The Ultimate Vancouver Rumour Thread! - Page 31

LeftCoaster · #**601** Posted **May 20, 2010, 11:25 PM**

Hmm as far as I know the pattison site is slated to be 400-450 max, and that is contingent on them buying out their neighbour, who as of last summer was not selling. If that property is not obtained the project will be significantly smaller than that.

The Bay parkade would be my guess, unless it's a random site somewhere slightly E of the CBD that someone compiled quietly.

I guess it could also be somewhere on the Burrard inlet waterfront east of canada place. What are the viewcone restrictions like over there? Does someone have that trust old map handy? It really should be sticked somewhere on this site it gets refered to so often.

Graham_Yvr · #**602** Posted **May 21, 2010, 12:13 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

Hmm as far as I know the pattison site is slated to be 400-450 max, and that is contingent on them buying out their neighbour, who as of last summer was not selling. If that property is not obtained the project will be significantly smaller than that.

My understanding is that only the Aquariums West building is left to buy for the Pattison project to get all the land needed. I heard a couple of weeks ago from a very reliable source that Aquariums West have agreed to move to a location next to the Terry Fox plaza in the next couple of months. The new location is owned by the same people so they made Aquariums West a sweet deal to move.

So....one could surmise that the Pattison project may move forward soonish.

I know that the building next to Aquariums West is under a 'demolition notice'. Tenants currently leasing space there have a demolition clause in their leases and they are only paying a fraction of market value.

I'm particularly interested in this project as I own a business more or less across the street from it.

LeftCoaster · #**603** Posted **May 21, 2010, 12:46 AM**

Interesting, thanks for the update. My info is a little out of date... hard to stay in the loop from across the country, but if this is true thats great news. I can only hope the design they go with is similar to the original plans.

Locked In · #**604** Posted **May 21, 2010, 6:06 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

I guess it could also be somewhere on the Burrard inlet waterfront east of canada place. What are the viewcone restrictions like over there? Does someone have that trust old map handy? It really should be sticked somewhere on this site it gets refered to so often.

This the one you mean LC? Doesn't show east of Canada Place unfortunately. The Waterfront Hub plan might include that info...

Source: My photo site

Good news about the Pattison site - would be great to see a significant development in the part of downtown.

As for the Bay parkade site, the City recently shot down the possibility of a tall building on that site following the view cone review. A question for those forumers who have been following this stuff for a while... does that basically mean someone needs to bring the City a fantastic proposal with lots of amenity-goodies, and the City will reconsider a tall building?

Locked In · #**605** Posted **May 21, 2010, 6:13 AM**

Ok, here's some view cone info for the area east of Canada Place from the Waterfront Hub plan:

Quote:

View Protection Guidelines (1989, amended 1990)
Building heights within the Framework area are limited by five Council-adopted View Cones which preserve views of the North Shore mountains from areas south of the downtown peninsula (see Figure 27). The most restrictive of these View Cones (from Queen Elizabeth Park) limits building heights over the whole Framework area to 124m above base elevation 3.5m (rail track level).

Source: City of Vancouver

Delirium · #**606** Posted **May 21, 2010, 12:21 PM**

here are some initial renderings of the Squamish band's proposed development at the south end of burrard bridge.

http://www.vancouversun.com/opinion/...882/story.html

LeftCoaster · #**607** Posted **May 21, 2010, 1:22 PM**

^ yep those are them. As you can see most of the projects square footage is accessed by pennyfarthing lane and the residential is in the other side of the bridge just adjacent to the existing green tower. As you can see like I said it is a lot of curtain wall but nothing whacky so hed might be disappointed.

I have some more renderings of the towers from ground level showing the buildings and their materials in detail but they are at my house in vancouver. I'll try and get a hold of them tho and post em on here if someone doesn't beat me to it.

Oh and thanks LI for finding those viewcone maps. It really makes you wonder which site this thing is planned for.

officedweller · #**608** Posted **May 21, 2010, 5:52 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

The Bay parkade would be my guess, unless it's a random site somewhere slightly E of the CBD that someone compiled quietly.

