MC² | 31fl, 24fl | 86.9M, 71.6M | Completed

jlousa · #1 Posted **Sep 17, 2011, 7:36 AM**

Developer: Intracorp
Architect: JKMC

James KM Cheng Architects has applied to the City of Vancouver to rezone this site from C-1 (Commercial) and RT-1 (Two-Family Dwelling) to a CD-1 (Comprehensive Development) District. The purpose of the rezoning is to permit a mixed-use development comprising 446 residential units, 59 rental units, 14 "choice of use" units (residential or commercial), and 10,000 sq. ft. of retail/commercial space. The application proposes a 285-ft., 31-storey tower and a 235-ft., 24-storey tower. Both towers would be set above one-storey, two-storey, and four-storey, ground-oriented podium buildings containing live-work units and townhouses. Ground-level commercial use is located at the corner of Cambie Street and Marine Drive. The floor space ratio (FSR) proposed is 5.1 FSR for the southern portion, and 4.4 FSR for the northern portion.

Project Stats
http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/plannin...nts/stats2.pdf

Context Plan
http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/plannin...s/context2.pdf

Floor Plans
http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/plannin...loorplans2.pdf

Floor Plates
http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/plannin...oorplates2.pdf

Cross Section/Building Elevations
http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/plannin...rosseleva2.pdf

Landscape Drawings
http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/plannin...landscape2.pdf

Shadow Analysis
http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/plannin...s/shadows2.pdf

The project has changed a bit since the original proposal, the tallest tower has lost 15ft. The shorter tower has increased 29ft and the project is now 2 Phases instead of going all ahead at once. Density and number of units have been cut back a bit. The units in these towers are pretty small.

The original proposal was as follows

Quote:

James KM Cheng Architects has applied to the City of Vancouver to rezone this site from C-1 (Commercial) and RT-1 (Two-Family Dwelling) to a CD-1 (Comprehensive Development) District. The purpose of the rezoning is to allow a mixed-use development comprising of a 300 ft., 31-storey tower and a 206 ft., 21-storey tower both set above a 4 storey podium containing live-work units and townhouses. Ground level commercial use is located at the corner of Cambie Street and Marine Drive. The maximum floor space ratio (FSR) proposed is 5.7 FSR, and the maximum height of the project is 91.4 metres (300 ft.). A total of 587 units are proposed for this project.

hollywoodnorth · #2 Posted **Sep 17, 2011, 8:18 AM**

are those 'faux' water towers (nyc style) on the top of the rental components (north ends)? sure looks that way on the Cross Section/Building Elevations ...... anyone else see that?

I like the "choice of use" units as full on retail there would not work ... here you will get a mix of a few offices in with the rest of the 'townhomes'

squeezied · #3 Posted **Sep 17, 2011, 8:51 AM**

444 SF units? Clearly they aren't marketing this to the Chinese!

Anyway I'm not too thrilled about these towers. It just screams out cheap. The floor plates of the two towers are just replicas of each other and they're symmetrical about the north-south axis. There's no interesting design about then, just cookie cutter. I guess it may be unfair to judge the design based solely on the floor plates, but then again the architect is James Cheng. In light of all this, the flip side of the coin is affordability, hopefully. A 444 SF unit is definitely going to lose some market value.

Frankly given the convenient access to Richmond, I would think they could market this to asians who seem to prefer (or are able to afford) nicer and larger units.

Owell, my main gripe is the repetitive design of the towers. Hopefully the city will demand some changes to the design, but given how Marine Gateway as turned out, I'm not counting on that.

BodomReaper · #4 Posted **Sep 17, 2011, 8:36 PM**

0_0 I never thought I'd see a tower where the largest unit is 816 sq. ft including the penthouses. Interesting approach. Does anyone know how these sizes compare with Marine Gateway's units?

Locked In · #5 Posted **Sep 18, 2011, 5:52 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by hollywoodnorth

are those 'faux' water towers (nyc style) on the top of the rental components (north ends)? sure looks that way on the Cross Section/Building Elevations ...... anyone else see that?

