HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #241  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2024, 1:58 AM
jollyburger jollyburger is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 9,588
Quote:
Originally Posted by officedweller View Post
It just occurred to me, that a significant perk that this project could deliver might be a southern entrance to the Vancouver City Centre Canada Line station.
Bonnis said it would cost too much to build.

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/800-...district-tower

I guess the Best Buy redevelopment might be able to tie in more easily and not have a long passageway you would need for the 800 Granville block.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #242  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2024, 3:13 AM
officedweller officedweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 38,359
Quote:
Originally Posted by jollyburger View Post
Bonnis said it would cost too much to build.

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/800-...district-tower

I guess the Best Buy redevelopment might be able to tie in more easily and not have a long passageway you would need for the 800 Granville block.
Thanks.
I wouldn't expect Bonnis to foot the entire bill though.
and property for the entrance could be expropriated if necessary.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #243  
Old Posted Jan 24, 2024, 9:42 AM
madog222 madog222 is online now
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 2,687
604 Now states in a recent Instagram post "Vancouver city staff have approved the next steps for 800 Granville..."

https://www.instagram.com/604now/p/C...S/?img_index=1

If there is any public information they are basing this on I can't find it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #244  
Old Posted Jan 24, 2024, 10:29 AM
C3YVR C3YVR is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Posts: 183
I've been hearing rumours of other players coming to join the party.

Last edited by C3YVR; Jan 24, 2024 at 10:53 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #245  
Old Posted Jan 24, 2024, 8:00 PM
Spr0ckets Spr0ckets is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 1,430
I still find it wild that they'd still be planning on building this much office space in this current market for office space leasing and rental.

I have to imagine some of it will end up getting converted to some other use like hotel. Especially if the office market remains as grim as it is with this post-pandemic climate and remote placement work-culture (work-from-home)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #246  
Old Posted Jan 24, 2024, 8:22 PM
Changing City's Avatar
Changing City Changing City is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 5,911
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spr0ckets View Post
I still find it wild that they'd still be planning on building this much office space in this current market for office space leasing and rental.

I have to imagine some of it will end up getting converted to some other use like hotel. Especially if the office market remains as grim as it is with this post-pandemic climate and remote placement work-culture (work-from-home)
It was always a stretch to imagine that there was a market for a large office building, in this location. And there are four more Downtown office buildings approved that could get developed if/when there's demand.

But Vancouver's office market isn't 'grim'. Zahav recently posted a comprehensive comment about the state of office markets in Canada on the Office Market thread. It showed the Vancouver market had 291,843 sf of positive absorbtion (that's net rented office space) over 2023, and an 11% vacancy rate. "For context, a “healthy” office vacancy rate would fall between 10 and 12 per cent."
__________________
Contemporary Vancouver development blog, https://changingcitybook.wordpress.com/ Then and now Vancouver blog https://changingvancouver.wordpress.com/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #247  
Old Posted Jan 24, 2024, 11:27 PM
Migrant_Coconut's Avatar
Migrant_Coconut Migrant_Coconut is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Kitsilano/Fairview
Posts: 8,396
Don't think a hotel is compatible with a block-long design; tourists want windows. They'd have to chop it up like the Park and Inn redevelopment.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #248  
Old Posted Jan 25, 2024, 11:47 AM
officedweller officedweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 38,359
Quote:
Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut View Post
Don't think a hotel is compatible with a block-long design; tourists want windows. They'd have to chop it up like the Park and Inn redevelopment.
That would be a good revision!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #249  
Old Posted Jan 25, 2024, 4:27 PM
csbvan's Avatar
csbvan csbvan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 2,977
Quote:
Originally Posted by officedweller View Post
That would be a good revision!
Hotel and new massing? Win-win!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #250  
Old Posted Jan 25, 2024, 4:41 PM
vanman's Avatar
vanman vanman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Vancouver BC
Posts: 6,347
Something like the original Burrard Entertainment Centre proposal combined with a hotel would work well here.


https://images.app.goo.gl/ginJLJeggv2efdq16
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #251  
Old Posted Jan 27, 2024, 4:03 AM
VancouverOfTheFuture's Avatar
VancouverOfTheFuture VancouverOfTheFuture is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 3,281
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanman View Post
Something like the original Burrard Entertainment Centre proposal combined with a hotel would work well here.


