The Ultimate Vancouver Rumour Thread!

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by Feathered Friend

As 1444 Alberni is now public, I thought I would keep our little rumor mill active by saying that this should herald the start of an interesting 2 month period for the West End.

Thanks for the info. Would any these projects be one of the following you referred to earlier (minus 400 West Georgia)? Or are they entirely in addition to them?

Originally Posted by Feathered Friend

Just to keep everyone's wheels turning, I can throw out that there are currently three major projects incoming on prominent roads in the Downtown peninsula. I should be able to say more before the end of the year. Enjoy!

[Feathered Friend]

Originally Posted by jlousa

You figure the interesting developments will come before the summer break? I'm more leaning to after.

I suppose, whether they're out within the next couple months or the next several, it's safe to say there's going be a rush to get everything out before things lock down with the start of the civic election cycle.

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Thanks for the info. Would any these projects be one of the following you referred to earlier (minus 400 West Georgia)? Or are they entirely in addition to them?

I was tempted to be vague but, with #2 of my original list, 1684 Alberni, now public, I'll just answer with a straight forward yes. That said, there's a few others in that particular neighbourhood that I've become aware of since my previous post; 1444 was one of them, but happily that cat's out of the bag now.

[s211]

Originally Posted by Feathered Friend

I suppose, whether they're out within the next couple months or the next several, it's safe to say there's going be a rush to get everything out before things lock down with the start of the civic election cycle.

The more immediate rush is to get things in front of council before they disappear for 1-2 months for summer break.

[Klazu]

What is the soonest that the new West End towers can start building? Which one is the most likely to move forward first?

[Feathered Friend]

Originally Posted by Klazu

What is the soonest that the new West End towers can start building? Which one is the most likely to move forward first?

I honestly don't have that information. For me, there would be too many variables to even guess at.

If I had to pick one of the known developments, I would venture 1500 Robson. It's a rental tower, passed UDP, goes to the development board on July 10th, and doesn't require much in the way of demolition.

[EdinVan]

Originally Posted by jlousa

I share your opinion Leftcoaster, it's no wonder most of our collegues refuse to post here. To be preached at by the uneducated on matters being discussed certainly doesn't offer must incentive.

I'm very dismayed by this type of attitude. There's a big problem in Vancouver with citizen engagement. Forums like this are a great opportunity for people of all backgrounds to discuss civic issues that matter to them. Telling people that they should contribute to the discussion only if you deem them to be sufficiently "educated" is pretentious and exclusionary. We don't need more of that in this city. If you only want to have discussions with people at your level, surely you can create a private, invitation-only forum for that.

[jlousa]

How do you think it would feel as a professional in your industry to be told by someone that does not have an understanding on why decisions are made the way they are that they are wrong? Put yourself in their shoes, you spend your life designing a building, then cost engineering things, squeezing the most sellable sqftage you can because that is your job and then you think they'd come on here to have their work berated.
This is their livelihood.
And I don't think you've seen me post that I don't think citizens shouldn't be engaged or have discouraged discussion, I constantly push people on this forum to attend open houses and to go speak at council meetings.

Back onto the Rumour mill, I'm hearing that a couple of the office projects that were lined up and ready to proceed have been put on pause to evaluate the situation pending what happens with the provincial election outcome. That's not to say they won't go ahead but they are just stepping back and will re-evaluate if and when they proceed.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by jlousa

To be preached at by the uneducated on matters being discussed...

The matter being discussed was architecture and the visual appeal of the Cannacord building. I guarantee you, you are no more an authority on that than the rest of us.

The reason a few of us were being critical was due to the prospect of the Canaccord Building being clad in green tinted glass, just like a hundred other towers in DT Vancouver. Imo that's a legitimate concern. And it seems like something like (glazing tint or colour) that could be changed at relatively little cost, relative to the overall budget of a major project. The disappointing Telus building for example. Am I wrong?

My impression is that developers or property managers have it within their means to do much better.

[LeftCoaster]

I don't want to get all into this again but the problem I have is how negative eveyrone on this forum seems to be. When the info was posted there were no questions just a bunch of people assuming the worst.

Case in point:

"I suppose by clear glass they mean green tinted condo glass"

Why do you assume that? Did you ascertain that from the thumbnail sized image?

Now you're telling us "something like (glazing tint or colour) that could be changed at relatively little cost, relative to the overall budget of a major project."

Well that's just false entirely. Low iron glass is a huge premium, especially to a project whose budget is 99% glazing...

You assume the people working on these projects don't think about these things or don't even know when in fact this is their life. There's a lot more that goes into a development than some pretty pictures, yet the level of discourse on this forum rarely goes beyond that... despite everyone on this forum being design experts

If the comments were more constructive and contained depth rather than the usual knee jerk negativity I think you'd find a lot more enjoyable conversations would be the result.

