B6 (1090 W Pender) | 123m | 31Fl | U/C

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by Cypherus

I think it's frustrating that the view cone for this lot lies within the CBD which should have no restrictions to economic pressure. A signature tower can be built with minor reservations from the public / city.


Source: Vancitybuzz

Great model pic! It even has Trump Tower.

[Klazu]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Great model pic! It even has Trump Tower.

Indeed. MNP Tower looks somehow small in this model, even though it should be on par with Shawn Tower and Fairmont Pacific Rim.

I walked by the site today and this building will be a great addition there. I am sure it will look massive and tall from the street level, even if it doesn't catch one's eye as part of the skyline.

[spm2013]

What do they use nowadays to build those models?

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by NewWester

I kind of wonder to what extent the viewcones (and retention of alleyways) has caused the density, variety, and number of towers downtown. Like, we dont have a couple giant signature towers with huge floorplates swallowing up all of the available office space or condo demand, because of height limits. So instead, we have many smaller but still very nice towers that spread that office stock around the city more.

The viewcones were adopted in 1989.

Office towers built in the 21 years after adoption of viewcones (1990 to 2011):

Bentall Five (577,976)
Waterfront Centre (365,168)
Terasen Centre (341,470)
Cathedral Place (307,399)
Vancouver Library Square (300,000)
BC Hydro Centre (290,571)
The Shaw Tower (279,000)
Pacific Centre Tower IV (264,177)
PriceWaterhouseCoopers Place (239,440)
Amec Building 222,135)
401 Burrard Street (214,000)
Viva Tower (171,888)
1508 West Broadway (146,486)


Office towers built in the 21 years prior to adoption of viewcones (1968 to 1989):

Park Place (576,840)
Four Bentall Centre (543,454)
Bank of Montreal Tower (476,649)
Toronto Dominion Tower (471,100)
Royal Centre (433,300)
Granville Square (386,601)
Scotia Tower (385,878)
HSBC Building (383,972)
1075 West Georgia (360,000)
Oceanic Plaza (331,128)
Canaccord Tower (284,970)
1177 West Hastings (265,060)
Guinness Tower (256,128)
Harbour Centre (249,707)
One Bentall Centre (248,700)
Commerce Place (227,482)
401 West Georgia (225,250)
1050 West Pender (220,129)
701 West Georgia (215,479)
Manulife Place (213,000)
Canada Place (210,000)
AXA Centre (206,044)
Georgia Place (199,979)
The Grosvenor Building (195,102)
Scotia Trust Centre (193,200)
Crown Life Place (193,088)
Nelson Square (190,000)
Two Bentall Centre (167,828)
Clarica Building (167,087)
1166 Alberni (165,000)
Grant Thornton Place (154,495)
Sun Life Plaza (151,654)
1185 West Georgia (147,088)
1090 West Georgia (144,181)
Pender Place I (142,530)
Pender Place II (142,356)
777 Hornby (138,585)
Vancouver House (138,308)
Broadway Plaza (132,000)
1125 Howe Street (128,912)
Standard Life Building (125,405)
1111 Melville (105,372)
475 West Georgia (103,361)
1550 Alberni (100,159)

[jlousa]

Hmmm what else occurred in the 90s that might have effect office space construction....

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by jlousa

Hmmm what else occurred in the 90s that might have effect office space construction....

The NDP was also in power before the adoption of the viewcones (from 1972 to 1975). And the Liberals have been in power since 2001. Furthermore, of the towers constructed in the 21 years since the adoption of the viewcones, the majority were built (or had begun construction/planning) prior to the Liberals taking power in 2001.

But regardless, the observation remains the same: Office tower construction has dramatically declined since the adoption of the viewcones, not increased. Therefore, there is no evidence to support the claim that viewcones have lead to greater office tower density. Indeed, the evidence unequivocally contradicts that claim.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by NewWester

Oh, for sure, that's a totally valid criticism. It does kind of look like it's a much taller building squeezed into a too small space. I still like the lines of it, but I see what you mean. I just find it crazy how fast that note always turns into build the biggest thing ever!

