Landmark on Robson - U/C

[Feathered Friend]

Hi all, I attended the open house last night, and it seemed like support for the project was 50 / 50. Most people were concerned about how their parking / traffic situation would be effected by the site having more parking. Others were concerned with how the demolition will happen. Lastly, there were even a few people that were offended that more dumpsters would be added for the building....
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.

The Social housing aspect will have a separate common garden amenity, a separate lobby, and even a separate trash area. This is because the city demands the social component be under their full control, and ergo fully separated.
I asked whether the proposed material will make it to the final build, or if we may see the hated seafoam claim another victim. I was told that the city has started to crack down on developers changing materials mid process, so what we see is what we should get. I also heard something similar at 1500 West Georgia's open house, so maybe that's a sign that the response was more than just PR.

There's no firm idea on whether the demolition will be an implosion or a dismantlement. A dismantling would be done by cloaking the building in scaffolding and tarps, and then they would slowly take the building apart. It was hinted that the city's policy and area conditions will force the later, which of course will take more time. The time frame is that the proposal will go to council by December, with hopes to start demolition by June.

[djh]

Thanks for your synopsis of the open house, Feathered Friend!

[dleung]

Thanks, I was tired of seeing that silly 90's render from India on the last page

[Vanville]

Empire Landmark with snowy North Shore backdrop (my photo taken Dec.6)

[ranvancan]

Why do you think Vancouver developers are so quick to plan or propose residential buildings of typical Vancouver blandiness to replace older existing buildings? These only add space to house more of the negative, nimby typical resistance of a 'taller' or more provocative sexy building with a few fancy lighting schemes that any modern or burgeoning city should have. My POV is that these people stay outta downtown and probably more importantly, stay outta Mount Pleasant and look at our beautiful mountains from the valley. This building could be renovated, modernized, lighted with proper floods or LEDs and just the 'old' outdated revolving restaurant be replaced with another modern twist, if you will and definitely add an observation deck for the rest of us to take advantage of the unusual high space we have there already.
Sheesh, take it down and make two lower residentials????? Backward, not forward thinking. Gotta keep this "Landmark" where it is. I've been to over 90 countries and the very first thing I do is head straight to the tallest towers and look at the city from the highest perspective. And Vancouver is QUICKLY falling further behind even 'little' cities that are adding height and girth.
Attached here is one of hundreds of pictures I took from Mount Pleasant side and I certainly do NOT think that a few more groundbreaking tall buildings, +300m would hurt the beautiful views, they would only enhance it.......imo.
https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t31....c5&oe=58B0AE67

[ranvancan]

[EdinVan]

Originally Posted by ranvancan

Why do you think Vancouver developers are so quick to plan or propose residential buildings of typical Vancouver blandiness to replace older existing buildings? These only add space to house more of the negative, nimby typical resistance of a 'taller' or more provocative sexy building with a few fancy lighting schemes that any modern or burgeoning city should have. My POV is that these people stay outta downtown and probably more importantly, stay outta Mount Pleasant and look at our beautiful mountains from the valley. This building could be renovated, modernized, lighted with proper floods or LEDs and just the 'old' outdated revolving restaurant be replaced with another modern twist, if you will and definitely add an observation deck for the rest of us to take advantage of the unusual high space we have there already.
Sheesh, take it down and make two lower residentials????? Backward, not forward thinking. Gotta keep this "Landmark" where it is. I've been to over 90 countries and the very first thing I do is head straight to the tallest towers and look at the city from the highest perspective. And Vancouver is QUICKLY falling further behind even 'little' cities that are adding height and girth.
Attached here is one of hundreds of pictures I took from Mount Pleasant side and I certainly do NOT think that a few more groundbreaking tall buildings, +300m would hurt the beautiful views, they would only enhance it.......imo.
https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t31....c5&oe=58B0AE67

It's very disappointing, indeed. This building and its lighting feature have been a fixture of the skyline for decades. The new towers are not only unbelievably bland, but they're out-of-place on such a prominent street and they don't appear to have any remarkable lighting features. It's very sad to see the building go.

[trofirhen]

Hey, yes, I just realized how much I like that building, how "pioneeringly tall" it was for the 70s, its lines, everything. Don't touch it. Get your sweaty hands off it, whoever developer you are

[connect2source]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Hey, yes, I just realized how much I like that building, how "pioneeringly tall" it was for the 70s, its lines, everything. Don't touch it. Get your sweaty hands off it, whoever developer you are

Can't agree more!! It was called the Sheraton Landmark for a reason, it was bold, tall, brutalist and exciting! Cloud 9 was a huge draw, never before could one dine in a revolving restaurant 42 storeys above Vancouver. I remember who exciting it was as a 10 year old!