https://images.app.goo.gl/ginJLJeggv2efdq16
i never knew that proposal existed. and damn it sucks we lost out on it.

thanks for posting it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #252  
Old Posted Jan 28, 2024, 1:18 AM
vanman's Avatar
vanman vanman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Vancouver BC
Posts: 6,347
No problem.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #253  
Old Posted Jan 28, 2024, 6:58 PM
dreambrother808 dreambrother808 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 4,001
Quote:
Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture View Post
i never knew that proposal existed. and damn it sucks we lost out on it.

thanks for posting it.
Has a cool Centre Pompidou vibe.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #254  
Old Posted Jan 28, 2024, 7:34 PM
s211 s211 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: The People's Glorious Republic of ... Sigh...
Posts: 8,102
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanman View Post
Something like the original Burrard Entertainment Centre proposal combined with a hotel would work well here.


https://images.app.goo.gl/ginJLJeggv2efdq16
Wow, I'd forgotten about that. I remember looking at the plans and proforma, and it was up the risk curve.

IIRC, Bruce Allan (sic?) the promotor was somehow involved, because there was an entertainment/concert venue as a component of the overall project.
__________________
If it seems I'm ignoring what you may have written in response to something I have written, it's very likely that you're on my Ignore List. Please do not take it personally.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #255  
Old Posted Jan 28, 2024, 8:08 PM
jollyburger jollyburger is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 9,588
Quote:
POLICY REPORT
DEVELOPMENT AND BUILDING

Date: July 6, 1999

Author/Local: MKemble/7702

RTS No. 00852
CC File No. 2604

P&E: July 22, 1999

TO:

Standing Committee on Planning and Environment

FROM:

The Chair, on behalf of the Development Permit Board

SUBJECT:

900 Burrard Street: Commercial Cinema Entertainment Proposal
DE404053 - CD-1 By-law Number 6421


CONSIDERATION

A1. THAT Council advise the Development Permit Board that it supports the Board's inclination to approve DE404053 for 900 Burrard Street, subject to conditions as the Board may decide in granting approval, acknowledging the off-street parking reduction and the departure from various guidelines previously approved for this CD-1 site.

OR

A2. THAT Council advise the Development Permit Board it does not favour approval of DE404053 for 900 Burrard Street due to:

· the number and significance of the departures from the guidelines approved for this CD-1 site; and

· the significant reduction in off-street parking relative to the requirement specified in the CD-1 By-law.

FURTHER THAT the Director of Planning and the City Engineer report back on the advisability of an amendment to the CD-1 By-law for the site at 900 Burrard Street to revise the off-street parking requirements.

Should Council approve A1, the following is also submitted for CONSIDERATION:

B. THAT the form of development for the CD-1 site known as 900 Burrard Street be approved generally as illustrated in Development Application number DE404053, prepared by Busby and Associates Architects and stamped "Received, City Planning Department May 18, 1999", provided that the Development Permit Board may establish conditions of approval and design changes which would not adversely affect either the development character of this site or adjacent properties.

CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS

The City Manager submits the foregoing for CONSIDERATION.

COUNCIL POLICY

· Downtown South Goals and Policies (adopted May 16, 1991, amended July 11, 1996): Specifically under Section 3.3 Granville Street Sub-Area "Encourage theatres and cinema as part of `Theatre Row';" and

· CD-1 By-law Number 6421 and Companion Guidelines (900 Burrard Street CD-1 Guidelines) adopted November 30, 1993.

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

This report reviews the recent Development Permit Board discussion (see Appendix A)* of a major commercial entertainment development proposal at 900 Burrard Street (DE404053), including 16 cinemas and an IMAX theatre. The Board, while inclined to approve the proposal, has referred this complete development application to Council to seek any advice it may choose to offer on the proposal, including:

· compliance with approved CD-1 Guidelines; and
· relaxation of parking requirements.

If Council is supportive of the proposal in its advice to the Board, Council is also asked to consider whether it is prepared to approve the form of development at this time.

*Note: Full DP Board report, including applicant's submission, is on file with the City Clerk.

