Construction Begins On Tallest Skyscraper In Canada Outside Toronto

[kevman]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

Yup, but Number One Bloor is purely residential. Floor to ceiling heights are considerably lower in residential than office buildings.

Are they?

(looks up at the 8ft. high ceilings in my office...)

[Cuz]

Originally Posted by pylon

I thought part of this was because of earthquakes. I believe Vancouver is supposed have a huge earthquake that will wipe it off the map one day.

Naw, it's Richmond that gets wiped off the map when the "big one" hits

[surferguy]

Originally Posted by Cuz

Naw, it's Richmond that gets wiped off the map when the "big one" hits

see: liquifaction

[SebC]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

Lower grade office space has lower ceiling heights though. It's one of the factors that degrades the space, I believe.

It's because a higher ceiling makes people feel less cramped. It's what companies are demanding.

I wonder if this might have something to do with there being more "interior" spaces in large-floorplate towers. In a condo, you'll spend most of your time close to a window. This in turn makes me wonder if the trend towards open plan might see commercial floor spacing reduced. (Though, open plan is a different kind of uncomfortable.)

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

If they could build Tapei 101 then we could easily build taller in Vancouver, it's not a question on earthquakes.

As for Brookfield Place, yes it is a fairly simple design. However the devil will be in the details with this one, the corners rounding more and more as the tower rises add a unique visual look, making it appear to taper inwards even though it does not. The crown feature will also be quite stunning, and will most certainly be lit up and look fantastic. Also the atrium space that will be between both buildings when fully complete is going to be an excellent space.



It simply has different floor heights than the Bow, and then you have the crown feature on top that is not technically a floor, but may be the equivalent of about 2.

Well just because other places build tall buildings on or near faults, doesn't mean the city of Vancouver wants to. I'm not saying it's impossible, only that I heard that it was the reason they weren't. Most of the buildings in Japan are built to withstand/weather earthquakes (cause they have to be), but I believe it's a costly process. It may be a cost that the developers or the city simply doesn't want to pay, or doesn't make sense for their situation as it is now.

I will admit though, it may not be the reason, it's just what I heard, and I'm no expert.

As for the storeys, heh, I always though storeys were a standard height, around 10 feet, but in reading this thread I can see that is not the case. But yeah, you could still have a taller building with less storeys even if that were true, just a different top, like you said.

And is it not spelled 'storeys' in this case? Spell check no likey.

[Bigtime]

Yeah we use storeys over on SSP and I've seen some journos use it too.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by T@T

Every year the calgary tower gets more stupid looking, won't be long where you'll have to stand on 9th ave as a reminder that it's still there.

The height isn't a bad thing. It gives you a view that makes you feel that you are floating in the middle of the city and actually inside the city when you look out.

The views from the CN Tower, Taipei 101, Petronas, Burj, etc. are a different animal. It's cool but it's more like you are playing Sim City and seeing everything from way too high to make out the detail or feel like you are actually within the city.

[psicodude]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

The views from the CN Tower, Taipei 101, Petronas, Burj, etc. are a different animal. It's cool but it's more like you are playing Sim City and seeing everything from way too high to make out the detail or feel like you are actually within the city.

I never thought about that before, but it's very true. Standing on that glass box that hangs out of the Calgary Tower freaks me out big time, but standing outside on the Empire State building observation deck didn't bother me at all.

[chalms04]

The view on top of the CN Tower is on a whole 'nother level.

http://www.edgewalkcntower.ca/

[corporatejay]

Anyone know the deal with this?


71-storey Edmontonian would dominate city skyline


BY DAN BARNES, EDMONTON JOURNAL NOVEMBER 1, 2013 7:09 AM


http://www.edmontonjournal.com/busin...100/story.html

[Bigtime]

Not gonna happen, the economics of a project like that would be a stretch in Calgary, let alone Edmonton.

Or to put it another way, the recently announced Telus Sky is a mixed use tower too (office and residential). It has a guaranteed tenant taking up the office space (Telus), and the Calgary market is relatively strong for the condos in the core too, and it has a killer location right in the heart of downtown.

Yet given all of those factors they are still choosing to only build around the 220m mark. One of the big factors is the cost of going above 60 floors (mainly due to elevator requirements) changes the costs dramatically.

Good on Edmonton for thinking big, but no way this goes ahead as planned at this point in time.