For those of us who were kids in the 70s, this building was truly landmark and a game changer and I feel those in charge now have no appreciation for the memories some of us hold dear.

I'll be very sad to see this go, it's more than losing a bold part of our 1970's skylines, it's a testament to how developers and greed stand to demolish anything for a price.

[logan5]

Are they going to implode this thing or is it too tall for that?

[Vanville]

Sign, sign everywhere a sign. Pic by me today:

[Feathered Friend]

Slight Changes in response to the previous UDP vote.

Applicant’s Introductory Comments: The applicant team started by noting their focus on clean
lines and reformed detail in order to fit into the existing context.

• Since the previous panel the balconies have been moved and the floorplate has been made smaller. This caused a reduction in width of 10% as seen from Robson Street which results in a smaller, more slender appearing tower.
• The podium have been split into two elements with one element on the higher part of Robson Street and one on the lower part. The intent is to have them step down with the slope of Robson Street.
• A proposed setback is intended to create a public plaza.
• There is a more unified architectural expression. Material expression includes stone, concrete, charcoal metal framing and copper elements are used across the scheme.
• Reduction in the height of the podium has reduced the horizontal emphasis on the towers.
• The towers have been rotated back onto the City grid, and the podium has been significantly reduced in height to provide a more urban fit.
• In the new proposal the sawtooth element has been removed from the lane-side in favour of an expression of each housing unit to add a rhythm to the lane elevation.
• The entire setback of the façade has been increased to a 5 ft. setback.
• The public plaza is created by the surround units and has a 50 ft. opening onto Robson Street which allows for a break in the street wall.
• The openings between the plants and seating have been
  opened and made more playful.
• Everything has direct street access and sticks to the Robson Street scale.

The applicant team then took questions from the panel.

• Panel’s Consensus on Key Aspects Needing Improvement:
• The buildings are too monotonous for Robson Street – they should be less urban and could have much more ‘punch’;
• Consideration should be given to providing more differentiation between the towers;
• The units at the back are too close to the active lanes and will suffer from noise impacts;
• The play space separation is unnecessary and these spaces should either be combined or more
• distinctly separated; More should be done to improve sustainability;
• Move the planters and create a continuous canopy to improve the pedestrian realm.

Related Commentary:

• The panel started by noting that the project seems to have addressed all the previous comments, but that the tower itself could be much more exciting considering the height of it.
• Having segmented weather protection does not respect the importance of the pedestrian experience.
• Planters should be moved outside of the rain cover to allow for increased access to that cover by people
• The horizontality of the proposed project makes the façade seem as monotonous as the previous proposal was.
• The towers need to meet the ground somehow, and the response along Robson Street seems like the wrong response.
• Consideration should be given to having different materials, more articulation, and less segmentation of the canopies.
• The top of the buildings are not well resolved and the copper material is too timid.
• It also does not seem appropriate to have two identical towers on this block.
• Pay more attention to creating diversity between the towers and to strengthening the lobbies through lighting or signage.
• There is some great variety in amenity spaces, but it seems like the spaces are unsafe and more attention should be paid to crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED).
• While the art elements in the amenity space are nice, it would be better if the art were real and integrated with the landscape rather than decorative.
• There is too much rubber surfacing and more natural materials should be considered instead.
• As well, having two barely-separated play areas seems cruel, and considering that one is linked with regular housing and one with social housing this sends a terrible message.
• Either integrate the two
  play areas into one big space, or provide much better separation between them.
• Much more consideration should be given to sustainability in the buildings.
• The units at the back are not livable considering the acoustic impacts of the active lane. This needs to be fixed through better mitigation or re-orientation of these units.

So, after all that criticism, they go and vote to approve the project 4-3.
While I'm totally in favor of the increased density, the previous renderings make the project seem like a boring addition to the city. I understand the challenges of the space, but I wish they would have gone in a different style. But, maybe I'm just jaded because I'll miss the views from the Cloud 9 Restaurant.

http://vancouver.ca/your-government/...ign-panel.aspx

[osirisboy]

I'm confused with their comment about the podium. significantly reducing the height of the podium to provide a more urban fit"? Wasn't it originally only 3 floors to begin with? And how does having a 3 floor podium not provide an urban fit?

Also they wanted the towers to be narrower. Ugh. why? So smaller floor plates and and a dinky podium. Good job

[Vin]

It has to fit the "village" status of the area.

We are going to lose more and more space where the public can go relax and enjoy themselves in this city, especially places which offer great views. Ironically, one of the reasons why we are losing them is also because of the so-called "view protection": one less reason to hop over to Robson street now. I think the City is subconsciously killing off this iconic street, and eventually turning it into yet another quiet residential zone.

