Landmark on Robson - U/C

[mezzanine]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

that can always be fixed though. i think the bigger issue isnt that it is being torn down per-say, but that what is replacing it is average at best and quite a bit shorter then what is being removed.

i wont be upset if it remains as it is, but i do think there is a lot of missed potential currently.

look at the blocks of robson by jervis, or immediately west of the landmark by nicola/cardero - the buildings certainly aren't tall and spectacular, but there is a lot of animation and a wide selection of good restaurants and cafes. locals and tourists go there, and not to the cloud 9.

if the current owners do put money into it, develop the street front into new CRUs (where would they put the parking entrance?), re-open their sidewalk cafe (which has been closed for the past few years now) it would be drastically different. if the way they can do that is thru redevelopment, with improvements as per zoning (more housing, more social housing, modern seismic code) then i wouldnt miss the empire landmark. the planned development seems "downtown south" average, but i wouldn't call it ugly.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by mezzanine

i wont be upset if it remains as it is, but i do think there is a lot of missed potential currently.

look at the blocks of robson by jervis, or immediately west of the landmark by nicola/cardero - the buildings certainly aren't tall and spectacular, but there is a lot of animation and a wide selection of good restaurants and cafes. locals and tourists go there, and not to the cloud 9.

Integration with the skyline is just as important as with the street. Like it or not (the latter for me, being allergic to brutalism), the Empire is an iconic part of the Core... whereas the style of its "Vancouverism" replacement can be found anywhere in Coal Harbour or Yaletown. There's more than enough lively blocks like Nicola or Cardero, none of which will ever be remembered by name or put on a postcard.

Might as well demo Harbour Centre, being equally bland at ground level.

Originally Posted by mezzanine

if the current owners do put money into it, develop the street front into new CRUs (where would they put the parking entrance?), re-open their sidewalk cafe (which has been closed for the past few years now) it would be drastically different. if the way they can do that is thru redevelopment, with improvements as per zoning (more housing, more social housing, modern seismic code) then i wouldnt miss the empire landmark. the planned development seems "downtown south" average, but i wouldn't call it ugly.

Which was exactly what the owners initially wanted: keep the tower, add a few midrise condos to the block, regenerate the street. That got shot down because it exceeded the floorspace limit - hence the outrage.

[Vin]

Sad fact is that there are hundreds of other run down ugly short buildings in the neighbourhood that deserve to be torn down and rebuilt, so why is Empire Landmark Hotel targeted? One should look at zoning policies too.

[mezzanine]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Integration with the skyline is just as important as with the street. Like it or not (the latter for me, being allergic to brutalism), the Empire is an iconic part of the Core... whereas the style of its "Vancouverism" replacement can be found anywhere in Coal Harbour or Yaletown. There's more than enough lively blocks like Nicola or Cardero, none of which will ever be remembered by name or put on a postcard.

Might as well demo Harbour Centre, being equally bland at ground level.

I'm not sure if i would call the empire landmark iconic for vancouver, versus canada place, harbour centre, or even other hotels like the fairmont hotel vancouver, the bayshore, or even trump and shangri-la.

Harbour centre is in the CBD, IMO context and integration would have a different standard than the landmark and the residential side of the west end. i don't mind harbour centre even though it's awful on cordova, seymour and richards sts. but that being said, if the owners of harbour centre want to redevelop it to a similar calibre of other commercial buildings in the CBD, I wouldn't mind it. the exchange building is one way i can see them incorporate the old spencer's facade.

[mezzanine]

on second thought, i might be more sad about a change to harbour centre versus the landmark...

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Which was exactly what the owners initially wanted: keep the tower, add a few midrise condos to the block, regenerate the street. That got shot down because it exceeded the floorspace limit - hence the outrage.

Do you have a source for that statement? The Empire Landmarks's existing floorspace ratio is under 6, and the replacement is being built to the West End Plan permitted density of 7.7 FSR - so the new development will add about 75,000 sq ft more in total.

If it were possible to somehow add that to the existing structure, it would seem enough additional space to make a refurbishment and conversion worth considering.

It suggests other reasons for the decision to redevelop - two possibilities come to mind. The existing building's seismic status must be well below current code, and retrofitting could easily be very difficult and cost more than it's worth. And refurbished condos in a brutalist 43 year old tower probably wouldn't command the same values when marketed that the developers will no doubt be hoping to achieve with new buildings. The economics of redevelopment might well work better.

