424 & 454 West Pender St. | 32.2m x 2 | 11fl x 2 | U/C

[christmas]

I think this deserves its own thread.

424 W. Pender

72 units of secured market rental housing;
commercial space on the ground floor;
floor space ratio (FSR) of 8.14;
4 car-share, 1 disability and 1 standard parking space;
90 bicycle parking spaces; and
a building height of 32.2 m (105 ft.)

454 W. Pender

68 units of secured market rental housing;
commercial space on the ground floor;
floor space ratio (FSR) of 8.56;
4 car-share parking spaces;
86 bicycle parking spaces; and
a building height of 32.2 m (105 ft.)

All information retrieved from the two links below.
http://former.vancouver.ca/commsvcs/...nder/index.htm

http://former.vancouver.ca/commsvcs/...nder/index.htm


424 W. Pender - New renderings - from the revised application (July 8th)

http://former.vancouver.ca/commsvcs/...Renderings.pdf

454 W. Pender - New renderings - from revised application (July 8th)

http://former.vancouver.ca/commsvcs/...Renderings.pdf

[retro_orange]

Nice, thanks! I like the changes they made to 454 too, now they look a bit different and the massing fits in well with the neighborhood.

[christmas]

At the October 18, 2016 Regular Council Meeting, Council referred this application to Public Hearing

[IMG] [/IMG]

[BobLoblawsLawBlog]

I wish it did a better job of blending in to the older architecture. It's not impossible to get it done right, right?

[christmas]

This application has been approved by Council at Public Hearing on November 15, 2016

http://rezoning.vancouver.ca/applica...nder/index.htm

[BodomReaper]

Originally Posted by BobLoblawsLawBlog

I wish it did a better job of blending in to the older architecture. It's not impossible to get it done right, right?

100% disagree. That's how we get the Chinatown garbage of having "multiple facades", usually with boring plain brick. Also see the St. Lawrence district of Toronto filled with hideous 90s condos that were forced to look old-timey. You can *always* tell when a building is an imitation, and it always looks worse than the original.

I much prefer London's approach of blending hyper-modern architecture with old buildings. Makes for a much more authentic, stimulating streetscape - not a wannabe Disneyworld.

[a very long weekend]

what a great pair of projects. it takes down one of vancouver's worst eyesores, that corner parking lot, and rental housing downtown is desperately needed, 100 more buildings like this could go up and it would hardly make a dent in rents. one quibble is that these are much shorter than one might have liked, adding only 140 units in a locale that could absorb a dozen times that. but still, on balance, it's a great project for that corner.

congratulations!

[osirisboy]

Originally Posted by BodomReaper

100% disagree. That's how we get the Chinatown garbage of having "multiple facades", usually with boring plain brick. Also see the St. Lawrence district of Toronto filled with hideous 90s condos that were forced to look old-timey. You can *always* tell when a building is an imitation, and it always looks worse than the original.

I much prefer London's approach of blending hyper-modern architecture with old buildings. Makes for a much more authentic, stimulating streetscape - not a wannabe Disneyworld.

Totally disagree!! You can actually build new that looks like it's old. It doesn't have to look fake or gimmicky. There was a thread a while back I think in the canada section showing great examples of this (can't find it).

[BobLoblawsLawBlog]

Originally Posted by BodomReaper

100% disagree. That's how we get the Chinatown garbage of having "multiple facades", usually with boring plain brick. Also see the St. Lawrence district of Toronto filled with hideous 90s condos that were forced to look old-timey. You can *always* tell when a building is an imitation, and it always looks worse than the original.

I much prefer London's approach of blending hyper-modern architecture with old buildings. Makes for a much more authentic, stimulating streetscape - not a wannabe Disneyworld.

Well Prince Charles says otherwise.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0iriNIKeBLY

Look at his town Poundbury. Although it doesn't look 100% authentic but it does look quite nice.




And by the way, we've been doing Faux-Historisism for hundred of years. There's a reason it's called the Renaissance.

[BodomReaper]

So you wish that The Exchange would have been forced to look like the Old Stock Exchange building, instead of giving us the beautiful contrast we have now?

I'm referring to what we can expect from ordinary Canadian condo developments.

It's tragic that a large neighborhood in Toronto is forced to look like this:



And don't forget the multiple faux-facade requirements in Vancouver. Wow, I thought these were 3 separate buildings! Those clever city planners.


Source

[BobLoblawsLawBlog]

I'm not saying it should look like that. Look at the pictures I showed you.

[christmas]

If you're gonna use an instance of Toronto's developments, why not show the good ones as well?
Cause this is precisely what I wish to see in Vancouver

383 Sorauren Ave Toronto








51 Camden Street





PJ Condos currently under construction

[logan5]

Originally Posted by BodomReaper

So you wish that The Exchange would have been forced to look like the Old Stock Exchange building, instead of giving us the beautiful contrast we have now?

I'm referring to what we can expect from ordinary Canadian condo developments.

It's tragic that a large neighborhood in Toronto is forced to look like this:



And don't forget the multiple faux-facade requirements in Vancouver. Wow, I thought these were 3 separate buildings! Those clever city planners.


Source

The "multiple facade" gives the building "contrast". It's ok if the Exchange Building does it, but not any others? It sounds like flimsy shot attempt at the CoV.

When you have large frontages, I believe strongly in breaking up the massing, otherwise you're left with a huge blank wall, as seen in the Toronto example you provided.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by logan5

The "multiple facade" gives the building "contrast". It's ok if the Exchange Building does it, but not any others? It sounds like flimsy shot attempt at the CoV.

When you have large frontages, I believe strongly in breaking up the massing, otherwise you're left with a huge blank wall, as seen in the Toronto example you provided.

I think by having limited imagination, CoV planners think that all large facades would "look like a blank wall", and therefore need to be broken up, resulting in the ugly buildings we have here. The upcoming 8X tower on Helmcken and Richards is an example.

Large facades do not have to look featureless. Examples provided by Christmas, etc, show just that.

[mcminsen]

Excavation has started now at the corner of West Pender and Richards.




March 9 '20, my pics

[mcminsen]

source: https://vancouver.skyrisecities.com/...4-454-w-pender

[officedweller]

It'll be interesting to see how that one turns out, as it's trying to mimic the heritage building on the far corner of the same block.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by officedweller

It'll be interesting to see how that one turns out, as it's trying to mimic the heritage building on the far corner of the same block.

I agree it's trying to match the massing of the office building. It's actually a higher density - over 8 FSR. The style however seems to me to be much more contemporary, which I appreciate given the context of several surrounding heritage buildings including the restored SRO hotel across the lane to the south (which is 'only' 5 FSR). I prefer modern buildings to look the part, and I think this one could look really good.

[officedweller]

Yeah, I was thinking of the massing and the cornice lines, which match up well.
I think it's good that they are not side-by-side, as that would probably be too "matchy-matchy", even with the modern windows, etc.

[fredinno]

Why couldn't they get higher building heights here? I'm pretty sure it's not part of Gastown...