Prior to 1989, tall buildings were constructed as they were needed, and hence Vancouver saw some nice and architecturally significant skyscrapers without illogical restrictions interfering with their designs. After viewcones were imposed, we start seeing buildings of similar sizes and heights being built here, resulting in downtown 'table-topping'. Elsewhere, developers and architects are experimenting with tall structures that turn into awesome landmarks in those cities while people here have to grapple with designs being toned down to boring blocks of insignificance. Curiously, Vancouver's restrictions have also produced a new generation of folks who fear something out of the ordinary, and people who usually brush them off as 'the biggest thing ever'. Imagine back in the early 20th century, if people were to think that neighbourhoods should not allow something too large to be built, most parts of downtown would still be filled with Victorian and Edwardian style structures. It isn't so because visionaries had the desire to build something really large, like Hotel Vancouver and the Marine building. Those HUGE structures are landmarks today, and without them, Vancouver is no different from, say, Squamish.

Vancouver only has one downtown, so what's wrong with having a few really tall structures built to satisfy the cravings of those who love seeing them? For those who absolutely hate them, there are plenty of short stubbly neighbourhoods for you to enjoy being in. Kitsilano is one example.

[phesto]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

The NDP were also in power from 1972 to 1975. And the Liberals have been in power since 2001.

Furthermore, of the towers constructed in the 21 years since the adoption of the viewcones, the majority were built (or had begun construction) prior to the Liberals taking power in 2001.

But either way, the observation remains the same: Office tower construction has dramatically declined since the adoption of the viewcones, not increased.

I don't think there is any relationship between the implementation of the view cone policy and general office space construction downtown. Most of the office towers built since 1989 on your list were not built up to the full view cone extent, so view cones were not anywhere near a limiting factor compared to other factors like weak demand for office space.

The current crop of office projects are certainly a different story since they are mostly being built up to the limit, but even if the view cones were eliminated it would simply change the built form (ie. height) not the total amount of space being proposed.

For buildings built before 1989, a couple things to keep in mind: First, a lot of these buildings were built by local private developers that were simply trying to profit on short-term demand and did not want to take on the increased risk of a larger (and thereby taller) projects. Second, a lot of the buildings built during the 70's and earlier didn't need to build tall to have nice views. As downtown has become more built out, this has certainly changed.

[Cypherus]

While this is a great infill development and I have no concerns to its modest height, I strongly believe that our downtown has enough stubby infill towers to promenade a signature 700 foot tower. Now or in the future. Our downtown is uniquely dense for the city its size and its design more organic than other cities like Shanghai and Dubai where their tall towers are separated by hundreds of meters of zero infill.

[red-paladin]

This conversation has gone too far off topic.
No more posts about viewcones and taller vs. shorter buildings in this thread.
(Unless you are specifically talking about the viewcone impact on this project).
Any further posts off topic may be deleted.

[trofirhen]

I wish this tower could be even a measly 7 or 8 floors taller.
As a design statement, it could be sort of a complement-counterpoint (if that's the word) to Bentall 5.

[PaperTiger]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

The NDP was also in power before the adoption of the viewcones (from 1972 to 1975). And the Liberals have been in power since 2001. Furthermore, of the towers constructed in the 21 years since the adoption of the viewcones, the majority were built (or had begun construction/planning) prior to the Liberals taking power in 2001.

But regardless, the observation remains the same: Office tower construction has dramatically declined since the adoption of the viewcones, not increased. Therefore, there is no evidence to support the claim that viewcones have lead to greater office tower density. Indeed, the evidence unequivocally contradicts that claim.

Right. And there were no other towers built in Vancouver during that period? I do distinctly recall a complete lack of construction activity over the last two decades.

I believe New Wester was speaking to the urban form generally, not office buildings specifically.

Regardless, with the current proposed and U/C office towers, most of them are being designed to the view cone maximum leaving market demand for other projects.

It is a moot point in any event; I think that until the current higher building sites are implemented the view cones are here to stay.

With that in mind, strong design with appropriate massing and detailing can make a 150m tower amazing. In my opinion this proposal fails in that regard.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by PaperTiger

Right. And there were no other towers built in Vancouver during that period? I do distinctly recall a complete lack of construction activity over the last two decades.