But I won't hold my breath for that.

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by EdinVan

I'm very dismayed by this type of attitude. There's a big problem in Vancouver with citizen engagement.

I agree with this, but for probably the exact opposite reason as you. Everyone has an opinion in Vancouver, but most of them are ideological or uninformed. The city and developers are met with roadblocks in every corner of the city and all it does is make building and therefore real estate more expensive.

Vancouver could do with less citizen engagement that is more thoughtful than the rabble that currently dominates discourse.

Originally Posted by EdinVan

If you only want to have discussions with people at your level, surely you can create a private, invitation-only forum for that.

Let me know if you find one...

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by jlousa

Back onto the Rumour mill, I'm hearing that a couple of the office projects that were lined up and ready to proceed have been put on pause to evaluate the situation pending what happens with the provincial election outcome. That's not to say they won't go ahead but they are just stepping back and will re-evaluate if and when they proceed.

It's not like the people who were all "Well, I wasn't here for the 90s" weren't warned of this possibility.

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

It's not like the people who were all "Well, I wasn't here for the 90s" weren't warned of this possibility.

I also remember a more affordable, enjoyable city during that time, but thanks for the fearmongering.

It's a different situation now but the Liberals certainly weren't offering any solutions...

[jlousa]

Originally Posted by logan5

The matter being discussed was architecture and the visual appeal of the Cannacord building. I guarantee you, you are no more an authority on that than the rest of us. .

Perhaps you're right, the people that pay my salary might disagree though.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

"I suppose by clear glass they mean green tinted condo glass"

Why do you assume that? Did you ascertain that from the thumbnail sized image?
[/B]

Can you blame somebody for making such an assumption. Just look at all the green towers we have DT.

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

Now you're telling us "something like (glazing tint or colour) that could be changed at relatively little cost, relative to the overall budget of a major project."

Well that's just false entirely. Low iron glass is a huge premium, especially to a project whose budget is 99% glazing...

You assume the people working on these projects don't think about these things or don't even know when in fact this is their life. There's a lot more that goes into a development than some pretty pictures, yet the level of discourse on this forum rarely goes beyond that... despite everyone on this forum being design experts

If the comments were more constructive and contained depth rather than the usual knee jerk negativity I think you'd find a lot more enjoyable conversations would be the result.

But I won't hold my breath for that.

It would be nice to see some numbers if you don't mind. What's the difference in cost between green glass and low iron glass or copper glass?

Conversely, if the architecture in Vancouver had more variety, you would encounter far less cynicism. How are we suppose to be inspired to have an in depth discussion about developments in Vancouver when they all end up looking the same?

[Feathered Friend]

I want to say, I would hate to lose almost any of the experts here on this forum. I'm not in the industry, but if it wasn't for the people here, those who have take the time to share what they know (whether that's rumors, new projects, or just the intellectual knowledge that comes by training for and working in their respective fields), I doubt I would have become as engaged with supporting both this city and it's developments as I now am. I know there are members of this forum that make it difficult for those in the profession; Heck, open houses and public events make the general population seem outright incompetent at times.

Still, for what it's worth, I hope there's a knowledge that by participating in this forum and putting up with it's trolls, you contribute to a better educated populace, which in turn makes a better Vancouver. At least you've made one person go from just complaining about Seafoam glass to having a more educated and enlightened opinion on the city, and become more engaged in hopefully making it better. That said, if the arm chair experts who find a reason to hate every and any project/policy want to leave, by all means, I'm sure it's easy to find a door.

[osirisboy]

I think most people want to try and be constructive but when a proposal comes out it's common to make subjective initial comments, either positive or negative, irrespective of being constructive. It's normal

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by EdinVan

In its infinite wisdom, I believe the city's intention is to block the view of BC Place as much as possible.

Agreed. They can spin all they want in their literature but if you look at the design style of all the buildings surrounding the stadium, you'll see a theme developing

[Feathered Friend]

I'm putting this in the rumor thread simply because, while I have it on extremely good authority that this is going ahead, I can only present words and not evidence.

There should be action on a property nraar Barclay and Thurlow in the very near future. While the site is not limited by view cones, and the West End policy allows for 550 feet, this project probably won't see it's full height potential because of policies about shadowing the park / school grounds. It goes without saying that there should be a star architect attached to this project as well.

Oh! I should add, there's still even more excitement to come in the West End. 😉

[Metro-One]

Thanks for the info, very appreciated.

I wonder, is Vancouver going to add a "too close to the sun" policy to further limit building heights?

[logan5]

If it's at Barclay and Thurlow there shouldn't be very much shadowing on the school grounds.