Downtown Vancouver Updates - Page 437

Jimbo604 · #**8721** Posted: **Apr 24, 2012, 3:43 PM**

Photo credit: me

Pic 1: Normally SSP'ers aren't big fans of parking lots, especially surface level ones. I would say, however, that this new one at the NE corner of Hastings St & Abbott St is an improvement over the previous state of the property. It was a fenced in, lifeless corner with absolutely zero activity. The empty lot is the scourge of the city., imho. The parking lot is full and landscaping makes it look better.

Pic 2: Hopefully this one storey brick building directly east of the parking lot can be incorporated into any future development of the parking lot. This will save the property from being orphaned between the new development and the taller building on its other side (which I think is a heritage listed building).

webster · #**8722** Posted: **Apr 24, 2012, 3:46 PM**

that's paris block to the east - a heritage loft conversion/strata...

jlousa · #**8723** Posted: **Apr 24, 2012, 4:17 PM**

Council didn't have any say one the matter (Sequel/138 E Hastings), it's not a rezoning so it wouldn't go to council. The DPB couldn't stop it either as it's within compliance.

Agree on the parking lot, it looks great. I'm indifferent about if the parking lot and the one storey building should be combined. It could lead to a more efficient building as one, but they are both large enough parcels to be made to work on their owns and could lead to a better built environment seperately.

Sinclair Centre looks so much better know that the fall protection rigging has been removed, there is only a small section left and it'll be gone by the end of the week. Also looks like demo in the old Morton's space is complete and they were loading in new steel studs this morning. Must have a tenant if they are begining buildout.

red-paladin · #**8724** Posted: **Apr 24, 2012, 4:42 PM**

I'm more concerned about the big empty rubble lots on west Hastings and Abbot than I am for any other empty lots in the city.

Metro-One · #**8725** Posted: **Apr 24, 2012, 4:55 PM**

You have to love those who wish to keep the downtown east-side a cesspool.

Sorry, but you don't own that area of the city, and why do they feel they have the right to it above everyone else?

Sorry, open drug trade? Should not be allowed, their is no excuse to how dirty and dangerous the DTES is. The "community" there has been given several decades to prove to the city that they could clean up their own act, you know what, that has not happened.

Of course i would love to see more mental health facilities opened to properly take care of those who can't take care of themselves.

logan5 · #**8726** Posted: **Apr 25, 2012, 12:18 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlousa

Council didn't have any say one the matter (Sequel/138 E Hastings), it's not a rezoning so it wouldn't go to council. The DPB couldn't stop it either as it's within compliance.

Why did the DPB vote on it?

dleung · #**8727** Posted: **Apr 25, 2012, 1:42 AM**

I oppose Sequel 138 only because of its silly faux-small-scale facade.

SFUVancouver · #**8728** Posted: **Apr 25, 2012, 2:07 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by logan5

Why did the DPB vote on it?

The project did not require a rezoning. What was proposed complied with the existing zoning so all it needed was a development permit.

Rezonings go to Council.
Development permits go the Development Permit Board (DPB).

Quote:

Originally Posted by dleung

I oppose Sequel 138 only because of its silly faux-small-scale facade.

The original design did not receive the support of the Urban Design Panel (UDP). The revised design, which looks very similar to the aestheics of several supportive housing projects, received UDP support was approved by the DPB.

ORIGINAL

Source: http://www.jefffitzpatrick.com/Blog.php/sequel-138

APPROVED

Source: http://changingcitybook.com/2012/03/...stings-street/

Porfiry · #**8729** Posted: **Apr 25, 2012, 2:16 AM**

Wow, the original is so much better.

cc85 · #**8730** Posted: **Apr 25, 2012, 2:26 AM**

It appears that the DPB doesn't know good design when it sees it.

Darren Tate · #**8731** Posted: **Apr 25, 2012, 3:40 AM**

Yeah the original was much better. The approved design looks like some medical building from the '60s, and not in a good way. Interesting how they want all supportive housing to share a similar aesthetic. Why is that? God forbid anyone should mistake these buildings for "normal" housing.

mezzanine · #**8732** Posted: **Apr 25, 2012, 3:44 AM**

Wow, the original is a whole lot better...

Metro-One · #**8733** Posted: **Apr 25, 2012, 3:46 AM**

The original was 10 time better! And it matched the local aesthetics very well, what the hell happened here?

NewfBC · #**8734** Posted: **Apr 25, 2012, 4:20 AM**

That's a shame to allow something like that to be built in that space.

Ron.

dleung · #**8735** Posted: **Apr 25, 2012, 4:32 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Porfiry

Wow, the original is so much better.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darren Tate

Yeah the original was much better.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mezzanine

Wow, the original is a whole lot better...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metro-One

The original was 10 time better! And it matched the local aesthetics very well, what the hell happened here?

That conversation didn't go the way I expected...

Yeah I mixed up the old and new proposals. Both are horrible.

hollywoodnorth · #**8736** Posted: **Apr 25, 2012, 4:39 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by dleung

That conversation didn't go the way I expected...

Yeah I mixed up the old and new proposals. Both are horrible.

lets see a few examples of what you would propose there style and density wise then?

I too liked the 1st one very much the current looks like the "#14 social housing sites"

logan5 · #**8737** Posted: **Apr 25, 2012, 4:57 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by dleung

That conversation didn't go the way I expected...

Yeah I mixed up the old and new proposals. Both are horrible.

The original looks alright, but it's hard to make out what kind of materials the facade is made from. Is it brick?

officedweller · #**8738** Posted: **Apr 25, 2012, 7:30 AM**

The taller tower at 888 Beach has scaffolding and blue mesh up the full height on the south side.

The Crestmark in the Roundhouse neighbourhood also has scaffolding going up on it as well.

wrenegade · #**8739** Posted: **Apr 25, 2012, 3:21 PM**

Add me to the list of those who prefer the original design for Sequel 138

s211 · #**8740** Posted: **Apr 25, 2012, 4:46 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by officedweller

The taller tower at 888 Beach has scaffolding and blue mesh up the full height on the south side.

They have a multi-year, multi-million dollar project going on for more than a year, and at least two more to go, to address water ingress and sealed unit replacement.

If you own or are thinking of buying there, be prepared for hefty special assessments. On the plus side, if you're a buyer, the place has now got a stigma (were in denial and dragged their ass on accepting the amount of work to be done) and you can get something there for relatively cheap.