I believe New Wester was speaking to the urban form generally, not office buildings specifically.

Regardless, with the current proposed and U/C office towers, most of them are being designed to the view cone maximum leaving market demand for other projects.

It is a moot point in any event; I think that until the current higher building sites are implemented the view cones are here to stay.

With that in mind, strong design with appropriate massing and detailing can make a 150m tower amazing. In my opinion this proposal fails in that regard.

Can't anyone lobby to make it taller? I guess not.

[PaperTiger]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Can't anyone lobby to make it taller? I guess not.

I'm sure Bentall already tried that.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by PaperTiger

I'm sure Bentall already tried that.

Do you mean, as in ... Bentall 7 ?

[NewWester]

Originally Posted by PaperTiger

I believe New Wester was speaking to the urban form generally, not office buildings specifically.

This is off topic, I know, and please delete it if it offends, but I kind of wanted to float an idea (since I missed the great discussion that happened.)

I was listening to a thing about Detroit where someone floated the idea that the Renaissance Centre, a really tall iconic office development, gobbled up so many tenants that it actively hurt the urban fabric of the city by too dramatically concentrating commercial space. This is an extreme case and is weird because it was built to CREATE office demand instead of meet it and Detroit is pickled for many reasons. But, I kind of find it interesting in contrast to viewcones and Vancouver's diffuse office development.

Anyway, I'm happier having this building such as it is in our urban fabric than not. Quality infill trumps poorly used space even if it lacks for dramatic weight.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by NewWester

This is off topic, I know, and please delete it if it offends, but I kind of wanted to float an idea (since I missed the great discussion that happened.)

I was listening to a thing about Detroit where someone floated the idea that the Renaissance Centre, a really tall iconic office development, gobbled up so many tenants that it actively hurt the urban fabric of the city by too dramatically concentrating commercial space. This is an extreme case and is weird because it was built to CREATE office demand instead of meet it and Detroit is pickled for many reasons. But, I kind of find it interesting in contrast to viewcones and Vancouver's diffuse office development.

Anyway, I'm happier having this building such as it is in our urban fabric than not. Quality infill trumps poorly used space even if it lacks for dramatic weight.

Taller, though I would like it, it is true that as infill, this surely, as you say, QUALITY infill.

[officedweller]

The CD-1 Rezoning application is going before council Tuesday, Feb 3rd.

http://former.vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/...20150203ag.htm

Report here:

http://former.vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/...cuments/p4.pdf

Of interest, see the Statement of Significance in Appendix D for the existing modernist "Formalist" concrete precast façade building on site. Same architects as East Asiatic House and the Planetarium.
The developer was Jack Poole's company and the the forerunner to Daon Development.

They may reuse some of the panels.


http://former.vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/...cuments/p4.pdf


http://former.vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/...cuments/p4.pdf


http://former.vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/...cuments/p4.pdf

Compare this to the way the curtain wall on 725 Granville or Telus Garden appear to use "off-the-shelf" window pane widths
with a "filler" pieces at the corners:


http://former.vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/...cuments/p4.pdf


http://former.vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/...cuments/p4.pdf


http://former.vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/...cuments/p4.pdf


http://former.vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/...cuments/p4.pdf


http://former.vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/...cuments/p4.pdf

[retro_orange]

This building is an excellent example of vancouvers smaller scale Brutalist modern office buildings from the 60s and 70s, of which there were a number of built in the coal harbour area. There are a few that have vanished in the past decade and several in the process of redevelopment right now. Some day these buildings will be recognized as the last of the nicely detailed early modernist designs. The neighboring faceless flat concrete panel and red brick buildings came in the years after and are of no visual comparison. Sad to see it go.

[officedweller]

In the statement, they call it "formalist" rather than "brutalist".

http://www.dahp.wa.gov/styles/new-formalism

The one that stood on the site of West Pender Place at 1477 West Pender was a similar example with repeating precast.
Pic at this link:
http://www.bijouliving.com/2008/09/w...t-century.html