SITE DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND

This 0.55 ha. (1.35 ac) site consists of an L-shaped lot on the south side of the 900 block Smithe Street, between Burrard and Hornby Streets. To the south of the site is `The Electra' (former BC Hydro building), a 23-storey residential tower, Heritage `A'.

The site and surrounding zoning are shown on the attached Appendix B.

This site was rezoned from DD Downtown District to CD-1 Comprehensive Development District in November, 1988.

In November, 1993, Council enacted a text amendment to the CD-1 By-law, permitting development of residential, commercial or mixed-use development. This amendment was accompanied by Companion Guidelines adopted by Council resolution.

In February, 1995, Council enacted a further text amendment to reduce the maximum permitted density on this site from 8.5 to 8.148 Floor Space Ratio (FSR).

PRELIMINARY COUNCIL REVIEW

On May 6, 1999, the proposal was presented for information to Council's Standing Committee on Planning and Environment. Minutes of the meeting are as follows:

"Ralph Segal and Mike Kemble, Planners, reviewed the application and answered questions, with reference to factors such as building height, density and density bonusing, parking and traffic circulation, views, noise, design, liquor licensing potential and possible impacts on nearby area residents and the Granville Street Entertainment District. Mr. Segal advised the proposed development is within the site's CD-1 zoning, so will be considered by the Development Permit Board, but will come to Council for approval of the form of development."

Following discussion, the following motion was approved by the Committee:

"THAT the Planning Department presentation on the development application for 900 Burrard Street be received for information."

DISCUSSION

The proposal involves the construction of a 13-storey 68.58 m (225 ft.) mixed-use commercial entertainment complex with 6.6 FSR comprising:

· 7 785 m² (83,800 sq. ft.) of retail use;
· 2 689 m² (28,945 sq. ft.) of restaurant use;
· 385 m² (4,144 sq. ft.) of office use;
· 25 619 m² (275,770 sq. ft.) of cultural/recreational uses, including 16 cinemas and one IMAX theatre, having a total 3,715 seats, 40 bowling lanes, and other amenities; and
· 873 underground parking spaces.

Simplified plans, including a site plan, floor plans, elevations, and a building section of the proposal, have been included in Appendix C.

Compliance with approved CD-1 Guidelines, and Proposed Form of Development: The Guidelines for this site were adopted by Council in November 1993. At that time, the Guidelines assumed a more typical mix of commercial/residential uses on the site, and the original illustrative form of development as shown in Appendix F (upon which the Guidelines were based) envisaged a more conventional massing arrangement for this site that featured:

· a higher (24-storey) tower located at the Hornby/Smithe corner;
· a lower (10-storey) tower at the Burrard/Smithe corner; and
· medium-height terraced buildings along Hornby Street, stepping down from

17-storeys to 10-storeys at the south end adjacent to `The Electra.'

Staff note that this illustrative scheme was not part of the Guidelines and was never approved by Council. It was intended to show generally what form of development the Guidelines and zoning might encourage.

The massing presented in DE 404053 differs from the original illustrative form in the following ways:

· the main portion of the building is located on the easterly side of the site, and configured as an integrated slab tower extending along both Hornby and Smithe Streets;

· the height of the building along Hornby Street steps down from 13-storeys 68.58 m (225 ft.) at the Smithe corner to 10-storeys 48.77 m (160 ft.) at the southerly end adjacent to `the Electra,' with a gently curving roof form integrated with this massing;

· the southerly end of the building adjacent to `The Electra' is higher and bulkier partly due to the overheight theatre spaces; and

· additional massing has been added to the interior of the site, adjacent to the easterly side of the Dal Grauer Substation, presenting a bulkier mass when viewed from the south and west.

While the proposal complies with most of the Guidelines, it significantly deviates in the following principal areas:

· Hornby Street Streetwall Setback: The Guidelines seek a 3 m (10 ft.) setback of the building facade above the lower streetwall element ranging in height from 22 m (72 ft.) up to 28 m (92 ft.) height (sixth storey level). The proposal departs from this guideline by a setback provided at the 46 m (150 ft.) height (tenth storey level). This is shown on a building cross-section attached as page 14 of Appendix C.

