1166 West Pender | 121.6m | 32fl | 360,868 sqft | Proposed

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Ridiculous, are there not already towers directly lining the southern edges of those parks??

One can define essentially any street or corner in the city as important for the public realm, and therefore in need to be protected from big bad scary towers.

Especially if they are considering any shadows on that section fronting Cordova Street which is just a walkway with a little patch of grass in the middle.

Even 1133 Melville mostly looks look it was lopped off to protect shadows on that section:

https://rezoning.vancouver.ca/applic...SEDshadows.pdf

[jollyburger]

A community open house will be held on January 22, 2019 from 4:30-7pm in the Garibaldi Room of the Hotel Blue Horizon, 1225 Robson Street.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

i find it very interesting that the CoV has all these policies, higher building, view cones, park shadowing, street shadowing, etc. and all they do is contradict each-other. 1 policy says A, the other B, then there is V oh and W then don't forget Z.

i don't get how that can be allowed really. how can you tell people you can do one thing, then have another 4 things say "well actually, you cant." laws/bylaws shouldn't be allowed to contradict each-other. especially since this isn't a sometimes problem, this is a almost-every-site problem.

one thing you can always count on from government; overly convoluted bureaucracy.

it must be frustrating to deal with all of this from an applicant standpoint.


the original building also looked much nicer.

[rofina]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

i find it very interesting that the CoV has all these policies, higher building, view cones, park shadowing, street shadowing, etc. and all they do is contradict each-other. 1 policy says A, the other B, then there is V oh and W then don't forget Z.

i don't get how that can be allowed really. how can you tell people you can do one thing, then have another 4 things say "well actually, you cant." laws/bylaws shouldn't be allowed to contradict each-other. especially since this isn't a sometimes problem, this is a almost-every-site problem.

one thing you can always count on from government; overly convoluted bureaucracy.

it must be frustrating to deal with all of this from an applicant standpoint.


the original building also looked much nicer.

Not to mention - imagine the additional amount of cost you have to budget to navigate this convoluted mess of contradicting bylaws.

This all adds to the ridiculous costs of building in this City.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

i find it very interesting that the CoV has all these policies, higher building, view cones, park shadowing, street shadowing, etc. and all they do is contradict each-other. 1 policy says A, the other B, then there is V oh and W then don't forget Z.

i don't get how that can be allowed really. how can you tell people you can do one thing, then have another 4 things say "well actually, you cant." laws/bylaws shouldn't be allowed to contradict each-other. especially since this isn't a sometimes problem, this is a almost-every-site problem.

one thing you can always count on from government; overly convoluted bureaucracy.

it must be frustrating to deal with all of this from an applicant standpoint.


the original building also looked much nicer.

Just build the smallest and plainest-looking building to ensure the fastest approval, and then recoup as much as possible through the highest per square footage sale price or rental lease. Problems solved.

[officedweller]

I like the new design better.
It looks like this one in Toronto (I think it must be by the same architects) and should look amazing.
The curved glass looks higher end than bevels and angled corners (think Hotel Georgia Tower or West Pender Place)
where mullions and window panes rarely look precisely planned when they hit the angles.
You also don't have the problem of hanging window blinds down an angled surface.

7 St. Thomas by Hariri Pontarini Architects


https://www.blogto.com/city/2017/03/...fice-building/


https://www.blogto.com/city/2017/03/...fice-building/


https://www.blogto.com/city/2017/03/...fice-building/

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

i find it very interesting that the CoV has all these policies, higher building, view cones, park shadowing, street shadowing, etc. and all they do is contradict each-other. 1 policy says A, the other B, then there is V oh and W then don't forget Z.

i don't get how that can be allowed really. how can you tell people you can do one thing, then have another 4 things say "well actually, you cant." laws/bylaws shouldn't be allowed to contradict each-other. especially since this isn't a sometimes problem, this is a almost-every-site problem.

one thing you can always count on from government; overly convoluted bureaucracy.

it must be frustrating to deal with all of this from an applicant standpoint.


the original building also looked much nicer.

Then people turn around and demand fewer stories for greater housing affordability?.

Seriously, though, preventing shadowing of Harbor Green Park at this point is dumb. It's already more or less shadowed completely, there's nothing to gain from this.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by officedweller

I like the new design better.
It looks like this one in Toronto (I think it must be by the same architects) and should look amazing.
The curved glass looks higher end than bevels and angled corners (think Hotel Georgia Tower or West Pender Place)
where mullions and window panes rarely look precisely planned when they hit the angles.
You also don't have the problem of hanging window blinds down an angled surface.

