HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     
Welcome to the SkyscraperPage Forum

Since 1999, the SkyscraperPage Forum has been one of the most active skyscraper enthusiast communities on the web. The global membership discusses development news and construction activity on projects from around the world, alongside discussions on urban design, architecture, transportation and many other topics. Welcome!

You are currently browsing as a guest. Register with the SkyscraperPage Forum and join this growing community of skyscraper enthusiasts. Registering has benefits such as fewer ads, the ability to post messages, private messaging and more.

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > SSP: Local Vancouver > Downtown & City of Vancouver

    Maddox in the SkyscraperPage Database

Building Data Page   • Comparison Diagram   • Vancouver Skyscraper Diagram
            
View Full Map

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Jan 24, 2011, 2:19 AM
jlousa's Avatar
jlousa jlousa is offline
Ferris Wheel Hater
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 7,397
Maddox | 98M | 32flrs | Completed

This one was previously approved and then delays and turned into a community park for the time being. Cressey is expected to progress with it shortly.

UDP minutes
Quote:
2. 1304 Howe Street
DE: Rezoning Inquiry
Use: To rezone from DD to CD-1, to permit a residential tower with height of 300 feet (30 storeys) above a commercial/residential podium. Total FSR would be increased from 5.0 to 7.0 through transfer of heritage density. Important context is the study which is in progress for the removal of the Granville Loops and redevelopment of City-owned lands (proposed in 2002 Downtown Transportation Plan).
Zoning: DD
Application Status: Rezoning
Architect: IBI Group – HB Architects
Review: Second (First Review: May 9, 2007)
Delegation: Martin Bruckner (IBI/HB Architects), Drahan Petrovic (IBI/HB Architects), Jane Durante (Durante & Kruek), David Evans (Cressey)
Staff: Phil Mondor/Anita Molaro

EVALUATION: SUPPORT (6-0)

Introduction: Phil Mondor, Rezoning Planner, introduced the application for a site in the new area that is being developed in the Granville loops area which is at the north end of the Granville Street Bridge. The area is being rezoned from DD to CD-1.

Richard Johnson, Planner, gave a short presentation on the Granville Loops study area. He noted that the area is located in Area C of the Downtown Official Development Plan (ODP) but was not included in the ODP. The main objective is to provide an improved roadway connection and “gateway” to Vancouver.

Anita Molaro, Development Planner, using the context model, described the future development for the area. She noted that the proposal had not been supported at the previous Panel in May 2007. The Panel was concerned with the distribution of the mass and thought it should be more slender. Also the Panel had concerns with the parking access and public realm interface. In response the applicant has added some additional height to the building and reduced the floor plates. As well the applicant has sculpted and shaped the building for a more slender expression and has also relocated the parking and loading access. The podium set back has been increased by three feet for a total of nine feet and a continuous glass canopy has been added. The retail has been wrapped around the corner and the outdoor amenity space has been moved to the roof of the smaller building at Drake Street.

Advice from the Panel on this rezoning application is sought on the following:
Does the Panel support the urban design response developed for this site and its relationship within the surrounding context taking into consideration:

* Siting;
* overall form of development including tower form/massing/height and proposed density (7.0 FSR);
* public realm interface/street wall/scale and articulation:
* Howe/Drake/Rolston
* Site access; and
* Landscape.

Mr. Mondor, Mr. Johnson and Ms. Molaro took questions from the Panel.

Applicant’s Introductory Comments: Martin Bruckner, Architect, further described the proposal. He noted that the tower location was planned to have the minimum eighty foot separation from any future development on the adjoining site. In reshaping the tower, the applicant has increased the separation of the tower from the Best Western Hotel. Mr. Bruckner noted there is only one place that the parking ramp can be located on the site.

Drahan Petrovic, Architect, described the response to the different orientations. He noted that on the south-east façade two feet wide overhangs and balconies are planned and on the south-west façade there will be five feet wide overhands which will be either balconies or sun-shades.

Jane Durante, Landscape Architect, described the landscape plans noting the changes to the outdoor amenity space on the roof of the smaller building.

The applicant team took questions from the Panel.

Panel’s Consensus on Key Aspects Needing Improvement:

* Provide more active uses on Howe street, consider expanding the retail space and moving the fitness centre to another level;
* Consider design development to the parking access to reduce conflicts with pedestrians both crossing the plaza and entering the building; and
* Consider on-street loading to allow for parking access off Rolston.

Related Commentary: The Panel unanimously supported the proposal and commended the applicant on the significant improvements to the project, but continue to have significant concerns about the proposed ground floor uses

The Panel agreed that the tower siting was where it should be on the site, and the overall massing of the tower worked. Several Panel members thought the Granville Street facade was the most improved. However, several Panel members thought there still needed to be some design development to the project.

