is the site view cone restricted or is this just market trepidation? I still think it looks like the Bentall popcorn box, or whatever they are marketing it as.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vin View Post
Damn viewcones, and the City!!

Couldn't there be an "anti-viewcone" movement, started up by some high-powered scheiss-disturbers?

This whole viewcone thing has gone from the sublime to the ridiculous.
This could almost have been developed into a sort of "signature" building, if they just let it have 12 or 15 more floors.

I hope other people, in numbers, are as fed-up with the cutesie "viewcone thing" as I am. If people can't handle tall buildings, and want mountaintops and forest views wherever they go, then move out of the city !!!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2014, 4:47 PM
jlousa's Avatar
jlousa jlousa is offline
Ferris Wheel Hater
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 8,371
*l* Maybe they should move all the way to Paris where most building are at the human scale.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2014, 5:10 PM
trofirhen trofirhen is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,829
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlousa View Post
*l* Maybe they should move all the way to Paris where most building are at the human scale.
I think Newton, Cloverdale, Langley, Abbotsford or Maple Ridge would suffice, somehow.

Last edited by trofirhen; Jan 16, 2014 at 5:21 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2014, 5:56 PM
Cypherus's Avatar
Cypherus Cypherus is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,755
I think it's frustrating that the view cone for this lot lies within the CBD which should have no restrictions to economic pressure. A signature tower can be built with minor reservations from the public / city.


Source: Vancitybuzz


Source: Vancitybuzz

The tower does not look as stubby in scale as opposed to the renders. It would be perfect at 600'
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2014, 7:41 PM
red-paladin red-paladin is offline
Vancouver Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Burnaby
Posts: 3,626
I am perfectly fine with the height.
I love it that downtown is becoming saturated with mid-height buildings, and that these plots of land that one would not expected to be redeveloped, are. I love the idea of a fully built out CBD with medium sized buildings, than a few really tall ones and a bunch of unfulfilled potential around. Talking about Paris, much of it's charm is that there are street upon street of complete blocks of similarly scaled buildings.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2014, 7:43 PM
NewWester NewWester is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 353
While modifying the viewcones is something that probably should, and will eventually happen (due to demand overpowering land availability), I kind of like them. And I kind of wonder to what extent the viewcones (and retention of alleyways) has caused the density, variety, and number of towers downtown. Like, we dont have a couple giant signature towers with huge floorplates swallowing up all of the available office space or condo demand, because of height limits. So instead, we have many smaller but still very nice towers that spread that office stock around the city more. And while this maybe stops us from getting a mile hire spire, it makes for a nice city with a bunch of exciting smaller towers. It sometimes feels like height is being worshipped without any look to the broader context.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #59  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2014, 8:33 PM
PaperTiger's Avatar
PaperTiger PaperTiger is offline
scared of rain
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Gastown
Posts: 526
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewWester View Post
While modifying the viewcones is something that probably should, and will eventually happen (due to demand overpowering land availability), I kind of like them. And I kind of wonder to what extent the viewcones (and retention of alleyways) has caused the density, variety, and number of towers downtown. Like, we dont have a couple giant signature towers with huge floorplates swallowing up all of the available office space or condo demand, because of height limits. So instead, we have many smaller but still very nice towers that spread that office stock around the city more. And while this maybe stops us from getting a mile hire spire, it makes for a nice city with a bunch of exciting smaller towers. It sometimes feels like height is being worshipped without any look to the broader context.
I completely agree, well said. If the courthouse had proceeded as a 55 story tower as originally proposed I think we would have gone down a very different path. The view cones are one of the things that have contributed to the nature of the this City, which, despite its short comings, is still IMHO among the best around. (That's why I live here.)

That said, this specific tower looks as if it were designed as a higher building ans then had the top third lopped off. My personal criticism is with the design rather that the broader policies.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #60  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2014, 8:52 PM
NewWester NewWester is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 353
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaperTiger View Post

That said, this specific tower looks as if it were designed as a higher building ans then had the top third lopped off. My personal criticism is with the design rather that the broader policies.
Oh, for sure, that's a totally valid criticism. It does kind of look like it's a much taller building squeezed into a too small space. I still like the lines of it, but I see what you mean. I just find it crazy how fast that note always turns into build the biggest thing ever!
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 > Downtown & City of Vancouver
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:53 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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