7 St. Thomas by Hariri Pontarini Architects

Same architects.

https://hariripontarini.com/

Partnered with https://www.denari.co/about

[SpongeG]

Thirty-one storey office tower proposed for downtown Vancouver

Application filed for architecturally striking building to replace 15-storey tower in Coal Harbour

By Naoibh O'Connor, Vancouver Courier | January 14, 2019

Another office tower could be coming to downtown Vancouver.



A rezoning application has been filed for a 31-storey office building at 1166 West Pender St. between Bute and Thurlow streets in Coal Harbour.

The rezoning application for the development project, involving Integral Group, Reliance Properties and IBI Group Architects, goes to open house Jan. 22.

The application is being considered under the City of Vancouver’s Rezoning Policy for the Central Business District (CBD) and CBD Shoulder. The building would replace an existing 15-storey office tower.

...

https://biv.com/article/2019/01/thir...town-vancouver

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Same architects.

https://hariripontarini.com/

Partnered with https://www.denari.co/about

Thanks.
Should turn out nicely.

From the downtown thread:

Originally Posted by Feathered Friend

https://cityduo.wordpress.com/2019/0...for-vancouver/

[trofirhen]

Call me crazy, agree wholeheartedly, or be anywhere on the dislike :-: like scale but IMO this is a great building. One might argue that the viewcones flattened it, but IMO it's fine as is.
It's not standout tall, but it elevates the Pender street profile, and the bevelled slope at the back leads up toward the looming Stack, maintaining a harmony there, without competition.
Somehow for me (don't ask me why or how - - - this building has a diminutive "Seattle" feeling to, it sort of. I wonder if anyone else preceives that? Probably not.

[Feathered Friend]

Strong, Sophisticated Office Building Demonstrates Vancouver’s Growing Maturity
1166 West Pender
The proposal for this curvacious office tower may have only been reviewed by the Urban Design Panel on February 6th, but between our recent snowstorms and both Hannah and I falling ill with the flu, it feels like forever ago. That said, as the city has yet to post their official minutes of the meeting, perhaps we shouldn’t be so hard on ourselves for not getting this post up sooner.

Normally we would have to rely on the notes we take to remember the details about a project, but this one really stuck out. After all, it’s not often city staff tell the panel they’re worried that planning has shaped a building too much, and it’s certainly understandable why they felt that way,

Previously, we discussed how the building would have been allowed up to 500 feet in height under the view cone policy, if not for a different policy which prohibits buildings shadowing public parks. However, I learned that the western concave curve is a result of yet another staff request to provide 80 feet of separation between this building and the neighbouring Sapphire residential tower....

...it seems a slightly revised application has been submitted since then, which calls for 3 more meters in height, roughly one floor, and 13,000 extra sq.ft of room.

https://cityduo.wordpress.com/2019/0...wing-maturity/

[trofirhen]

Pardon me repeating myself, but IMO this will be a snazzy building. Where is it at in the planning stage? When might construction begin? Could we discuss this building, too?
Other building threads degenerate into personal ego turf wars. Could we address something positive and optimistic, please?

[Feathered Friend]

The application is now scheduled for referral to public hearing at Tuesday's city council meeting. It's safe to assume it will be heard at the July 9th / 11th Public Hearing.

[trofirhen]

Pardon the posting frequency, but oh I hope it goes through. Ideal placement, ideal massing ... IMHO.

[Feathered Friend]

A slight increase in height and density.

Since the application was originally submitted on October 2, 2018, there have been changes to allow for one additional storey of office space within the project. A revised application was received on February 2, 2018 that included changes to height, floor area, and density from the original submission. The revised proposal now includes:

a building height of 121.6 m (399 ft.);
a total floor area of 33,523 sq. m (360,848 sq. ft.)
a floor space ratio (FSR) of 19.37;
ground floor commercial retail space;
twenty-nine levels of office space and one level of amenity space above; and
six levels of underground parking with 199 vehicle parking spaces, 12 loading bays, and 202 Class A bicycle parking spaces.

https://rezoning.vancouver.ca/applic...nder/index.htm

As noted in the general thread, this one goes to public hearing tomorrow.

[red-paladin]

Title updated

[Metro-One]

So I guess 122 / 123 m is Vancouver’s go to height for office towers now?

Hope this increase doesn’t cast a permanent shadow of despair over Vancouver’s (dare I say the world’s) most beloved public space of splendor.

[Walbran]

Originally Posted by red-paladin

Title updated

Can you now update it to approved? It was approved back in July

[trofirhen]

Does anyone know when the groundbreaking for this one might begin? Despite its tabletop-adherent height (as Metro implied earlier), this is rather a sleek-looking building, .... IMO.