CF Pacific Centre Developments

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

nordstrom isn't as high end as holts though - i mean you can get sketchers, converse and nike at most nordstrom stores in the shoe dept. compared to gucci, dsquared and whatever

my korean friend said holt renfrew is a real dept store to him like back in korea, but small, he said sears and the bay are not dept stores he is used to and doesn't think of them the same way

Is Korea is anything like Japan, which I imagine it is, given the history , proximity and cultural similarities... department stores are considered upscale places to buy stuff. There is no Super Saturday Sale.

In North America, upscale is a small boutique store. In Japan (and it sounds like Korea) department stores are expensive places to buy brand-name clothing. Employees are in full uniform, service is outstanding, the bottom food floor is more of a prepared food mecca with plenty of French branded foods and nicely packaged goods, the top floors are usually restaurant floors.

If Nordstrom's brought something like that here, I'd be all for it... but I don't think we have the kind of culture that would support it. The middle class in Japan is very strong, with a more egalitarian distribution of wealth among the working class, so a larger number of people buy nice things, as opposed to a very small number buying super-luxury things.

I'd love to see a Food Floor here (yum!)
• Video Link

[wrenegade]

The viewcones limit the site to ~450' correct? A building in that height range would stand out significantly given the surroundings. I may not stand out on the skyline from the North Shore or Queen E Park or something like that, but anywhere south of Robson in downtown it would be very significant. Here's to hoping an architect from outside of Vancouver gets a crack at the design.

[djh]

Wooo, here's a thought...what if Greg Kerfoot has finally found his transit-connected downtown location for the Whitecaps, that only his wallet could afford...?
<chills>

[jlousa]

Again no inside info, my understanding is that the city has shown some willingness to land additional density on this site. I imagine that although there were plans on converting the top few floors to office with a central atrium, that plan is probably a non-starter due to the amount of space that would be lost. I think a likely solution would involve removing the top 3 floors and being granted enough additional density by the city to construct an additional office tower. The rents on office space in that location would be in the $45psf quite easily while retail on those upper floors would be hard pressed to lease even at half that rate. CF has hinted in recent days about what's in store for the site, I imagine we won't hear anything official until after closing in late Apr.

[NewfBC]

Maybe the Westons will bring Selfridges to Canada, and shut the Holt Renfrew location!

Selfridges Food Hall is awesome!

http://www.selfridges.com/

Ron.

[TwoFace]

Originally Posted by NewfBC

Maybe the Westons will bring Selfridges to Canada, and shut the Holt Renfrew location!

Selfridges Food Hall is awesome!

http://www.selfridges.com/

Ron.

Let's hope not, or we'll be seeing people like this on the street.
http://www.selfridges.com/en/Menswea...-R290R9178648/

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by wrenegade

The viewcones limit the site to ~450' correct? A building in that height range would stand out significantly given the surroundings. I may not stand out on the skyline from the North Shore or Queen E Park or something like that, but anywhere south of Robson in downtown it would be very significant. Here's to hoping an architect from outside of Vancouver gets a crack at the design.

I though that the Sears site falls into the commercial district where they are allowed to build up to 600 feet through special circumstances (such as an office tower with high architectural design).

Also, thanks for the info Left Coaster, glad to hear no condo towers!

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by NewfBC

Maybe the Westons will bring Selfridges to Canada, and shut the Holt Renfrew location!

Selfridges Food Hall is awesome!

http://www.selfridges.com/

Ron.

Try Harrod's

[NewfBC]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Try Harrod's

The Westons, owners of Holt Renfrew, also own Selfridges.

Ron.

[SpongeG]

i like the idea of the bottom 3 floors becoming mixed retail - expansion for pacific centre and than the top floors being nordstrom - nordstrom usually has a restaurant in it right? i know they usually have a baby grand and an espresso bar in them

[officedweller]

If there are large format retailers allocated a floor or two - I could see Marshalls, Bed Bath & Beyond and maybe the return of Old Navy. Maybe a Crate & Barrel?

FINALLY!
A photo showing the illuminated spandrel bands
across the top of each entrance alcove!
The spandrels say "EATON'S EATON'S EATON'S" in a strip along the bottom edge.
Think of the missed opportunity in the 1999 renovation.


1981. Eaton's store on Granville at night.
Photograph by: Ralph Bower, Vancouver Sun

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/business...884/story.html

Sears departure means unloved site could get a facelift
By GORDON HAMILTON, Vancouver Sun
March 2, 2012

...

Boname was a consultant on the original Pacific Centre development for landlord Cadillac Fairview and the T. Eaton Co., which occupied it from 1973 until going out of business in 1999.

Boname was also involved in a plan showing potential developments for the B.C. Assessment Authority in a 2008 appeal of the assessment, where he was an expert witness. The entire block, including the TD Tower, was assessed by the appeal board in 2009 at $237.5 million.

The Sears building has eight floors - one underground and seven above. Sears only uses five of the above-ground floors. the top two floors are vacant.

“It’s a shame that such valuable space is essentially not being utilized,” Boname said.

“We did a plan for B.C. Assessment that had the top four floors as office with an atrium in the centre, and the lower three or four floors as all retail, but in the traditional shopping centre format, with no department store.

“That was what we felt was the highest and best use going back two or three years and I don’t think things have changed much since then.”

...