The Panel still had an issue with the public realm interface on Howe Street, and thought the fitness centre was not a good use on the ground floor as it did not animate the street. They thought the applicant was giving up a whole block with the design and that Howe Street could support retail or other active uses given the planned future residential in the neighbourhood. The panel had concerns, that the planned amenity space and parking ramp would create dead space along Howe Street.

Several Panel members thought the public realm interface at Rolston Street was well done and felt like a little residential community. The Panel agreed that shifting the exterior amenity space to the roof of the smaller building was a good move as it improves daylight access.

The Panel was concerned with the location of the loading bay with several Panel members suggesting the loading and parking ramps should be consolidated. One Panel member thought the parking access point was better suited off Rolston Street and thought the residents would get use to the one-way street. Most of the Panel supported not having an internal loading bay. One Panel member noted that the loading spaces would not work for the residential occupants and there would be a problem getting in and out of the elevators as the area is too constrained. Also moving and delivery trucks need to be nearer the elevators.

Some of the Panel had concerns with the entry plaza and thought the applicant needed to rethink the circulation in terms of how pedestrians and vehicles will access the site. Also the Panel thought the applicant needed to look at the buildings that will be developed to the south and how the plaza will be a natural pedestrian route to Pacific Boulevard, and this should not be compromised by the parking access

One Panel member thought the terracotta tiles should come down to the ground more but thought it looked nice at the entrance area. The Panel thought the canopy design was a huge improvement in forming a base for the building.

Several Panel members commented on the sustainability initiatives and thought the applicant had done a good job.

Applicant’s Response: Mr. Bruckner thanked the Panel stating that he appreciated their comments and that he had an idea as to how he would change the parking access.
Council report
http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/...cuments/p2.pdf
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Jan 24, 2011, 3:16 AM
jlousa's Avatar
jlousa jlousa is offline
Ferris Wheel Hater
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 7,397
A couple of renders can be found within the public art proposal.

http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/civicag...20110110ag.pdf
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Jan 24, 2011, 4:05 AM
SpikePhanta SpikePhanta is offline
Vancouverite
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,482
Hmm I'm liking the fact that it will include retail.

Also those are quite a few towers on the loops...



ehhh wrong thread... confusing
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Mar 7, 2011, 4:23 AM
golog golog is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 356
Can someone edit the thread title to include the name 'Maddox' since that's probably how most people will refer to it now that it has been named on the hoarding & website?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Mar 10, 2011, 5:15 AM
jlousa's Avatar
jlousa jlousa is offline
Ferris Wheel Hater
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 7,397
Looks like they've changed the address on this guy. New address will be 738 Rolston Crescent. Nothing really new in these, but figured there's no such thing as too much info.

Notification letter
http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/develop...nt/notiltr.pdf

Site Plan
http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/develop...ent/sitepl.pdf

N+E Elevations
http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/develop...elevations.pdf

S+W Elevations
http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/develop...elevations.pdf

Landscape Plan
http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/develop...ent/lscape.pdf
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Mar 11, 2011, 5:03 AM
SFUVancouver's Avatar
SFUVancouver SFUVancouver is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 4,334
This passed the UDP last night. I was there for this one.

The coloured elements on the tower are terra cotta panels of the same type as the ones used on Bob Rennie's East development in Chinatown. The UDP was emphatic that the design of the tower was resting heavily on the proposed pattern and use of the terra cotta panels. There was also quite a bit of concern expressed about the viability of the small retail space at the corner of Howe and Drake. The UDP liked the change to all townhouses on Rolston instead of half townhouses and half loading dock. The vehicle cul de sac is temporary until the loops are removed and the future street takes its place.
__________________
VANCOUVER | Beautiful, Multicultural | Canada's Pacific Metropolis
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Mar 11, 2011, 12:17 PM
navazan navazan is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 94
joy of joys, another standard issue 30 floor rectangle! reach for the sky, vancouver...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Mar 11, 2011, 5:37 PM
trofirhen's Avatar
trofirhen trofirhen is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 4,639
Quote:
Originally Posted by navazan View Post
joy of joys, another standard issue 30 floor rectangle! reach for the sky, vancouver...

Precisely !! This is becoming a weird, obsessive, city syndrome. Do the View Corridors contribute to it? Seriously. / p.s: just looked at the renders. How original can we get !?!?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Mar 11, 2011, 5:44 PM
dreambrother808 dreambrother808 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,742
We don't need a millionth post from you stating the exact same thing over and over again, Trofirhen.