· South End Height: The Guidelines suggest a stepping down in height to about 35 m (115 ft.) at the south end, adjacent to `The Electra'. The proposal requests a height of approximately 48 m (160 ft.) at the south end.

· Tower Floorplate Size (commercial): The guidelines limit the maximum commercial tower floorplate to about 1 100 m² (12,000 sq. ft.). The proposal presents a four-fold increase, seeking a floorplate of approximately 4 500 m² (48,000 sq. ft.).

Staff note that the general form of development proposed, and its departures from the Guidelines, have been strongly supported by the Urban Design Panel (UDP)) and members of the Development Permit Board Advisory Panel. Staff believe the draft "prior-to" conditions of approval for the project (see Appendix D) are sufficient to address concerns related to use, massing, and other impacts on neighbouring properties, including:

· minimizing the presence of the internal driveway system;

· maximizing the extent and viability of street-oriented retail;

· improving the project's south interface with `The Electra' and its west exposure on Burrard Street; and

· reducing potential noise impacts on residential neighbours by reconfiguring and acoustically buffering upper level recreational uses.

Parking Relaxation: The Parking By-law requirement for the commercial uses proposed in this application, and including 150 required for the use of `The Electra' residents, totals 2,456 spaces. The applicant proposes a lower amount of 873 spaces (36 percent of the By-law requirement). Staff, however, feel even the reduced amount the applicant is proposing is too much for the actual needs of the mixed uses on the site, and would promote automobile use, contrary to the City's Transportation Plan. Accordingly, staff are recommending a reduced total of 610 spaces (25 percent of the By-law requirement), which is consistent with parking standards adopted for adjacent areas of the Downtown District. Relaxation of parking requirements can be approved by the Director of Planning under the hardship provisions of Section 3.2.1 of the Parking By-law. The Development Permit Board was not prepared to approve a 75% relaxation of the parking required by the CD-1 By-law without first receiving Council support.

The value of this recommended parking reduction of 263 stalls from the developer's proposal, based on a cost of approximately $13,500 per stall, is about $3.5 million. (The value of the recommended parking reduction of 1,846 stalls from the full By-law requirement is about $25 million.)

Urban Design Panel: The Urban Design Panel reviewed this complete development application on May 5, 1999, and unanimously supported the proposal.

The UDP found the proposed design to be of exceptional architectural quality, and was concerned mainly that it be executed to the high quality level as shown on the model and drawings. The UDP minutes are attached as Appendix E.

Public Input: Two signs were erected on the site on May 11, 1999. In addition, 1,181 letters were sent to neighbouring property owners. In response, four letters had been received, two supporting and two objecting to the proposal. Further, at the Board meeting on June 14th, two delegations spoke generally in favour of the proposal: one representing `the Electra' strata council; and the other representing Granville Street entertainment use owners.

Development Permit Board Advisory Panel: The comments of the four Advisory Panel members present are contained in the Board Minutes (Appendix D). In general, Advisory Panel members were very supportive of the proposal and not concerned with its departure from the Guidelines or the substantial reduction in off-street parking spaces.

CONCLUSION

The Development Permit Board is inclined to approve Development Application Number DE404053 for a major commercial entertainment complex at 900 Burrard Street, subject to various conditions to be met prior to the issuance of the development permit. One of these conditions is that the form of development be approved by Council. The Board appreciated the exceptional quality of the proposed development and felt it will help to further reinforce the attractiveness of the downtown as a major entertainment and commercial centre for the region.

However, this proposed development reflects a significant departure from what was contemplated in terms of the Guidelines and the By-law requirement for off-street parking. Therefore, prior to reaching a decision, the Board is seeking any advice that Council may offer. Two alternatives are presented for consideration.

If Council's advice to the Development Permit Board is supportive of the development proposed, a further item is presented for Council's consideration. Since the site is zoned CD-1, the approval of Council is required for the form of development. Further design changes will be required by the Development Permit Board if it grants approval but these will not fundamentally alter the development concept. Consequently, approval of the form of development is also presented for Council's consideration.
https://council.vancouver.ca/990722/pe3.htm

Quote:
B. Address: 900 Burrard Street Present Zone: CD-1

Applicant: Busby & Associates, Architects

Staff: R. Segal, M. Kemble

Date of Application: December 23, 1997

Proposal:Mixed-use development, including:

• a 23-storey, 360-room hotel;

•99 units of residential;

• 130,000 sq. ft. of office space; and

•approximately 28,000 sq. ft. of other commercial space.