If Cadillac Fairview decides to reconfigure the building, the city has already indicated that it would demand that the developers change the boxy shape, remove the white exterior panels and open it up at ground level to pedestrian traffic.

Boname said despite an appearance that is “uncomfortable from the pedestrian’s standpoint,” the building has some impressive credentials. It’s architect, Cesar Pelli, designed similar structures at that time along Wilshire Boulevard in Beverley Hills. He later went on to design some of the world’s tallest skyscrapers, including Kuala Lumpur’s Petronas Towers.

“A lot of people have objected to the fact that the building, particular at grade, is very inanimate. But that doesn’t mean that with some clever design work, you can’t create a very attractive street there. There are aesthetic and urban design issues versus retail, planning and economic issues. You have to balance those things out.

Can that building be re-planned, re-cladded, made more animate? Yes. Does it cost money? Yes.

“Is it cheaper to start from scratch? Is the market strong enough now to warrant taking it down entirely and scrapping whatever residual building value exits today in exchange for a higher capital investment but a higher return for a more densely developed project?”

...

If Cadillac Fairview opts to tear it down, Boname said a 40-to 50-storey trophy office/residential tower integrated with open, retail space on the first several storeys makes sense.

...

[Metro-One]

see, they said residential tower again, i don't like that! This is one city block that should only be used for retail, entertainment and office.

[officedweller]

Yeah, but the problem is that there's residential right across Robson Street above Chapters.

[Metro-One]

So, that doesn't mean there needs to be residential on the Sears site as well. Somewhere has to be the line. Having residential on this block will only add more NIMBY's to our most vibrant intersections and the heart of our commercial and entertainment district, not a good idea. Especially if such a residential tower is orientated towards Granville.

Having residential built directly on this site will add an unneeded complication, especially if the retail base becomes part of an expanded pacific Centre and if the building becomes animated any way in regards to lights (again focussing on the Granville and Robson intersection).

Retail, entertainment and office only here.

[officedweller]

There's already quite a bit of residential facing the Howe side (Infinity (above Chapters), the condo next to the Wedgewood, and Electric Avenue; not to mention The Georgia) - that's my guess as to where it would go if there is any - not the Granville side.

[cornholio]

Sounds like the city wants them to really reconfigure that building but they have only so much power since the building is already built. That sounds to me like some bonus density will be given out, Cadillac throws more money at the building and does what the city wants and in return gets density back to offset the costs. I would think the best place to stick that extra density would have to be on the current site, and since Jlousa said there have already been plans to incorporate a tower in to the Sears building makes it seem that its very possible another tower gets built.

The height limit seems to be 450' with discretionary increases to 600' + 10% for mechanical space from what I understand. Will be interesting to see what happens, if they can build a tower they would need to either build it quick or in such a way where they can begin to lease space in parts of the Sears building while its being built. Having 600,000 sqft of space sit empty in that location for a few years after a $100mill investment would probably have some big carrying costs.

Also I mentioned Brent Toderian before more for fun, but seriously the speed and timing of him getting canned points to something bigger. Wouldn't surprise me if he was butting heads with someone regarding the future of the Sears building. After all its a incredibly important development and the talk of bonus density, negotiating with Cadillac to have them rework the building beyond what would make financial sense, etc. creates lots of opportunities for serious clashes. The timing seems appropriate if the project moved forward after a obstacle was removed and I doubt Cadillac spent all this money without knowing how things will work out for them. Call me paranoid.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by cornholio

The height limit seems to be 450' with discretionary increases to 600' + 10% for mechanical space from what I understand. Will be interesting to see what happens, if they can build a tower they would need to either build it quick or in such a way where they can begin to lease space in parts of the Sears building while its being built.

Remember that the discretionary 600 ft is subject to view cones, so view cones will ultimately determine the shape of development.

Based on the view cone diagram you posted earlier -> triangular floorplate (but still a substantial floorplate size) or twisty building avoiding view cones, as the Robson & Howe corner and the Granville frontage seem to have view cones restricting heights to about 275 ft.

Originally Posted by cornholio

I think TD Tower is 400 ft. It doesn't look like there's any taller that could provide a "view shadow" over and above the view cone like Telus Garden has from Scotia Tower.

Originally Posted by Built Form

Here's a look at how the tower will replace the view of the Scotia Tower from City Hall.


...

All pix by Built Form

[Metro-One]

In all honesty given this square's prominence and possible direct underground connection to two rapid transit subway stations (along with downtown's largest mall) this is a situation where the view cones should subside to simple reason. Maximize this site's potential to the highest level possible. This is the premier site for a 600 foot tower. In all honesty, why are these view cones treated so holy??? Even the ALR (which is far more important IMO) seems to be often marginalized, well, so can these regulations.

[Nites]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

In all honesty given this square's prominence and possible direct underground connection to two rapid transit subway stations (along with downtown's largest mall) this is a situation where the view cones should subside to simple reason. Maximize this site's potential to the highest level possible. This is the premier site for a 600 foot tower. In all honesty, why the are these view cones treated so holy??? Even the ALR (which is far more important IMO) seems to be often marginalized, well, so can these regulations.

Easy there. You might upset the view cone gods and we may never get a 700 footer.

[SpongeG]

i wonder how dead the area will be when this sits empty in november, i wonder how much of a hit pac centre will hit without the easy robson connection