[a very long weekend]

^ yeah, but it's one of vancouver's most famous buildings. you can justify the redevelopment process, but it's not like it's just some building you're taking down. it's a true vancouver icon.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Do you have a source for that statement? The Empire Landmarks's existing floorspace ratio is under 6, and the replacement is being built to the West End Plan permitted density of 7.7 FSR - so the new development will add about 75,000 sq ft more in total.

If it were possible to somehow add that to the existing structure, it would seem enough additional space to make a refurbishment and conversion worth considering.

Feathered was at the open house:

Originally Posted by Feathered Friend

After talking to the architects, I have some info that will answer some of the unknowns. That said, it definitively won't appease anyone unhappy with the plan.
I also took pictures of the models and info boards, but will need to make time to upload them.

The proposal has a far higher FSR than the current Empire. The FSR with this proposal is maxed out under the West Side plan, even with the addition of a heritage transfer.
Obviously, had they gone with one tower they could have built taller, but as we know more height = more cost.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Feathered was at the open house:

Thanks for the reply. I saw that too, but I thought Feathered Friend was saying the same as my comment - the replacement towers have more density than the existing single tower, and have maxed out the density they can build under the new plan, under zoning.

It's not clear that the architects or developers considered anything else - but maybe they did - and we may not know why they chose to take it down, but here's a quote from a Vancouver Sun article last year.

"Heritage expert Don Luxton isn’t surprised the Landmark may be redeveloped.

“We’re watching this happen all over the city,” he said.

“The new frontier for developers is stratas and 1970s buildings. They’re buying them up all over the place and looking to tear then down, because they’re often underbuilt for their zoning potential.”

The Empire Landmark may be tall, said Luxton, but it isn’t really all that big.

“It’s actually a very slender floor plate,” said Luxton.

“It’s tall, but there’s not that much square footage. And seismically (1970s buildings) are not anywhere near what they need to be. So you look at upgrading these buildings and it costs a fortune — it’s easier to tear them down.”

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Thanks for the reply. I saw that too, but I thought Feathered Friend was saying the same as my comment - the replacement towers have more density than the existing single tower, and have maxed out the density they can build under the new plan, under zoning.

It's not clear that the architects or developers considered anything else - but maybe they did - and we may not know why they chose to take it down, but here's a quote from a Vancouver Sun article last year.

No problem - don't have any reason to dodge the question, after all.

Good point about the seismic upgrade cost-to-benefit ratio, but seeing as even places like the Balmoral are upgraded or waiting for upgrades, it's likely that the architects at least thought about keeping the tower and adding another one.

[Feathered Friend]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Feathered was at the open house:

Originally Posted by Changing City

Thanks for the reply. I saw that too, but I thought Feathered Friend was saying the same as my comment - the replacement towers have more density than the existing single tower, and have maxed out the density they can build under the new plan, under zoning.

It's not clear that the architects or developers considered anything else - but maybe they did - and we may not know why they chose to take it down, but here's a quote from a Vancouver Sun article last year.

"Heritage expert Don Luxton isn’t surprised the Landmark may be redeveloped.

“We’re watching this happen all over the city,” he said.

“The new frontier for developers is stratas and 1970s buildings. They’re buying them up all over the place and looking to tear then down, because they’re often underbuilt for their zoning potential.”

The Empire Landmark may be tall, said Luxton, but it isn’t really all that big.

“It’s actually a very slender floor plate,” said Luxton.

“It’s tall, but there’s not that much square footage. And seismically (1970s buildings) are not anywhere near what they need to be. So you look at upgrading these buildings and it costs a fortune — it’s easier to tear them down.”

Just to clear up the misunderstanding, Changing City's interpretation of my words is correct. I'm not sure if they could squeezed in any new towers next to the existing tower, as I believe the limited spacing would violate city policy, which requires 80 feet between towers. Off topic, that particular open house feels like it was ages ago... a sign of a busy year I suppose.

[Bcasey25raptor]

I posted this in the death of the 1970s of vancouver thread, I believe it also belongs here

"Vancouver seems obsessed with turning into a shithole bore of a city.

The city has fallen a lot even in just the 5 years I've lived here. I can't even begin to imagine how much it had already fallen prior to 2013.

I don't want to go and I likely won't, but my anger with this city and the current trajectory of it's housing market and destruction of everything that made this city once grand is pushing me away.

Tearing down of Landmark is the last straw for me and shows this city now literally only cares about easy money and appeasing a bunch of rich old slimy boomer property owners who oppose anything that stands in the way of their perfect little village by the sea vancouver they remember.