Hopefully that would be it - but I think the Bay Parkade site was among the taller buildings sites that was denied rezoning last year when the higher buildings policy was examined. Otherwise it sits under a 350ft-ish view cone. That wouldn't prevent a site-specific rezoning though.

cornholio · #**609** Posted **May 21, 2010, 6:22 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by officedweller

Hopefully that would be it - but I think the Bay Parkade site was among the taller buildings sites that was denied rezoning last year when the higher buildings policy was examined. Otherwise it sits under a 350ft-ish view cone. That wouldn't prevent a site-specific rezoning though.

From what I remember the vision of the higher building policy had a 230m building height at that locations, after which there were several taller building sites between the bay parkade and BC place running east. I was under the assumption that this was a recommendation by the study to the council or what ever.

Not sure what the response was but councilors change over time while the people who where behind this study last a bit longer, I would think a developer would look at these recomedations and see the opportunity they open up regardless of the current city government.

officedweller · #**610** Posted **May 21, 2010, 8:46 PM**

Council rejected the report that suggested several signature sites for taller buildings downtown - so it may have to wait until the next council.

Prometheus · #**611** Posted **May 21, 2010, 8:57 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by officedweller

Council rejected the report that suggested several signature sites for taller buildings downtown...

Damn Bastards.

Yume-sama · #**612** Posted **May 21, 2010, 9:12 PM**

I guess they weren't convinced with their own "studies" that were trying to push higher buildings because they are "green".

Just a bunch of Earth hating pigeon killers I guess...

vanman · #**613** Posted **May 22, 2010, 3:27 AM**

Another forumer in city discussions brought up the point that it looks as though one of the low rises is partially cantilevered over the Burrard bridge!

hollywoodnorth · #**614** Posted **May 22, 2010, 8:13 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by vanman

Another forumer in city discussions brought up the point that it looks as though one of the low rises is partially cantilevered over the Burrard bridge!

yup its looks that way....COOLIO

flight_from_kamakura · #**615** Posted **May 22, 2010, 6:14 PM**

wow! looks like they'll save all or most of that forest thing! in this phase, at least. and the look of pennyfarthing gives me hope that a streetcar remains possible down in there. is that surface parking lot south of the forest not part of squamish land? wow. thanks for the renders. nice looking project!

trofirhen · #**616** Posted **May 22, 2010, 6:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Damn Bastards.

Couldn't agree more with your expletive. What's the matter with council, anyway? The city is growing and changing, and there are several "signature sites" where a 'supertall' (650 ft+) would go well. They can't seem to get their thinking out of being stuck in yesteryear, and there's no excuse for it.

EastVanMark · #**617** Posted **May 25, 2010, 8:58 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Couldn't agree more with your expletive. What's the matter with council, anyway? The city is growing and changing, and there are several "signature sites" where a 'supertall' (650 ft+) would go well. They can't seem to get their thinking out of being stuck in yesteryear, and there's no excuse for it.

Words like "growth" "supertall" and especially "change" are scary words for the morons at Vancouver City Hall. They prefer for things to be stuck in 1947and do everything they can to impede any progressive or practical actions that doesn't involve a bicycle.

Distill3d · #**618** Posted **May 25, 2010, 10:02 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by officedweller

Council rejected the report that suggested several signature sites for taller buildings downtown - so it may have to wait until the next council.

Seems that these developers need to come up with the promise to make them green buildings, with chicken coops and roof top gardens, and a parking lot devoted to bicycles in order to get them approved.

SFUVancouver · #**619** Posted **May 25, 2010, 10:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

Words like "growth" "supertall" and especially "change" are scary words for the morons at Vancouver City Hall. They prefer for things to be stuck in 1947and do everything they can to impede any progressive or practical actions that doesn't involve a bicycle.

^ I honestly do not know how you can say that Vancouver is stuck in 1947.

1947?!

trofirhen · #**620** Posted **May 25, 2010, 11:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

^ I honestly do not know how you can say that Vancouver is stuck in 1947.

1947?!

Pardon my sticking my neck out, but I think he was speaking figuratively, meaning that city council can't adapt to the times. 1947 would not be accurate.

But 1974 most certainly would!!!