Why can't the City insist that the site should maintain its hotel business even with the addition of residential tower(s) with the current rezoning? They should also insist that a new tower continue to have a rotating restaurant/lounge/viewing deck as a form of donation to the public, just like how they insist on social housing and other social/art contributions, and by allowing the owners to build tall to ensure maximum sales revenue. I call this sound private-public cooperation, with the general public in mind, and not what we have now: forever at each other's throats when it comes to development proposals.

[rofina]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

I'm confused with their comment about the podium. significantly reducing the height of the podium to provide a more urban fit"? Wasn't it originally only 3 floors to begin with? And how does having a 3 floor podium not provide an urban fit?

Also they wanted the towers to be narrower. Ugh. why? So smaller floor plates and and a dinky podium. Good job

I don't understand that at all, either.

This obsession with slender towers needs to go - is it part of official city policy to drive cost per sq/ft up?

I have to hand it to the architects willing to work in the CoV. Reading those comments made me cringe.

To summarize the UDP;

"Kind of boring, kind of too similar, kind of not urban enough, but kind of too urban, maybe a bit too wide, doesn't fit in, but great fit with area, great amenity, but we don't like it, so go ahead and build it."

[rofina]

Originally Posted by Vin

It has to fit the "village" status of the area.

We are going to lose more and more space where the public can go relax and enjoy themselves in this city, especially places which offer great views. Ironically, one of the reasons why we are losing them is also because of the so-called "view protection": one less reason to hop over to Robson street now. I think the City is subconsciously killing off this iconic street, and eventually turning it into yet another quiet residential zone.

Thats because Downtown is turning into a suburb for the elite.

Its ridiculous - just like last years discussion about Granville street, does it need to remain a party corridor?

Seriously?

Why don't we just shut everything down and only have condos and starbucks on every corner, with some ultra high end retail here and there.

Congratulations Vancouver, very inclusive, very green.

This gets me riled up.

[osirisboy]

Obviously the owners have done their homework but I still can't get how this proposal makes economical sense. Maybe there are huge problems with the existing building that would need massive repair costs that we don't know about? Seems like it would make more sense to renovate existing tower and propose something on the east end of the block, where there is that sesperate 3 storey building

And for a city that is obsessed with being green I find it bizarre that they don't seem to have a problem with the waste involved in demolishing existing building.

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

Obviously the owners have done their homework but I still can't get how this proposal makes economical sense. Maybe there are huge problems with the existing building that would need massive repair costs that we don't know about? Seems like it would make more sense to renovate existing tower and propose something on the east end of the block, where there is that sesperate 3 storey building

And for a city that is obsessed with being green I find it bizarre that they don't seem to have a problem with the waste involved in demolishing existing building.

Looks like it will be top heavy and built in the 70's without thought about dampening in earthquakes. Might be seismic risk related stuff. Just a idea...

Found a quote:

“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.”

[Urbanmetro]

I love Vancouver and think it is an amazing city and has great potential to be one of the great metropolis in all the Americas. What is baffling​ me is how the city is an ostrich, and naive. Vancouver wants the perks of a metropolis but none of the negatives. City officials want the perks of keeping the city village like with none of the negative consequences.

The whole west end can and should be dense if we want to keep on a green yet economic path. Robson can't stay as it currently is, or it will destroy the fabric of the city. Paris, London, Berlin, all these cities are moving forward, not keeping to the past.

This site should have to keep a hotel element for sure, plus the resident component. This is Vancouver's high street, the fifth Avenue and the city wants to dumb the project down even more?
I hope Davie village and the rest of the peninsula get much more dense and tall. The down town will eventually outgrow the view corridors whether city officials like it or not. In twenty year..... My two cents

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by Urbanmetro

I love Vancouver and think it is an amazing city and has great potential to be one of the great metropolis in all the Americas. What is baffling​ me is how the city is an ostrich, and naive. Vancouver wants the perks of a metropolis but none of the negatives. City officials want the perks of keeping the city village like with none of the negative consequences.

The whole west end can and should be dense if we want to keep on a green yet economic path. Robson can't stay as it currently is, or it will destroy the fabric of the city. Paris, London, Berlin, all these cities are moving forward, not keeping to the past.

This site should have to keep a hotel element for sure, plus the resident component. This is Vancouver's high street, the fifth Avenue and the city wants to dumb the project down even more?
I hope Davie village and the rest of the peninsula get much more dense and tall. The down town will eventually outgrow the view corridors whether city officials like it or not. In twenty year..... My two cents

It's okay, they'll build out in Burnaby and Surrey.