Sorry for the profanities but I'm sick and tired of this shit."

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by Bcasey25raptor

I posted this in the death of the 1970s of vancouver thread, I believe it also belongs here

"Vancouver seems obsessed with turning into a shithole bore of a city.

The city has fallen a lot even in just the 5 years I've lived here. I can't even begin to imagine how much it had already fallen prior to 2013.

I don't want to go and I likely won't, but my anger with this city and the current trajectory of it's housing market and destruction of everything that made this city once grand is pushing me away.

Tearing down of Landmark is the last straw for me and shows this city now literally only cares about easy money and appeasing a bunch of rich old slimy boomer property owners who oppose anything that stands in the way of their perfect little village by the sea vancouver they remember.

Sorry for the profanities but I'm sick and tired of this shit."

i would say its more offshore money then boomers. offshore money is what has created Vancouver into what it IS, the boomers created what it WAS.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by Bcasey25raptor

I posted this in the death of the 1970s of vancouver thread, I believe it also belongs here

"Vancouver seems obsessed with turning into a shithole bore of a city.

The city has fallen a lot even in just the 5 years I've lived here. I can't even begin to imagine how much it had already fallen prior to 2013.

I don't want to go and I likely won't, but my anger with this city and the current trajectory of it's housing market and destruction of everything that made this city once grand is pushing me away.

Tearing down of Landmark is the last straw for me and shows this city now literally only cares about easy money and appeasing a bunch of rich old slimy boomer property owners who oppose anything that stands in the way of their perfect little village by the sea vancouver they remember.

Sorry for the profanities but I'm sick and tired of this shit."

Things aren't that bad. Chinatown is becoming a functional neighbourhood, Main Street has emerged in the last 10 years and is even getting better as businesses are opening along the DT section of Main. Now Fraser Street is becoming a neat little area. Same with Hastings sunrise. Imo, the city is getting better.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by logan5

Things aren't that bad. Chinatown is becoming a functional neighbourhood, Main Street has emerged in the last 10 years and is even getting better as businesses are opening along the DT section of Main. Now Fraser Street is becoming a neat little area. Same with Hastings sunrise. Imo, the city is getting better.

That ignores the dead zone on much of the West Side, which is the reason Main and Fraser became more vibrant as people were pushed out in favour of empty homes and part-time occupancy.

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by logan5

Things aren't that bad. Chinatown is becoming a functional neighbourhood, Main Street has emerged in the last 10 years and is even getting better as businesses are opening along the DT section of Main. Now Fraser Street is becoming a neat little area. Same with Hastings sunrise. Imo, the city is getting better.

Not so bad? Chinatown is having is roots ripped from the ground and is being turned into a bland, redundant, gentrified nightmare.

On the other hand, agree about Main, Fraser Streets.

[Bcasey25raptor]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

Not so bad? Chinatown is having is roots ripped from the ground and is being turned into a bland, redundant, gentrified nightmare.

On the other hand, agree about Main, Fraser Streets.

Chinatown has lost it's identity which is upsetting due to just how historically important it is to our city and it's history.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by logan5

Things aren't that bad. Chinatown is becoming a functional neighbourhood, Main Street has emerged in the last 10 years and is even getting better as businesses are opening along the DT section of Main. Now Fraser Street is becoming a neat little area. Same with Hastings sunrise. Imo, the city is getting better.

I don't quite agree with you. Seeing how other cities are improving, we are certainly not getting any better. In fact, Main street and West Broadway are deteriorating with hardly any new developments. Definitely way under par with our potential to become a really great city.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

Not so bad? Chinatown is having is roots ripped from the ground and is being turned into a bland, redundant, gentrified nightmare.

Originally Posted by Bcasey25raptor

Chinatown has lost it's identity which is upsetting due to just how historically important it is to our city and it's history.

Its "roots" have been missing since the turn of the century - especially now that the Night Market is virtually dead.

Before gentrification, its "identity" was run-down apartments and grocery stores, dubious pawn shops and a couple of good restaurants; now it's somewhat cleaned up and frequented by people all over the city. Bad for the residents, sure, but good for everybody else.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Vin

I don't quite agree with you. Seeing how other cities are improving, we are certainly not getting any better. In fact, Main street and West Broadway are deteriorating with hardly any new developments. Definitely way under par with our potential to become a really great city.

Little to no new developments on Main or Broadway? Sure could have fooled me. One could easily argue that there's plenty of development.