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

    1300 Richards in the SkyscraperPage Database

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Jan 17, 2012, 9:47 PM
jlousa's Avatar
jlousa jlousa is offline
Ferris Wheel Hater
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 7,409
1300-1320 Richards St | 121.9M | 43Fl | Proposed

Wall Financial seems to be busy putting projects thru the system right now. This latest one has been in the works for a little bit, it's at the south end of Richards on site of the Boss night club. Architect firm is Dialog, it looks pretty standard, it'll appear to be a very thin tower due to it's height to width ratio, and the balconies will be larger then normal for Vancouver. Retail is limited to just over 6000sqft.

Quote:
DIALOG has applied to the City of Vancouver to rezone 1300-1320 Richards Street from DD (Downtown District) to CD-1 (Comprehensive Development) District. The proposal is for a 43-storey mixed-use (residential and commercial-retail) development, comprised of a floor space area of 19 340 m² (208,175 sq. ft.), a floor space ratio (FSR) of 11.90, and a height of 121.92 m (400 ft.).
Rezonng Synopsis
http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/plannin...s/synopsis.pdf

Design Rationale
http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/plannin...ts/concept.pdf

Development Data
http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/plannin...ments/data.pdf

Site Context Plan
http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/plannin...ts/context.pdf

Parking Plans
http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/plannin...ts/parking.pdf

Floor Plans
http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/plannin...floorplans.pdf

Building Section Drawings
http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/plannin...s/sections.pdf

Building Elevation Drawings
http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/plannin...elevations.pdf

3d Views
http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/plannin...ts/3dviews.pdf

Shadow Analysis
http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/plannin...ts/shadows.pdf

View Analysis
http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/plannin...ewanalysis.pdf

Landscape Drawings
http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/plannin.../landscape.pdf
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Jan 17, 2012, 10:06 PM
LeftCoaster's Avatar
LeftCoaster LeftCoaster is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Toronto
Posts: 7,192
Hmm, pretty decently tall sucker.

I'm loving the big podiums this area seems to be getting, but what is with the awful SE facade? I know part of it is blocked by the adjacent building, but this one is much taller.

Hopefully the UDP forces them to do something about that.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Jan 17, 2012, 10:52 PM
wrenegade's Avatar
wrenegade wrenegade is offline
ON3P Skis
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: SEFC, Vancouver, BC
Posts: 2,268
yee haw. I'll admit this is bigger than I thought they would go, but I'm happy to see they pushed the 400' mark. Unbelievably efficient building I must say, looks pretty good. Only complaint is the SE facade. I hope some sort of treatment is applied to break it up a bit.

The lobby/entryway design is interesting. Apparently not much retail value there with only 6,000 sf on a 17,488 sf site and the corner is occupied by a water feature instead a CRU.
__________________
Flickr
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Jan 17, 2012, 11:04 PM
idunno idunno is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 262
It looks pretty good in my opinion, I'm amazed they were able to make it so thin yet also economical. Do you really think they would go through with yellow glass balconies?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Jan 17, 2012, 11:42 PM
hollywoodnorth's Avatar
hollywoodnorth hollywoodnorth is offline
Blazed Member - Citygater
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Downtown Vancouver
Posts: 5,189
thanks for the details. the last of the clubs on south richards finally bites the dust!
__________________
http://www.votesmartbc.com
http://www.riskydix.ca
http://www.dixshiddenplan.ca

Quote of the Decade on SSP: "what happens would it be?" - argon007
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Jan 17, 2012, 11:49 PM
WarrenC12 WarrenC12 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: East Yaletown!
Posts: 3,805
Goodbye Boss!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2012, 12:12 AM
Built Form Built Form is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 683
I'm happy this is finally out! Agreed about the south east facade; needs major work and reminds me of the alley side of 889 Homer. It'll also be greatly appreciated from the folks at the 501 who have been complaining for years about the violence and noise from the nightclub across the street.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2012, 12:20 AM
officedweller officedweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 17,943
Note the integrated sun shades - like on the podium of The Mark. They're noted on the floorplans with "open to below".
I wonder how much those will block the views?

Quote:
Originally Posted by LeftCoaster View Post
Hmm, pretty decently tall sucker.

