1740 replies to this topic

[Ms. B. Havin]

+1 Baro. You nailed it.

[Jon S]

ADP extended the meeting to a second day next week for further deliberations.

[G-Man]

So tomorrow at lunch? or another day. I was in an all day meeting otherwise I would have come down. Anyone get the gist of the conversation?

[Jon S]

Likely April 3rd. at Noon.

[Sparky]

Did you come away with a feeling Jon?

[Jon S]

Hard to say. They were very complimentary of the submission. We will see.

[Sparky]

Thank you. I have no idea how you can muster the wherewithal to run these kinds of gauntlets. Perhaps when your quest is over you could share your experiences with dealing with various jurisdictions.

Until then best of luck.

[sebberry]

I love comparing the historical-angle public outcry and hallmark society reaction between this and the bridge.

I also love the ridiculous standards we hold developers to yet don't bat an eye when the project we were sold is radically changed.

Thank you Baro! Please send your comments in a "Letter to the editor" to the TC

[Rob Randall]

I attended the beginning of the meeting and unfortunately had to leave before the panel's comments.

I did catch the proponent's presentation. Even though this was the second time around, they took special care to give the history of the proposal, even including in their PowerPoint the letter from the City from January 2010 expressing support for the idea of developing the site. Reliance quickly presented a few of their Vancouver projects with Merrick architecture, including the Burns Block project. They then presented an extensive history of the NJ site and the contextual surroundings, including the surprising fact that the NJ buildings were above another row of shacks and buildings right on the wharf as seen in this 1889 bird's eye map:



They then spent time meticulously going through the Old Town and Waterfront design guidelines line by line and point by point. For every City recommendation they had an illustrated response that explained how their proposal met the guidelines.

A revised plan was presented that took into account the recommendations from the last meeting to break up the building into smaller chunks. The new design has more distinct sections instead of the long, low slab of the first version. Wider separation and larger public areas within the buildings were shown off.

I'm sorry I can't report on the reaction; that's always the most interesting part of the meeting and most of the questions and comments don't make it into the final report.

[Mike K.]

Thanks for your comments, Rob, much appreciated.

[Jon S]

A revised plan was presented that took into account the recommendations from the last meeting to break up the building into smaller chunks. The new design has more distinct sections instead of the long, low slab of the first version. Wider separation and larger public areas within the buildings were shown off.

[Mike K.]

Thank you for the update, Jon.

[aastra]

What does "glazing stepped back" mean?

[G-Man]

My question exactly. I truly hope that this does not mean commercial behind pillars.

[D.L.]

Recessed retail has a bad rap on the forum.

I like the separation into two buildings though.

[Baro]

Was any density lost after these cuts or was it simply transferred to other parts of the building?

[dasmo]

I think it's an improvement. I like it!

[aastra]

I truly hope that this does not mean commercial behind pillars.

It sure looks like that in the space between the two buildings.

[Jon S]

Point taken and agree re set back glazing, only at the East/West pass through not along Wharf. Re Density, very little. Extra elevator and skin costs though.

[aastra]

Did somebody ask for the setback and the pillars? If so, did they give a reason?