The landscaping PDF jlousa linked to above has a photo of some NY water towers (with the ESB in the background for good measure), and lists "rain barrels" as being part of the Urban Agriculture component. Will be interesting to see how that turns out...

Here's the project's website: http://cambieandmarineproject.ca/intracorp/

s211 · #6 Posted **Sep 18, 2011, 2:31 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BodomReaper

0_0 I never thought I'd see a tower where the largest unit is 816 sq. ft including the penthouses.

Maybe in a rental project... nonetheless, insta-ghetto.

jsbertram · #7 Posted **Sep 18, 2011, 6:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BodomReaper

0_0 I never thought I'd see a tower where the largest unit is 816 sq. ft including the penthouses. Interesting approach. Does anyone know how these sizes compare with Marine Gateway's units?

I was amused to see the top floors are called "Executive Level" in the PDFs, not "Penthouse Level".

Perhaps a unit that is less than 1000 sq.ft. doesn't deserve to be called a Penthouse.

I noticed that the "Executive Level" drawings don't actually show the unit layout, so I wonder how many of these units will be bought as pairs to be joined together.

Millennium2002 · #8 Posted **Oct 9, 2011, 11:32 PM**

One would hope that the adjustments that occurred at Opsal will apply to many other developments across Vancouver like Marine Gateway and this development.

whatnext · #9 Posted **Oct 10, 2011, 5:06 PM**

An already bad intersection is going to be overloaded by these developments. In addition, the Canada Line construction made a complete mess of Cambie south of SW Marine. The sidewalks there are totally inadequate in width for the amount of people coming off the train and many just wander off into the road, which will be deadly once the area's developed.

jsbertram · #10 Posted **Oct 10, 2011, 5:45 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by whatnext

An already bad intersection is going to be overloaded by these developments. In addition, the Canada Line construction made a complete mess of Cambie south of SW Marine. The sidewalks there are totally inadequate in width for the amount of people coming off the train and many just wander off into the road, which will be deadly once the area's developed.

I've noticed that too. I suspect the City expects the redevelopment next door will become the main connection between the Cambie/Marine Dr intersection and the entrances to the C-Line station. From the renderings I've seen the new plaza will connect directly to the mezzanine of the C-Line station.

jlousa · #11 Posted **Mar 1, 2012, 5:28 AM**

We shouldn't be surprised to see this one be reworked now that Marine Gateway has been approved. Looks like height has stayed the same but it's bulked up a bit as the FSR has increased by quite a bit.

Quote:

James KM Cheng Architects has submitted a further revised application to the City of Vancouver to rezone 8018-8150 Cambie Street from C-1 (Commercial) and RT-1 (Two-Family Dwelling) Districts to CD-1 (Comprehensive Development) District. The proposal is for a mixed-use development comprised of:

- a 31-storey tower (285 ft.) and a 24-storey tower (235 ft.), set above a 7- and a 5-storey, ground-oriented podium buildings containing live-work units, artist's studios;
- ground-level commercial uses located at the corner of Cambie Street and Marine Drive, with a second commercial space at 64th Avenue;
- a proposed total floor space ratio (FSR) of 5.80 - 5.21 (south) and 6.23 (north); and
- a total of 551 units, including 441 strata units, 96 market rental units, 14 market rental "choice of use"/live-work units, and 9,494 sq. ft. (882 m²) of retail/commercial space.

Project Stats
http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/plannin...ojectstats.pdf

Context Plan
http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/plannin...ts/context.pdf

Parking Plan
http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/plannin...ts/parking.pdf

Floor Plans G-3
http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/plannin...floorplans.pdf

Floor Plans 4-R
http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/plannin...plans2_000.pdf

Building Section Drawings
http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/plannin...ctions_000.pdf

Building Elevation Drawings
http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/plannin...ents/elevs.pdf

dleung · #12 Posted **Mar 1, 2012, 7:57 AM**

Bigger podium, still virtually non-existant retail. The first 3 words from your quote already made me not want to see the renders.

