The Exchange | 115.7m | 31fl, 13fl | 400,000sqft. | Completed

[jlousa]

The project was/is the least feasible of the bunch currently proposed and that won't change with or without the changes proposed. The developer submitted the proposal knowing this very issue would be brought up and will now play negotiations with the city. The developer has seemed sincere in wanting to proceed and we'll have to see how this plays out. The city is allowing a high FSR which is well above what would be normally allowed so it's not like they aren't encouraging office space.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Back on point:

There is no hyperbole in pointing out that the conclusions of this report stand in direct contradiction to city policy.

That policy, which the report fully acknowledges, states:

a) That maintaining the integrity of the CBD is fundamental to the future economic competitiveness of Vancouver;

b) That job space in the CBD should be maximized at every opportunity;

c) That residential development is subordinate to commercial development in the CBD; and

d) That the guidelines regarding tower separation outside the CBD do not appy within the CBD.

Without any compelling reasons or precedent, the report recommends that the city set aside every single point of its own policy. Where a residential project should be subordinate to a commercial project, the report recommends the reverse; where job space should be maximized, the report recommends its curtailment.

The report's conclusions are clearly illogical and incongruous with established, sound policy.

If anyone has anything substantive to say on the issue, as opposed to hurling false charges of hyperbole, then by all means do so.

This being the case, then should not the city allow for a 600-ft building, the design of which, and prominence of which, should thus make it a real landmark building?

Additionally, does this property fall into the area rezoned allowing 600 feet? According to the above citations, the building developers have a right to build fully within these criteria.

Difficult, of course, to imagine what to build there, but just as a hypoethetical example - if there were a building soemthing like the Wall Centre, (using as an ecample its oval floorplate), hopefully suitable to a site like that of the possible Credit Suisse tower ........ (for spatial purposes)...

................. anyway if you took a building with a narrow oval floorplate like Wall Centre, turned it diagonally to give the Jamieson House residents their view, then added the height up to 600 feet, keeping of course the corner side of the building containg the stock exhange building integrated, then, above that, maybe going into a tall oval or curved or as-you-like-it 600 footer ... a real landmark building .... couldn't it be lobbied for?

[Hourglass]

Trofirhen, as a suggestion you might want to actually click on the link posted by smho and READ the document. You may find the answers to your questions there, such as the fact that the development site is restricted by a view cone, and that the existing design actually extends into the view cone by some 22.6 meters. It might also assuage some of your outrage about the outrageous/maddening/unreal injustice city hall is perpetrating on the poor developer.

I agree with jlousa on this one. There needs to be some give and take. According to the document, it seems staff actually worked with the developer to try to find a solution, so it's not as if this is being all one-sided.

At the worst case, if there were no attempts by city hall to alleviate the concerns of Jameson House residents, I could see the residents taking legal action, which would tie-up the development in litigation for years.

[EastVanMark]

I wish some of you could experience what its like when the COV "works" with you on a project. They are as about as flexible as Joesph Stalin. Their attempts to "find a solution" translates to them dictating terms to the development leaving little if any other realistic options or alternatives.

[Hed Kandi]

Originally Posted by smho

After a long while, there's finally a policy report that will be going to council regarding the rezoning application that includes a recommendation to turn the northwest corner into a diagonal to improve the livability of some units in Jameson House.
http://former.vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/...cuments/p2.pdf

Thanks for the info!

Personally I feel that the entire tower is in need of a complete redesign because as it stands right now it's quite unsightly. I'd like to see something for this location designed by Cesar Pelli & co.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Hourglass

Trofirhen, as a suggestion you might want to actually click on the link posted by smho and READ the document. You may find the answers to your questions there, such as the fact that the development site is restricted by a view cone, and that the existing design actually extends into the view cone by some 22.6 meters. It might also assuage some of your outrage about the outrageous/maddening/unreal injustice city hall is perpetrating on the poor developer.

I agree with jlousa on this one. There needs to be some give and take. According to the document, it seems staff actually worked with the developer to try to find a solution, so it's not as if this is being all one-sided.

At the worst case, if there were no attempts by city hall to alleviate the concerns of Jameson House residents, I could see the residents taking legal action, which would tie-up the development in litigation for years.

Excuse me. I was mistaken, and yes, the needs of Jameson House residents do need to be respected.

That said, I simply hope that a project can and will go ahead that will be an interesting and pleasing addition to the CBD.

[dreambrother808]

I find it interesting that some people quickly discredit Jlousa's observations. He has actual experience in these matters while they tend to have only conjectured opinion and yet they are so unwilling to soften their stance, built upon much shakier ground.

[mr.x]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Excuse me. I was mistaken, and yes, the needs of Jameson House residents do need to be respected.

That said, I simply hope that a project can and will go ahead that will be an interesting and pleasing addition to the CBD.

With all due respect, as a casual reader these days making observations, sometimes I'm not exactly sure how you contribute to conversations here in this forum. You ask a lot more questions than you contribute, and when you do contribute you either paraphrase/regurgitate what was said directly above or you are corrected by someone else. It's also astonishing that you're making such critical critique on a city you haven't set foot in...in how long now?

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Hed Kandi

Thanks for the info!

