WC Central Park | 84m, 85m, 81m, 20m | 29fl, 30fl, 28fl, 6fl | Completed - Page 2

twism · #21 Posted **Feb 9, 2012, 4:14 AM**

http://www.wallcentrecentralpark.com/

Collingwood neighborhood house will have a new facility here. Wonder what the plans are for their current location.

Waders · #22 Posted **Feb 12, 2012, 5:58 PM**

Part of the boarding fence facing the Skytrain route is built with a big sign saying "Wall Centre Central Park". Obviously this is done to attract the attention of Skytrain passengers and cars travelling by.
Looks like Wall Centre Central Park is now the official name of the development. May be the name of this thread should be changed to reflect that?

cabotp · #23 Posted **Feb 25, 2012, 6:03 AM**

Does anyone have any info the one building they have not knocked down yet. It looks like it is some kind of ambulance centre. Or at least that is what I gather when I pass it everyday on the skytrain.

is there a reason as to why it hasn't been knocked down yet?

Waders · #24 Posted **Feb 26, 2012, 5:42 AM**

I don't think the house, used as an ambulance station, has been vacated yet. Front door light is still on at night and car was seen parked behind the house on Friday.
Close to 1/2 of all the houses have been demolished already, I expect no house will be left standing at the site in a few months.

wrenegade · #25 Posted **Jun 7, 2012, 3:16 AM**

Not sure why this project is listed as approved, it was just rejected at UDP 1-9 this evening. I'll take a couple photos of the model, but it is likely to change again before it is approved.

SFUVancouver · #26 Posted **Jun 7, 2012, 4:51 AM**

^ The rezoning was approved, so this evening it was going for its development permit. Thanks for 'live-foruming' the UDP.

wrenegade · #27 Posted **Jun 7, 2012, 5:55 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

^ The rezoning was approved, so this evening it was going for its development permit.

I thought SSP policy was "approved" wasn't granted until a DP? No biggie I suppose. I guess it will end up looking somewhat like the current proposal though and the density and building heights have all been approved, just not the exact form and massing.

Quote:

Thanks for 'live-foruming' the UDP.

I did my best, I'm new to typing on an iPad. Also had to answer a phone call during this proposal so I missed a fair bit, I will post some pictures tomorrow morning though. It also ran super late so I bailed before the 5555 Dunbar presentation as I needed food.

logan5 · #28 Posted **Jun 7, 2012, 6:43 AM**

Just some clarification. I thought the Urban Design Panel can only make recommendations and does not have the authority to approve or refuse projects? So is it correct to assume that this vote was just a recommendation to the Development Permit Board who will decide on this project at a later date, or do the UDP and the DPB meet at the same time?

jlousa · #29 Posted **Jun 7, 2012, 7:00 AM**

That is correct but going to the DPB w/o UDP approval is asking for trouble. As far as I can recall only one project has ever gone ahead w/o getting approval. If the UDP doesn't support it there is usually something that needs addressing.

Prometheus · #30 Posted **Jun 7, 2012, 8:02 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlousa

As far as I can recall only one project has ever gone ahead w/o getting approval.

Was that the Vancouver Convention Centre?

Built Form · #31 Posted **Jun 7, 2012, 9:41 AM**

I hope you don't mind wrenegade. Here are my pix.

All pix by Built Form

logan5 · #32 Posted **Jun 7, 2012, 10:08 AM**

The pictures of the model really illustrate how massive this project is. I like all the roof-top green space and the rest of the landscaping. And the towers and podium aren't any different than other Vancouver examples, so I wonder why it was rejected almost unanimously by the UDP?

Thanks for the pix.

s211 · #33 Posted **Jun 7, 2012, 2:56 PM**

WOW... those podiums are just too high. Cut a few floors off and you'd have a far more elegant design.

trofirhen · #34 Posted **Jun 7, 2012, 3:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by s211

WOW... those podiums are just too high. Cut a few floors off and you'd have a far more elegant design.

Tht is so true!! Looks rather "Soviet" the way it is now.

easy as pie · #35 Posted **Jun 7, 2012, 4:48 PM**

are you guys nuts?? the podia are the only thing that keep this project even basically interesting. drop the height on those and you've got yaletown park with a stripe motif. luckily this thing is being dumped out in the middle of nowhere.

wrenegade · #36 Posted **Jun 7, 2012, 5:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Built Form

I hope you don't mind wrenegade. Here are my pix.

Don't mind at all. I'll go through mine and see if I have any other angles, otherwise that pretty much does it. I'm guessing you were there last night as well?

Also, as for the "soviet bloc" comments, it was brought up by members of the panel that the project did look somewhat like a housing project, and that the podiums were too large in relation to the tower. One panelist said the project looked liked something you might see outside of Shenzhen, and that it wasn't a compliment. They also commented on how there was too much sameness going on between towers 1 and 2, and not enough difference with the Vanness tower (which would be built as a second phase). A number of the panelists mentioned that it would have been preferable to add height to the towers in order to reduce the size and lessen the effect of the podiums, but the height has been set under the approved CD-1. The panel was in agreement that the density (5.5 FSR) is the right number for the site, but there is a lot of work to be done on how it all fits.

I honestly don't know where to start with the project. It is so large and very overwhelming. Unfortunately with the building heights essentially fixed under the zoning we won't see too much difference, apart from potentially separating the bridge/podium on towers 1 and 2, and hopefully an improvement on the mews and landscaped area. In my opinion it would have been preferable to have one or two of the towers to become a couple floors higher to spread out the density as well as vary the height of the Ormidale mid-rises, instead of having a 6 storey streetwall the entire way down.

BodomReaper · #37 Posted **Jun 7, 2012, 10:29 PM**

Some decent architectural crowns would go a long way to removing the "Shenzen" effect. So sick of flat roofs with ugly mech penthouses sticking out

dleung · #38 Posted **Jun 8, 2012, 1:40 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Built Form

This would have been less coma inducing:

ryanmaccdn · #39 Posted **Jun 8, 2012, 12:35 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by dleung

This would have been less coma inducing:

I think you mean more coma inducing on the last pic?

Anyways... glad to see the podium heights as they are. It gives the area a more urban and downtown feel. I think they can definitely keep the size and scope, butwork on some general edge smoothing, sloping to help it fit into the area.

This will be the density/look for the area going forward, its just sad that it has the previous developments near the skytrain to lack the same feel... and we are stuck with those towers for another 30 years

phesto · #40 Posted **Jun 8, 2012, 4:17 PM**

This is a rare example where I think the project might have been better off on the Burnaby side than in Vancouver given the constraints imposed by the planning staff.

Yes, substantial podiums are nice, but extending a 6-storey podium over the driveway entrance just looks plain tacky. If you're going to grant the density, don't be such sticklers on the massing. The towers shouldn't be so fixed - do extra height or even bulkier floorplates would be better.