Fifteen Fifteen (1500 W Georgia) | 134m | 43fl | U/C

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Tfreder

Not a fan. If it wasn't for the gimmicky protruding boxes, this would just be your typical, straight from the 70's, west end tower.

However, I do like the podium/street level design of this tower; it is very well designed.

Thank you. I'm glad someone feels the same way about the tower as I do. My tastes often go "against the grain" here, and it's nice to know I'm not alone in my perception.

[officedweller]

Open house...February 4th at the Empire Landmark Hotel, at 1400 Robson Street, between 5 p.m. and 7:30 p.m

Project scaled back from 50 storeys to 43 storeys...

Sophie Perndl, who is a project manager at real estate consulting firm Brook Pooni Associates Inc., then contacted Business in Vancouver on January 27 in an email to say that the project has shrunk to be only 43 storeys. She said that the project would have 218 homes, not 235 as originally proposed. The project's total square footage, including retail, public amenities and residential amenity space is now 282,214 square feet, not 329,400 square feet.

https://www.biv.com/article/2016/1/p...wer-could-tra/

[Metro-One]

Well, that is a kick in the balls.

We dont need more 120 meter ish towers.

Have lots of those already.

Oh well, at least we still have a few other projects to be excited about.

[osirisboy]

Maybe they will have taller ceilings so in the end the height is the same (me thinking positively). I didn't see a revised building height in the article

[Klazu]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Project scaled back from 50 storeys to 43 storeys...

Are you sure it's not just the new policy to use the real floor numbering? A 43-storey building can have "50 floors" if certain floor numbers are omitted.

Of course the article makes it sound like this is not the case, which makes the whole scaling buck dumb as hell. Way to ruin a great and exciting design.

[officedweller]

Reduced square footages suggest actual downsizing.

I wonder how it'll affect the proportions of the tower and the protrusion placement.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

Maybe they will have taller ceilings so in the end the height is the same (me thinking positively). I didn't see a revised building height in the article

Or maybe they want to use the extra height on an amazing crown feature... yeah, no, this is Vancouver.

Seriously, seeing how few spaces Vancouver has allowing 150 meter towers, they should not be wasted on anything less.

[Henbo]

The height has in fact been reduced because of... view cones!

"At around 10 p.m. on January 27, Bosa's senior vice-president, Daryl Simpson, explained to Business in Vancouver that the project has shrunk to be only 43 storeys because the City of Vancouver in September rejected the original proposal because planners believed that the original proposal would "puncture view cones."

https://www.biv.com/article/2016/1/p...wer-could-tra/

[officedweller]

Thanks (updated article!).

I think the height of the 1550 Alberni proposal is shorter than this one was (it also says subject to View Cone 3.2.1 (QE Park) - so this one must be the same one). I wonder about Cheng's 1445 Georgia proposal?


http://former.vancouver.ca/commsvcs/...iewcones/3.htm

[red-paladin]

Thread title updated to 43 floors

[Migrant_Coconut]

SMH...this is why we can't have nice things.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Thanks (updated article!).

I think the height of the 1550 Alberni proposal is shorter than this one was (it also says subject to View Cone 3.2.1 (QE Park) - so this one must be the same one). I wonder about Cheng's 1445 Georgia proposal?


http://former.vancouver.ca/commsvcs/...iewcones/3.htm

I am sorry, but many of the view cones are just plain silly.

What are we protecting here?

The limited view from a few select locations of the suburban sprawl up the side of the North Shore Mountains?

It looks as if it would take at least a 300 meter tall tower to actually start impeding the enjoyment of such a view.

Not 100% against view cones, but they are far far too low and there are also too many.

The ironic thing is there is more than one direction to look.

We are going to sacrifice the impact this tower would have on enhancing views looking from the north towards the city and from the east / west down the Georgia canyon to protect a view from the south of suburban sprawl.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

I am sorry, but many of the view cones are just plain silly.

What are we protecting here?

The limited view from a few select locations of the suburban sprawl up the side of the North Shore Mountains?

It looks as if it would take at least a 300 meter tall tower to actually start impeding the enjoyment of such a view.

Not 100% against view cones, but they are far far too low and there are also too many.

The ironic thing is there is more than one direction to look.

We are going to sacrifice the impact this tower would have on enhancing views looking from the north towards the city and from the east / west down the Georgia canyon to protect a view from the south of suburban sprawl.

You hit the nail on the head, Metro!! The view cone thing is pedantic, silly, destructive, and thought up and implemented by a bunch of village mentality greenie-weenies.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

I am sorry, but many of the view cones are just plain silly.

What are we protecting here?

The limited view from a few select locations of the suburban sprawl up the side of the North Shore Mountains?

It looks as if it would take at least a 300 meter tall tower to actually start impeding the enjoyment of such a view.
[/B]

My favorite part is that the trees are the limiting factor in this view cone. In 20 years, they might block out all of what was being protected, rendering the height limits moot anyways. Who knows

I doubt the city would top the trees to make sure that this view is protected

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Henbo

The height has in fact been reduced because of... view cones!

"At around 10 p.m. on January 27, Bosa's senior vice-president, Daryl Simpson, explained to Business in Vancouver that the project has shrunk to be only 43 storeys because the City of Vancouver in September rejected the original proposal because planners believed that the original proposal would "puncture view cones."

https://www.biv.com/article/2016/1/p...wer-could-tra/

Hahahahahaha. (That's a laugh of devastation)

Still liking em viewcones fellas?

Still lovin CoV?

Still thinking that Vancouver doesn't have its potential drastically curtailed because of some nonsensical policies?

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

SMH...this is why we can't have nice things.

It's all good. Just move them to Burnaby.

[WarrenC12]

Do you guys ever speak at the city consultations on viewcones and new proposals, or just complain on the internet?

[EastVanMark]

...and another project gets clipped by the ever paternal City of Vancouver

But I'm sure over time memories will fade and the general excuse for the lack of height in this project will morph into the usual "its too expensive to build tall/don't you think the developers would have built taller if it was economically feasible etc etc" the usual City of Vancouver apologists on here will spew forth.

So just to confirm, just so we don't forget, who is responsible for this project not reaching its full potential? Once again, its the City of Vancouver and its overbearing policies.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Do you guys ever speak at the city consultations on viewcones and new proposals, or just complain on the internet?

Voicing our opposition here is "for the record". I've made numerous suggestions over time visiting open houses, sometimes verbally with City staff, but also written comments on paper. Yes, I've also been asking for taller buildings, as well as allowing better retail centres, just so that the neighbourhood, including your future one at OV, becomes more appealing and your investment sounder.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Vin

Voicing our opposition here is "for the record". I've made numerous suggestions over time visiting open houses, sometimes verbally with City staff, but also written comments on paper. Yes, I've also been asking for taller buildings, as well as allowing better retail centres, just so that the neighbourhood, including your future one at OV, becomes more appealing and your investment sounder.

Perhaps it would be more effective if done in a "committee," or "team" way. Round up as many people as you can, and confront the city that way. It might work.

[Coldrsx]

Here guys, feel better

The Relationship Between Skyscrapers and Great Cities
Tall buildings can add a great deal, but they also have their limits.

http://www.citylab.com/design/2016/0...urce=SFTwitter