I'm loving the big podiums this area seems to be getting, but what is with the awful SE facade? I know part of it is blocked by the adjacent building, but this one is much taller.

Hopefully the UDP forces them to do something about that.
Hmm - exposed elevator core... maybe a lighting feature??
NOT!

Last edited by officedweller; Jan 18, 2012 at 12:55 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2012, 12:50 AM
NewWester NewWester is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 260
I can of like the SE elevation... it has a certain brutalist-ness about it (what with having an expanse of blank stone instead of that-same-green-glass) that is atypical of modern downtown highrises. I think it will look less awkward, and more interesting in the context of the overall skyline.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2012, 12:54 AM
vanman vanman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Vancouver BC
Posts: 4,209
I like the massing and height of this building but nothing else. It is as cookie cutter as it gets. Hopefully this is sent back to the drawing board. A location as prominent as this one anchoring Richards st deserves something more iconic.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2012, 1:39 AM
dleung dleung is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,851
Boring, and I hate combovers.

Interesting that this is practically the same height as Crystal Blu in Toronto, except this has 9 more floors. Our low floor to floor heights makes a lot of buildings look fatter than they really are.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2012, 1:48 AM
officedweller officedweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 17,943
The core could be done like the one on "Lumiere" on Bay Street in Toronto:

Quote:
Originally Posted by interchange42 View Post
Some recent beauty shots of Lumiere by Mike In TO:

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2012, 5:36 AM
dleung dleung is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,851
the blank face is much wider than it needs to be because they're not imaginative enough to put anything other than tiny punched windows for the bathrooms. If the semi-solid wallls were cladded in anything other than grey, it would have looked better. Exposed cores on towers are such an asset in terms of expressing the "spine" or "trunk", but that seems to be lost on the architect...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2012, 8:52 AM
urbandreamer's Avatar
urbandreamer urbandreamer is offline
recession proof
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: renderpornstar.com
Posts: 651
Awfully dull. No way does it compare to Wallman Architects Lumiere! It's more like a version of the dull Onni Group's West Lake towers by inferior firm Page+Steele, although scary to say probably better than this proposal!
__________________
I'd rather be homeless than live in a condo...but I do like watching attractive ones get built...like Woodwards, 42 in Waterloo, and anything by Daoust/Saucier+Perotte/Nomade/aA/Teeple
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2012, 10:55 AM
trofirhen's Avatar
trofirhen trofirhen is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 4,743
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbandreamer View Post
Awfully dull. No way does it compare to Wallman Architects Lumiere! It's more like a version of the dull Onni Group's West Lake towers by inferior firm Page+Steele, although scary to say probably better than this proposal!
Dull. That's the word. pleasant, but dull. Maybe one day there will be a couple of, if not supertalls, then at least verytalls in the precinct, and this one will make good high-rise infill ('cause it's not as if it's ugly or anything ... just dull)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2012, 7:05 PM
Jimbo604 Jimbo604 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 616
When is Boss closing? What are the next steps for the city approval process? More news please!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2012, 10:48 PM
incognism incognism is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimbo604 View Post
When is Boss closing? What are the next steps for the city approval process? More news please!
Boss had their final night last weekend. I'm guessing rezoning is the next step?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2012, 1:22 AM
dleung dleung is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,851
Quote:
Originally Posted by trofirhen View Post
Dull. That's the word. pleasant, but dull. Maybe one day there will be a couple of, if not supertalls, then at least verytalls in the precinct, and this one will make good high-rise infill ('cause it's not as if it's ugly or anything ... just dull)
You sound like Caltrane. Dullness is a negative... this will be the tallest and most visible building in Yaletown, and you're already rationalizing the dullness by hiding it with taller ones in the future?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2012, 1:50 AM
Canadian Mind's Avatar
Canadian Mind Canadian Mind is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,859
I would have liked a better crown. But the massing and height of the tower is alright.

Is it wrong of me to not mind the look of balconies?
__________________
"you're eating chicken periods" - Vid
"I love eggs, especially the ones with runny yolks" - Me
"EWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW, you're disgusting!" - Vid
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2012, 1:54 AM
osirisboy's Avatar
osirisboy osirisboy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Vancouver BC
Posts: 2,244
agreed, I would like a more interesting top but otherwise I like the look of it.
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 9:11 PM.

     

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