This forum feels like it's stagnating with negative trolls.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Mar 11, 2011, 5:48 PM
Jebby's Avatar
Jebby Jebby is offline
Κύριε ἐλέησοv
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Mexico City/Bogota
Posts: 1,457
Quote:
Originally Posted by dreambrother808 View Post
We don't need a millionth post from you stating the exact same thing over and over again, Trofirhen.
How else is he going to increase his post count?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Mar 11, 2011, 6:16 PM
Phil McAvity's Avatar
Phil McAvity Phil McAvity is offline
I put the F-U in FUN
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,878
I can't imagine why they would name a building in Vancouver after this guy.
__________________
"Guys ain't dumb"-Money for Nothing by Dire Straits.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Mar 11, 2011, 8:32 PM
trofirhen's Avatar
trofirhen trofirhen is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 4,639
Quote:
Originally Posted by dreambrother808 View Post
We don't need a millionth post from you stating the exact same thing over and over again, Trofirhen.

This forum feels like it's stagnating with negative trolls.
Quote:
Originally Posted by galeforcewinds View Post
How else is he going to increase his post count?

Excuse me. Perhaps I do repeat myself - or reinforce my opinions by quoting others - too much. Nevertheless, there are threads where members post with an even higher frequency when something interests them.

There's that old thing called "freedom of expression," and if my posts bother you, then I am sorry, but the best solution is just to skip them.

Also, I am not trying to increase my post count. There are no "Popsicle Pete" awards here. And sarcastic little jabs only indicate a lack of manners and a thin skin. Thank you.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Mar 11, 2011, 8:38 PM
LeftCoaster's Avatar
LeftCoaster LeftCoaster is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Toronto
Posts: 7,178
I don't know why people have a problem with the height here... its just a mid sized residential building on a small plot of land in a nondescript part of the city. Not every building should be shooting for 500+ feet.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil McAvity View Post
I can't imagine why they would name a building in Vancouver after this guy.
I can't imagine why you wouldn't.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Mar 11, 2011, 10:54 PM
Built Form Built Form is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 683















All pics by Built Form

I not feelin' the terra cotta colours but I do like the shorter building on Drake.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Mar 11, 2011, 11:18 PM
Prometheus's Avatar
Prometheus Prometheus is offline
Reason and Freedom
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Toronto/Vancouver
Posts: 2,320
Thank you for your photographs. Not just these ones, but all the others as well.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Mar 11, 2011, 11:42 PM
logan5's Avatar
logan5 logan5 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Mt.Pleasant
Posts: 2,058
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeftCoaster View Post
I don't know why people have a problem with the height here... its just a mid sized residential building on a small plot of land in a nondescript part of the city. Not every building should be shooting for 500+ feet.
Don't economies of scale work in favor of taller buildings?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted Mar 11, 2011, 11:51 PM
officedweller officedweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 17,683
Nice, thanks for posting.

The colour palette reminds me of Harbour Green 1, as well as Grace and Genesis.

The mechanical penthouse should at least be clad in a rust-coloured lattice (if not terra-cotta), like the at grade on the Howe Street frontage. It would complete the look.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted Mar 12, 2011, 12:07 AM
trofirhen's Avatar
trofirhen trofirhen is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 4,639
I have to sometimes quit my knee-jerk negative reaction to a number of buildings. I looked again at this and thought "hmm nothing super-special, but ...."

"If that had been built (and even in that style it almost could have been, minus the modern trappings of course) - one of the "big guys" of the early to mid 1960s.
It probably would have got illustrated newspaper covering in the builds / real estate part.

Only Beach Towers, Imperial, and a couple of others approached that height or volume.
In about 1967 - correct me if I'm wrong - came Denman Place: pretty big for its time. There had since 1960 or before been the Georgian Towers, say no more.
And then, of course, the immortals: Hotel Vancouver, Marine Building, Dominion Building ...+ + +

If now, we want to build a bit passé, but respectable, there is no damage done. Maybe not super-creative but it is like weaving into the established tapestry of the city.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted Mar 12, 2011, 2:28 AM
Some guy's Avatar
Some guy Some guy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Don't worry about it
Posts: 302
Is it just me, or does this building look a lot like Beasley?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted Mar 12, 2011, 5:25 AM
SFUVancouver's Avatar
SFUVancouver SFUVancouver is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 4,334
Thanks for the photos Built Form. They really illustrate why the execution of the terra cotta panels will be so important to the building.
__________________
VANCOUVER | Beautiful, Multicultural | Canada's Pacific Metropolis
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
   
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > SSP: Local Vancouver > Downtown & City of Vancouver
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:31 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.