[Ducay]

Our towers: International top-tier firms: Bjarke Ingels, Foster + Partners, Fender Katsalidis Arney

The Edmontonian: "Sherwood Park architect Terry Hartwig"


Actually

[ranchlandsselling]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

Not gonna happen, the economics of a project like that would be a stretch in Calgary, let alone Edmonton.

Or to put it another way, the recently announced Telus Sky is a mixed use tower too (office and residential). It has a guaranteed tenant taking up the office space (Telus), and the Calgary market is relatively strong for the condos in the core too, and it has a killer location right in the heart of downtown.

Yet given all of those factors they are still choosing to only build around the 220m mark. One of the big factors is the cost of going above 60 floors (mainly due to elevator requirements) changes the costs dramatically.

Good on Edmonton for thinking big, but no way this goes ahead as planned at this point in time.

I'm not good at condo math - so I don't know how many condo units would be in that building leaving x amount of office space. But I'm guessing at least 400,000 sf? Edmonton can't fill Epcor yet. Edmonton has another office building (already built) that will be entirely vacant come 2016 that has no tenant or prospective tenant. Maybe one day, but at this point and in the near future Edmonton simply doesn't not have the depth in the market place to add large office components. Nothing against Edmonton, it's just the reality of that office market.

Manulife Place was the reigning champ as the "big building" much like our Suncor / Petro Canada building for years and years. When it was built it was a massive failure and depressed the office market for years (Manulife), no one should do that again.

[Table 5]

Yeah, that Edmonton proposal seems like one of those fantasy pie-in-the-sky proposals that float around for years (its already been around for 6) that you know have absolutely no basis in reality. Calgary has had a few of those over the last few decades and they are pretty easy to spot.

Edmonton needs to get some modestly-sized towers up before they can even think about something like this.

[killer_carlson]

Edmonton could fill Epcor no problem - but no one wants to go in there because of location. One of the largest homeless shelters and the location of the sketchy homeless that regular homeless stay away from is about 1/2 block north of Epcor. The parking lots will have junkies sleeping on mattresses right next to you car. There will be turds left behind because they wont walk to a bathroom.


Not To mention that access to Epcor will be a disaster until the arena, lrt extension and museum are built. Construction will be shutting down lanes and heavy equipment all over downtown.

I know for a fact that Epcor could be filled, but there are factors working against it that will exist for three years.

Could this new building be filled.... Not so sure about that. There would have to be a lot of residential units in there.

[ranchlandsselling]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

Edmonton could fill Epcor no problem - but no one wants to go in there because of location. One of the largest homeless shelters and the location of the sketchy homeless that regular homeless stay away from is about 1/2 block north of Epcor. The parking lots will have junkies sleeping on mattresses right next to you car. There will be turds left behind because they wont walk to a bathroom.


Not To mention that access to Epcor will be a disaster until the arena, lrt extension and museum are built. Construction will be shutting down lanes and heavy equipment all over downtown.

I know for a fact that Epcor could be filled, but there are factors working against it that will exist for three years.

Could this new building be filled.... Not so sure about that. There would have to be a lot of residential units in there.

If no one wants to go in there because of location it still means there's not enough demand for office space. It's not that awful of a location, or a so so building, and it's not like those leasing the space would be taking it for only 3 years. It's a AAA office building and you can get a pretty good lease rate taking that space right now for 10 - 15 years plus renewal options. The biggest downside for employers with that location is amenities and getting some lunch. It's not like the homeless are going to be hanging out in the parking lot overnight when it's -20 all winter.

If it was in a better location yeah, probably would have been leased up more easily, but it would have created a large vacancy hole elsewhere and been filled with 20 small tenants much like Manulife Place.

Anyway, we probably will continue to disagree and it's a matter of opinion mostly so I'll end it there. This whole thread should probably either be left for the Brookfield discussion or merged with the SSP thread and one way or another our conversation doesn't belong in it.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

I know for a fact that Epcor could be filled, but there are factors working against it that will exist for three years.

Are the homeless scheduled to die off by 2016?

[The Yen Man]

Lol, the Edmontonian. Even the name screams 1980's.

[1stLand]

I hope the edmontonian gets built.
I would love to see a beautiful building like this in Alberta.

Edmonton doesn't have as many latte sippers as they do yop gobblers, but maybe just enough to make this project successful.
I am curious how much an entry level condo in this building would cost

[ranchlandsselling]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Are the homeless scheduled to die off by 2016?

No, but the area will be more developed with Arena / Casino, retail, hotel, etc. effectively 'pushing' them elsewhere (as some people like to suggest development does).