Personally I feel that the entire tower is in need of a complete redesign because as it stands right now it's quite unsightly. I'd like to see something for this location designed by Cesar Pelli & co.

Hmm, yes Cesar Pelli. Perhaps something like this work of his?
http://pricetags.files.wordpress.com...on06.jpg?w=600

[queetz@home]

Originally Posted by mr.x

With all due respect, as a casual reader these days making observations, sometimes I'm not exactly sure how you contribute to conversations here in this forum. You ask a lot more questions than you contribute, and when you do contribute you either paraphrase/regurgitate what was said directly above or you are corrected by someone else. It's also astonishing that you're making such critical critique on a city you haven't set foot in...in how long now?

What does this have to do with the Credit Suisse Tower? If you have an issue with him, PM him. The mods already saw his posts so if they see that action is required, they would have done it by now.

NOW BACK ON TOPIC...

I personally don't see why the "needs" of the Jaimeson residents need to be respected. They chose to buy units facing a low rise, non-heritage site, that can easily be redeveloped. As mentioned before, if you are afraid of loosing your view, always buy a unit facing the street or a building (i.e. heritage) that you know will never be redeveloped under any circumstances.

What is happening here is simply NIMBYism at its finest, and the ongoing self entitlement culture that has been plaguing our society. I for one side with Credit Suisse and their desire to maximize the space that they have. They shouldn't bend over for a few snobby b*tches (referring specifically to that woman mentioned in the Globe and Mail article). Its wrong, and total BS, and the fact that the city of Vancouver is putting up with this shows that the legacy of NPA's "Living First" attitude is still alive and well amongst its ridiculously overpaid staff!

At the end of the day though, all this whining, and "observing", whether its from ourselves or jlousa, is all academic. For come May 2013, the biggest deciding factor will determine whether this project will push through, regardless of what form it may become.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by mr.x

With all due respect, as a casual reader these days making observations, sometimes I'm not exactly sure how you contribute to conversations here in this forum. You ask a lot more questions than you contribute, and when you do contribute you either paraphrase/regurgitate what was said directly above or you are corrected by someone else. It's also astonishing that you're making such critical critique on a city you haven't set foot in...in how long now?

Feedback well taken. Living "abstracted" thousands of miles away lends a certain "disjointedness" to my perceptions of all this. I'll try and read more carefully and not enter posts so impulsively. Read more, write less.

[Hed Kandi]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Hmm, yes Cesar Pelli. Perhaps something like this work of his?
http://pricetags.files.wordpress.com...on06.jpg?w=600

Not quite what I had in mind. I was thinking something more along these lines:

[Hourglass]

Originally Posted by Hed Kandi

Not quite what I had in mind. I was thinking something more along these lines:

A bit too short for Vancouver... Plus, would never pass UDP because the skybridge linking the two towers casts too much of a shadow on the streetscape...

@Queetz, I don't disagree, but thinking practically, it doesn't help anyone -- least of all the developer -- if residents try to take legal action to stop this all because there was no attempt at a compromise

[queetz@home]

Originally Posted by Hourglass

@Queetz, I don't disagree, but thinking practically, it doesn't help anyone -- least of all the developer -- if residents try to take legal action to stop this all because there was no attempt at a compromise

Just curious but what possible legal action can those SOBs take?

Is the developer of Jaimeson the same as the owner of the site where the CS tower would be?

Is the developer of the CS Tower related to the developer of the Jaimeson, or the one that marketted the Jaimeson?

Did the developer of the Jaimeson buy the "air rights" of the site where CS Tower were to rise?

I just don't get it! So perhaps it is my ignorance, but what legal recourse can those snobby residents in Jaimeson can possbly ramble against the development of the CS Tower?

It was always assumed that when you buy a condo anywhere in downtown Vancouver (or anywhere else in the world), you have no control over the properties that surround it. There are ways around that, but extra action must be taken. For example, Donald Trump bought the "air rights" of an adjacent building so his views from his Trump Tower will never ever be blocked.

So please explain this to me, because from what I can see, there is only one issue here...the City of Vancouver seem to prioritize the desires of those wealthy people who choose to live in the CBD than those of entities that would want to develop business spaces that provide opportunities to work and do business in the....CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT. Its so wrong, counter intuitive, and just doesn't make any sense.

[osirisboy]

I agree with you I dont really get this whole agruement that the residents could sue and have a lengthy legal battle so to avoid that the city has to compromise and try to appease them. maybe Im missing something but what grounds do they have for a lawsuit?

I understand how it could be upsetting but we all know that the possibilty of loosing your view exists if you face towards a property which is clearly underutilized

[Hourglass]

Umm, guys, you don't need a good legal basis to begin litigation. You need deep pockets and a good lawyer. Often, in civil cases the party with the deepest pockets wins.

[osirisboy]

lol it doesnt matter how much money you have, if you dont have a valid legal basis its not going to go that far

*edit ok yes deep pockets is always good to have lol

[easy as pie]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Hmm, yes Cesar Pelli. Perhaps something like this work of his?
http://pricetags.files.wordpress.com...on06.jpg?w=600

i think he meant something like this: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=199946

[Hed Kandi]

Originally Posted by easy as pie

i think he meant something like this: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=199946

That too.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by easy as pie

i think he meant something like this: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=199946

Now we're talkin'