745 Thurlow St | 91m | 23fl | Completed

[Ronnie Yau]

I hope they'll start demolishing the
parking garage later.

[raggedy13]

This 4Q 2009 report by Avison Young says construction won't start until 2012, though that doesn't necessarily mean demolition of the parkade won't start before that...

Meanwhile, Bentall Capital is awaiting development permit approval for its 745 Thurlow site. Renderings call for a 400,000-sf office building including two to three floors of retail. The developer says the earliest construction start date for the project is January 2012.

http://www.avisonyoung.com/library/p...E_2009_WEB.pdf

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by raggedy13

This 4Q 2009 report by Avison Young says construction won't start until 2012, though that doesn't necessarily mean demolition of the parkade won't start before that...


http://www.avisonyoung.com/library/p...E_2009_WEB.pdf

Bummer. (Not that I have any special feelings for this stubby mediocrity.)

[squeezied]

I just realized towerguy created this thread

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by raggedy13

This 4Q 2009 report by Avison Young says construction won't start until 2012, though that doesn't necessarily mean demolition of the parkade won't start before that...


http://www.avisonyoung.com/library/p...E_2009_WEB.pdf

Why no mention of the GM tower, for are they not hoping to start construction late this year? That tower must be at least 300 000 sq feet of office space.

[raggedy13]

^Probably not mentioned because the report is a few months old now and the GM Tower plans weren't officially revived until more recently.

[dleung]

Too short. Which means a lot, coming from me! I wouldn't want to have 500 feet of fat office plates, but they should scrap part of the view cone and slot in an extra 20 stories of hotel on top. As for GM, I wouldn't mind 450 feet of office floors due to the scale of the neighbourhood, again f*** the view cones...

[red-paladin]

You would think with the success of Bentall 5, they would at least allow for a possible future increase in height.

[Mininari]

It would be "hedging a bet" to build "Bentall 6" strong enough to support any additional floors. The bet being that one day, down the road, the people of Vancouver realize that potential of Downtown Vancouver will rest upon higher office densities, more job-space creation, etc.
Transit infrastructure converges on the downtown, and it would seem logical that to support sustainable regional development, one would want further job growth in areas serviced by rapid transit.

Hence: modify / eliminate the viewcones.

So many prime locations have already been developed (with condos), and taking down an existing building and replacing it with something new is costly (re: Grosvenor building, 600ft building st), it could be argued that a building be built to support additional floors above the height limit, for future development. I am willing to bet there is NO language in any guidelines that would restrict this.

A 500-525' Bentall 6 sure would compliment the Shangri-La, and 66-storey whatever-its-called-now.

Oh well, we can always pin some hope on that 'Amacon' tower thats disappeared from the rumor mill. There has to be demand for the space afterall!

[trofirhen]

I hate to be a killjoy, but to me, this Bentall 6 Tower is "bitty" looking, in that it is on the wrong scale for the central city area.
*
Also, although I like the original use of angles (such as on the Georgia) this one looks awkward and top-heavy. It just isn't aesthetic. It has no elegance to it. It has style, yes, but poor style (IMHO)
*
Call me an intellectual snob if you will, but my gut reaction to it is 'ho-hum' at best and 'yuck' at worst. Sorry if I'm going against the flow. I would have expected something classier from the Bentall group.

[ozonemania]

@ trofirhen I don't think you're against the flow. It's very, very mediocre based on the few renders/models I've seen.

This is a prime piece of real estate. There really should be more excellence coming from this project.

I just think people are just grateful that we're actually building 100% commercial skyscrapers (if you can call these skyscrapers).

Personally I'd prefer tall. But I'm ok if it's shorter. But please make the design exceptional.

And actually add to the streetlife. I always thought Alberni/Thurlow should be a more vertical district like Ginza, Shinjuku, Akihabara. You already see a bit of it.

[PROSTSHOCKER]

now it'd look a bit better if this design is stretched a hundred or more so odd feet - sorta like an upside down John Hancock Center but with seafoam green glazing minus any interesting exterior bits

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

I hate to be a killjoy, but to me, this Bentall 6 Tower is "bitty" looking, in that it is on the wrong scale for the central city area.
*
Also, although I like the original use of angles (such as on the Georgia) this one looks awkward and top-heavy. It just isn't aesthetic. It has no elegance to it. It has style, yes, but poor style (IMHO)
*
Call me an intellectual snob if you will, but my gut reaction to it is 'ho-hum' at best and 'yuck' at worst. Sorry if I'm going against the flow. I would have expected something classier from the Bentall group.

You are not alone in your line of thinking. (not by a long shot).

[Canadian Mind]

Not a fan of the architecture, or height. But at least it is a new office development. As cool as condo's are, I'm getting sick of em.

[Metro-One]

I think the feeling is unanimous on this forum about this proposals terribly short height for its central business location (it is a good idea to gain as much floor space near the heart of our transit system as one can, if council truly wants to be green they should start weighing in the props and cons of the view cones).

Also the design is lacking in general, but as others have said, at least it is office, and at this point, I think we will take any office tower we can get. Even if it is shorter than the majority of condos currently being built.

[Yume-sama]

Well, just to more or less confirm what the Avison Young report said, I was talking to the owner of one of the businesses that would have to move, and he said they are in the process of renewing their lease for another 2.5 years, that is when they'll be out, depending on what the market is like at that time. Guess we'll have to wait a bit longer for our big popcorn box

[Mininari]

Whatever. There's many other more interesting buildings / projects / etc to keep us entertained until then!

[wrenegade]

My girlfriend will be happy to hear this, as she lives across the street, and it means Shanghai Bistro will be sticking around a bit longer!

[LeftCoaster]

And Sambas!

I wonder why this isnt going ahead, it seems like all the market fundamentals are beginning to allign. Maybe Bentall knows something we dont, perhaps too many office proposals are coming up at once and potential tenants have already been scooped?

[jlousa]

I remember talking to the guys from Bentall when the proposal first came out and they were very unhappy with the timing of the gateway project as they were hoping to build during the height of the down turn and gateway was going to kill the lull. Never really understood why they were so upset with it, and now it looks like they are timing it for after gateway, I can't see the link at all. It's almost like whoever is financing the tower is also financing gateway and doesn't have enough to do both, but that isn't the case.