BC Place - Site 10C | 129.3m | 45 fl | Proposed

[bc2mb]

More high-res images: http://urbanyvr.com/bc-place-stadium-pavco-tower

[phesto]

Anyone else feel like the "recommended exception" to view cone 9.1 in the draft Plan is huge and potentially precedent setting?

[Vin]

See, if there is a political will to puncture through the viewcones (*money-cough!*), then anything is possible.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Page 57 of the Draft Plan for North East False Creek explains how it might be possible, if the Plan is approved. "The significance of the new intersection of Georgia Street and Pacific Boulevard warrants consideration of a strategic intervention to the Council-approved View Cone 9.1 (Cambie Street to North Shore Mountains) which limits buildings in this area to approximately 300 ft. in height. The new intersection will mark the meeting of city and water, and the urban connection of Vancouver’s prime ceremonial street with Pacific Boulevard, False Creek and neighbourhoods to the east. It will be a focal point of the regionally significant Events and Entertainment district at the juncture of the two stadiums. Allowing the buildings immediately adjacent to this intersection to exceed the View Cone to a height of approximately 425 ft. would mark the significance of this place and act as counterpoint in the skyline to the tallest towers at 1100 block Georgia Street. This height would punctuate the skyline without exceeding the line of the mountains as viewed from the Cambie Street viewpoint origin."

Originally Posted by phesto

Anyone else feel like the "recommended exception" to view cone 9.1 in the draft Plan is huge and potentially precedent setting?

Agreed - especially when 9.1 is akin to the City Hall view cone (which is 9.2).
In the past, the only view cone exceeded has bee the QE Park view cone.

View Cone 9.1
Cambie St. from between 10th & 11th:

http://former.vancouver.ca/commsvcs/...ewcones/91.htm


View Cone 9.2 has a slightly different angle:

View Cone 9.2
Cambie St. from 12th:

http://former.vancouver.ca/commsvcs/...ewcones/92.htm

[LeftCoaster]

9.1 and 9.2 (and their half cousin the QE viewcone) present the most problems for downtown east. If those were to go the post office, bay parkade etc... would all be greatly relieved of their constraints.

May be worth writing a letter to council for those of you who feel strongly about this, I know I already have.
mayorandcouncil@vancouver.ca

[jollyburger]

^^ Makes it even more likely Westbank is somehow involved in this project.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

9.1 and 9.2 (and their half cousin the QE viewcone) present the most problems for downtown east. If those were to go the post office, bay parkade etc... would all be greatly relieved of their constraints.

May be worth writing a letter to council for those of you who feel strongly about this, I know I already have.
mayorandcouncil@vancouver.ca

Aye, aye.

[Changing City]

The rezoning, which is illustrated with the same images already posted, has now appeared on the City website, so it can be processed even before the Plan for the area has been adopted.

[Feathered Friend]

While this site didn't have a model at the November open house, I did spend some time looking through the updated boards online. I'm happy to report that the NEFC plan is still calling for 425 feet tall gateway towers, but unfortunately they are only allowing for two. It seems the province drew the short straw, as the city is has now capped this building at 400 feet.

http://vancouver.ca/files/cov/northe...n-displays.pdf

[Prometheus]

Lame, as usual.

I also notice the plan is calling for smaller, “human” scale restaurant/retail spaces. If that means small, low-ceiling, non-impressive, generic units along the sea wall, then any chance of creating a destination restaurant/entertainment row will likely be lost forever.

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Lame, as usual.

I also notice the plan is calling for smaller, “human” scale restaurant/retail spaces. If that means small, low-ceiling, non-impressive, generic units along the sea wall, then any chance of creating a destination restaurant/entertainment row will likely be lost forever.

You mean just like they did with most of the waterfront on False Creek....

Human scale= Boring most of the time

Very sad.

[csbvan]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

You mean just like they did with most of the waterfront on False Creek....

Human scale= Boring most of the time

Very sad.

Err it usually means more interesting. Large retail space in new buildings is generally only available to chains, the height of boring retail.

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by csbvan

Err it usually means more interesting. Large retail space in new buildings is generally only available to chains, the height of boring retail.

Ya right, the endless Starbucks, Dominos Pizza, Insert name here___ Bank that currently dominates our "human scale" downtown is the very height of interesting.

The non "human scale" buildings have features such as higher ceilings which can add a neat dynamic to the space, and open up possibilities for unique businesses to dwell within them. It doesn't always mean it has to be super large either.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by csbvan

Err it usually means more interesting. Large retail space in new buildings is generally only available to chains, the height of boring retail.

This! It's like these posters want more Cactus Clubs...

[jollyburger]

The quality of the tenants has more to do with the location than the physical configuration of the space.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

The quality of the tenants has more to do with the location than the physical configuration of the space.

Big square footage = big rent, which will naturally attract big chains that can afford to open a new expensive location. Other locations can serve to subsidize the new one as it gets off the ground. They can also borrow cheaper, etc, etc.

[Prometheus]

Restauranteurs and retailers (especially cool, creative, ambitious, independent ones) covet high ceilings and funky spaces with a sense of grandeur. Go to Gastown, Chinatown, Railtown, Hastings Street and survey the independent businesses (and their customers) on what physical aspect of their interior spaces they value the most. It's the double (even triple) high ceilings. Vancouver was just a pioneer town when those commercial districts were being built but that generation understood that attractive, interesting and inspiring urban spaces require a degree of height and grandeur far beyond the scale of one's own mundane living room. Due to their adherence to the timeless principles of great urban architecture and design, it is the pre-war generations which have left North American cities with their most attractive, funkiest and sought-after urban streets and spaces.

If "human scale" means low ceilings and uninspiring, cramped, generic spaces, then this new district will not succeed at attracting cool, independent businesses or creating an impressive, exciting entertainment/hospitality destination buzzing with patrons from all over the city.

[Migrant_Coconut]

So maybe small footprints, high ceilings?

[Metro-One]

What is the point of reducing the height by 7 meters?

Like seriously, does that really make a big difference? Especially when two neighbouring towers will have that extra 7 meters?

Just seems like bizarre micromanaging to me, especially after 129 meters was already pre-suggested to be okay for the site.

Also can we stop with the feet?

Dear Vancouver, Canada uses the metric system.

Every time they post height limits in feet I have to go translate it to meters on Google.

Also, regarding restaurants, both large and small spaces can have unique and interesting tenants, and plain chains.

For me, what is needed is more interesting layouts. 2 story restaurants / bars with a subterranean space or a 2nd level patio, long thin eateries / bars that are just one long bar, etc... these are what make such spaces interesting and fun.

Think of Steamworks, think go Gyuu in gas town, etc...

[s211]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

What is the point of reducing the height by 7 meters?

Like seriously, does that really make a big difference? Especially when two neighbouring towers will have that extra 7 meters?

Just seems like bizarre micromanaging to me, especially after 129 meters was already pre-suggested to be okay for the site.

Also can we stop with the feet?

Dear Vancouver, Canada uses the metric system.

Every time they post height limits in feet I have to go translate it to meters on Google.

The Canadian real estate market is still by far dominated by the imperial measurement system. Pretty much the only time you see metric is in response to governmental requirements, like Fed leases.