The Stack (1133 Melville) | 161m | 36fl | Completed - Page 5

christmas · #81 Posted **Mar 9, 2016, 5:45 PM**

Any new news regarding this project?

LeftCoaster · #82 Posted **Mar 9, 2016, 8:23 PM**

The minutes from the UDP have been out for a few weeks now. This one got ripped apart pretty hard by the UDP. Essentially saying the design is not good enough for a project projecting through a view cone.

Won't see much movement on this one for a bit as it likely to need a lot of work.

Hot Rod · #83 Posted **Mar 9, 2016, 8:38 PM**

Add a few more floors and change the top to a spire and I bet it will win.

Why doesn't Vancouver have more spire buildings, I don't know why? Surely spires could give the city height without cutting significantly into view cones.

i do think most of the view cones should be eliminated and those remaining should be revised upward; but I also don't understand why developers don't 'work around' the viewcones with spires. NYC is full of them, and has a much more appealing skyline than without the recent influx. A few spires could work in Vancouver, perhaps get the city ready for a building greater than 700 feet (trust me, it's not that much taller than what's already there) and forever define Vancouver in the world skyline cities.

We need to continue the momentum for Office towers, I truly hope this can be reworked upward with floors to 550 feet (or higher) and with a 100-150 foot spire.

trofirhen · #84 Posted **Mar 9, 2016, 9:19 PM**

Maybe it could be re-worked so as to have its own version of a "cathedral roof" like the Hotel Vancouver, Cathedral Place, and, to a much lesser extent, the Marine Building.
That all might 'tie downtown together' a little bit, giving it a style and a theme, sort of.

officedweller · #85 Posted **Mar 9, 2016, 9:37 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hot Rod

Add a few more floors and change the top to a spire and I bet it will win.

Why doesn't Vancouver have more spire buildings, I don't know why? Surely spires could give the city height without cutting significantly into view cones.

ANY incursion into a view cone is prohibited - so if a building is built to a view cone height limit, that naturally leads to flat-topped buildings.

Height limits (other than view cone limits) can be exceeded for mechanical penthouses and architectural appurtenances - but the view cones height limits are sacrosanct.

Since this building is not to its limit - they could add an interesting roof.

LeftCoaster · #86 Posted **Mar 9, 2016, 9:41 PM**

But it is bisected by a viewcone...

Vin · #87 Posted **Mar 10, 2016, 12:41 AM**

I don't see any nice roof top designs on taller structures short of removing viewcones first.

officedweller · #88 Posted **Mar 10, 2016, 10:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

But it is bisected by a viewcone...

Quote:

Originally Posted by officedweller

...

It's a site that can go up to 550 feet under the Higher Buildings Policy
- but looks like it won't b built to the maximum height.

http://former.vancouver.ca/commsvcs/guidelines/H005.pdf

Quote:

Originally Posted by Klazu

...

[/img]
All photos by Oxford Properties via Vancitybuzz.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vin

I don't see any nice roof top designs on taller structures short of removing viewcones first.

Condos, no, office towers - more likely - Bentall V, MNP, even BC Hydro

LeftCoaster · #89 Posted **Mar 14, 2016, 6:21 PM**

OD interesting post. I too thought it was not in a viewcone, but the UDP meeting minutes specifically mentioned it. Perhaps they were misinformed.

WarrenC12 · #90 Posted **Mar 14, 2016, 6:59 PM**

So, a building is being proposed that doesn't even hit the max possible height allowed?

Don't we have a whole thread devoted to telling me how this should be impossible?

Back on topic, I wonder if there are second thoughts given the recent updates on office space in Metro Vancouver.

phesto · #91 Posted **Mar 14, 2016, 7:56 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

OD interesting post. I too thought it was not in a viewcone, but the UDP meeting minutes specifically mentioned it. Perhaps they were misinformed.

A view cone cuts off a sliver on the Northeast corner of the site...probably what was referred to.

officedweller · #92 Posted **Mar 15, 2016, 1:13 AM**

Yeah, you can see the cut corner right next to "550" on the diagram above.
The other possibility is the QE view cone, but that one is usually ignored for the Higher Buildings applications.

Prometheus · #93 Posted **Mar 15, 2016, 3:41 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

So, a building is being proposed that doesn't even hit the max possible height allowed? Don't we have a whole thread devoted to telling me how this should be impossible?

We do have a whole conversation devoted to explaining to you (and a couple of others) how this is not just possible but probable when the city allows greater height on the one hand but then denies the FSR needed to make that height economically optimal on the other.

Another lesson that did not penetrate?

Aroundtheworld · #94 Posted **Mar 15, 2016, 3:52 AM**

Not a lot to go off, but so far this looks decidedly mediocre. Hopefully future renders show a more inspired design.

LeftCoaster · #95 Posted **Mar 15, 2016, 6:00 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by phesto

A view cone cuts off a sliver on the Northeast corner of the site...probably what was referred to.

The UDP minutes specifically referenced a penetration, so not the viewcone which was dodged by the crown design.

I think it is the QE viewcone, so perhaps that is why it is being entertained.

officedweller · #96 Posted **Mar 15, 2016, 6:16 PM**

So it's not quite up to the Higher Building's "excellence" factor to toss away the QE viewcone...

LeftCoaster · #97 Posted **Mar 15, 2016, 6:17 PM**

That's what I read in the UDP minutes.

Hopefully that means a lot more dramatic of a tower in order to cut the viewcone.

WarrenC12 · #98 Posted **Mar 15, 2016, 8:00 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prometheus

We do have a whole conversation devoted to explaining to you (and a couple of others) how this is not just possible but probable when the city allows greater height on the one hand but then denies the FSR needed to make that height economically optimal on the other.

Another lesson that did not penetrate?

Just referencing the building at hand. Feel free to educate me on 1133 Melville.

Prometheus · #99 Posted **Mar 15, 2016, 10:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Just referencing the building at hand. Feel free to educate me on 1133 Melville.

The discussion regarding the important role the maximum allowable FSR plays in a developer's economic calculus of the optimum building height was in reference to this specific project.

jlousa · #**100** Posted **Mar 15, 2016, 10:45 PM**

*Mod hat on* Give it a break with the viewcones already. If you feel the need to complain about them use the thread for them. We will not be tolerating the ongoing rants about them in every thread. Consider this the final warning on the matter. *Mod hat off*