Issues:•relaxation of CD-1 Guidelines with respect to public views of ‘Electra’ heritage building from Burrard Street and massing approach along Hornby and Smithe Streets; and

•overall density (within maximum 8.148 FSR stipulated in CD-1 by-law, but exceeds maximum of 7.5 stipulated in covenant registered on title).
https://council.vancouver.ca/980312/pe1.htm
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #256  
Old Posted Apr 5, 2024, 4:59 PM
Forager Forager is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 16
Looks like this project is no longer going through as the developer considers it unviable:

One of the biggest and most high-profile redevelopment projects in downtown Vancouver has undoubtedly been 800-876 Granville Street, which would have retained the historic Commodore Ballroom and popular Commodore Lanes bowling alley and seen a new commercial building reaching 17 storeys built atop the historical block.

However, the developer of the project, Bonnis Properties, is no longer moving forward with the project.

"Unfortunately, the office market has really changed and the office demand is no longer there," Kerry Bonnis, who owns and operates Bonnis Properties with his brother Dino Bonnis, told STOREYS. "In the meantime, hard costs have gone up substantially, as have interest rates, and it's not possible to build such a property in today's market on spec. One would need to have office tenants in hand to basically move forward with the project and unfortunately the market rates have dropped significantly. Without having office tenants ready to occupy it, right now it doesn't make sense to move forward with the project."

Bonnis also said that although the project in its current form isn't moving forward, they will continue to explore new forms of the project.


More here: https://s.paragonrels.com/goto/Z_N8h...om/goto/Z_N8hY

Last edited by Forager; Apr 5, 2024 at 5:36 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #257  
Old Posted Apr 5, 2024, 5:23 PM
Changing City's Avatar
Changing City Changing City is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 5,911
The project was never going to built speculatively. It was far too big to have all that office space sitting empty for an unknown length of time, especially with a local developer rather than a pension fund building it.

Bonnis seem to have an odd idea of timing for their development projects. They've developed one of their four Downtown schemes, the not tremedously inspiring 950 Granville building with offices over retail. (At least most of the retail seems to be pre-leased, and two floors of the offices, which will be great if it's true).

They've ditched the strata office at 600 Robson, having failed to sell enough (twice), but they demolished the strip of small restaurants and stores, they've dropped the big office on a tiny heritage building at 526 Granville, and now they're dropping this one. And they're selling off the Winners / Best Buy building.

They also own a fair amount of the Broadway Corridor, and I don't think they've submitted any projects there yet? And ten years after they started trying to develop 728 Main (at Union) they're still trying to sell the site with a development approval, rather than developing it.
__________________
Contemporary Vancouver development blog, https://changingcitybook.wordpress.com/ Then and now Vancouver blog https://changingvancouver.wordpress.com/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #258  
Old Posted Apr 5, 2024, 8:16 PM
officedweller officedweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 38,359
Are they aging with no interested successors in the family business?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #259  
Old Posted Apr 5, 2024, 8:20 PM
EastVanMark EastVanMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,604
Quote:
Originally Posted by s211 View Post
Wow, I'd forgotten about that. I remember looking at the plans and proforma, and it was up the risk curve.

IIRC, Bruce Allan (sic?) the promotor was somehow involved, because there was an entertainment/concert venue as a component of the overall project.
And a skating rink and bowling alley. Would have been a great addition to the down town core. Instead we got more condos
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #260  
Old Posted Apr 6, 2024, 12:39 AM
urbanight93 urbanight93 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 112
This project seemed doomed from the start. Between the heritage retention, office space and the new granville plan still in development, the proposal was trying the thread a needle while never fully being able to make any party completely satisfied.

I for one really supported its contributions to the cultural landscape but given market conditions and costs, no wonder Bonnis is not taking the plunge at this time. As another user mentioned, they really do have bizarre timing and seem to be a couple of steps behind the real estate wave.

I always felt this project should have been proposed as a hotel from the get go. The amenities would have been a major draw.
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



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:37 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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