Millennium2002 · #13 Posted **Mar 1, 2012, 9:06 AM**

Well one thing about the retail... unless it's something big, they're probably thinking that the guideway will prevent people from seeing into the smaller shops, hence why they left it out. I agree though that they'll probably miss out on building something for the community many years down when the path to the north gets busier.

SpongeG · #14 Posted **Mar 1, 2012, 11:01 PM**

well it fits with the area now - most of the north side of marine drive is residential with south side being retail/commercial

wrenegade · #15 Posted **Jun 6, 2012, 11:14 PM**

At urban design panel right now, second reading.

This one was approved uninanimously. Comments from the panel mainly revolved around the ground plain and interaction with the guideway. Most were very supportive, although some mentioned that it could be too linear and repetitive, and that the tower entrances were not pronounced enough. The lane/mews is designed to work with concord's future development next door and as the main visitor drop off and live/work loading area. As for the overall design of the building, the architect mentioned that he specifically designed the building to be unremarkable (as if he could any different! Lol) and that Marine Gateway tower(s) are designed to be the "alpha male" towers so to speak. Unfortunately their design was numbed down so much that there isn't much remarkable that remains. The panel referred to the building and high quality, understated and restrained, but I feel the whole area may turn out to be a whole lot of blah.

Edit: still going here...panel is suggesting that work should be done with sustainability with regards the heat loss and treatment of vertical fins and overhangs. It also suggested that the applicant works on improving the feel of the project with regards to incorporating more of the feel of Marpole, whatever that may be (seems pretty ambiguous to me).

Cypherus · #16 Posted **Jun 7, 2012, 2:49 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wrenegade

At urban design panel right now, second reading.

This one was approved uninanimously. Comments from the panel mainly revolved around the ground plain and interaction with the guideway. Most were very supportive, although some mentioned that it could be too linear and repetitive, and that the tower entrances were not pronounced enough. The lane/mews is designed to work with concord's future development next door and as the main visitor drop off and live/work loading area. As for the overall design of the building, the architect mentioned that he specifically designed the building to be unremarkable (as if he could any different! Lol) and that Marine Gateway tower(s) are designed to be the "alpha male" towers so to speak. Unfortunately their design was numbed down so much that there isn't much remarkable that remains. The panel referred to the building and high quality, understated and restrained, but I feel the whole area may turn out to be a whole lot of blah.

Edit: still going here...panel is suggesting that work should be done with sustainability with regards the heat loss and treatment of vertical fins and overhangs. It also suggested that the applicant works on improving the feel of the project with regards to incorporating more of the feel of Marpole, whatever that may be (seems pretty ambiguous to me).

So apparently the tower had to be designed to be unremarkable? Generally if you want an unremarkable product, you need to lack effort, insight, and vision. That's all it is. I wonder if the internal workmanship and finishings will be designed to look like amateur-hour too?

wrenegade · #17 Posted **Jun 7, 2012, 3:05 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cypherus

So apparently the tower had to be designed to be unremarkable? Generally if you want an unremarkable product, you need to lack effort, insight, and vision. That's all it is. I wonder if the internal workmanship and finishings will be designed to look like amateur-hour too?

His words were understated and restrained, I see it as unremarkable.

squeezied · #18 Posted **Jun 7, 2012, 4:09 AM**

^an excuse to cheap out on design... sigh....

jlousa · #19 Posted **Jun 7, 2012, 5:42 AM**

Darren Tate · #20 Posted **Jun 7, 2012, 6:52 AM**

If this building is being marketed to foreign investors—like Marine Gateway and Granville at 70th—then the small size of the units shouldn't matter since these people won't actually be living in them anyway. Are these buildings not designed to maximize profits above all else? What's the incentive to increase square footage and have less units to sell? Surely someone stands to make a huge amount of money from this project. These aren't homes, they're investment properties—to be scooped up by wealthy foreigners in huge blocks and rented out or left vacant. Isn't that how it works with buildings like these? Isn't that what happened with Marine Gateway and Granville at 70th? Should we not expect the same thing here?