10-30-2013, 02:19 PM
|
#21
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Calgary
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by lazypucker
Too bad there is the Bow River shadow by-law, or we would have taller buildings in Calgary.
On another note, I wonder why no rich investor is building a super tall tower in Vancouver that is the tallest in the country...
|
There are plenty of sites in the core that can easily accommodate a supertall. It's just that the economics of such a building don't make sense in Calgary...yet.
As for Vancouver, they have even more height limits, and view cone restrictions than you can imagine.
|
|
|
|
10-30-2013, 02:20 PM
|
#22
|
|
Voted for Kodos
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by lazypucker
On another note, I wonder why no rich investor is building a super tall tower in Vancouver that is the tallest in the country...
|
Current bylaws in Vancouver make that impossible. The max is about 600 ft, and that's only for a few sites in downtown.
|
|
|
|
|
10-30-2013, 03:13 PM
|
#23
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: 555 Saddledome Rise SE
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducay
Ya, say goodbye to your awesome view of Home/Dome Towers and Scotia...
|
Add in a slice of the mountains, 8th Ave Place, Bankers and the sun, and it sure beats a glass wall.
|
|
|
|
|
10-30-2013, 03:27 PM
|
#24
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Calgary
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by lazypucker
Too bad there is the Bow River shadow by-law, or we would have taller buildings in Calgary.
On another note, I wonder why no rich investor is building a super tall tower in Vancouver that is the tallest in the country...
|
thought it was because of similar rules but regarding the height of the mountains.
|
|
|
|
|
10-30-2013, 05:17 PM
|
#25
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Sector 7-G
|
nm
|
|
|
|
|
10-30-2013, 06:36 PM
|
#26
|
|
First Line Centre
|
When this is done put a big blue circle on top and zipline all the way to the big blue circle by Airport Trail
|
|
|
|
|
10-30-2013, 07:57 PM
|
#27
|
|
Lifetime Suspension
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by lazypucker
On another note, I wonder why no rich investor is building a super tall tower in Vancouver that is the tallest in the country...
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
10-30-2013, 08:02 PM
|
#28
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: California
|
Kind of a boring design compared to the Bow or Telus sky.
|
|
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
|
|
|
10-30-2013, 08:52 PM
|
#29
|
|
First Line Centre
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Calgary
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyler
How lucky are we in Calgary that someone like me is already bored with this new tallest and looking forward to the Gateway proposal the day of the sod turning?!
Good times!
|
What is this gateway proposal you speak of?
|
|
|
|
|
10-30-2013, 09:01 PM
|
#30
|
|
Has lived the dream!
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Where I lay my head is home...
|
Quote:
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.
|
Yeah, I had heard it was due to earthquake precautions too.
As for this building, if The Bow is 58 storeys, how is this taller at 56?
Kinda a plain looking building. Not bad looking, but definitely not unique like the Bow or the new Telus building.
|
|
|
|
|
10-30-2013, 09:28 PM
|
#31
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: San Fernando Valley
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigtime
|
Wow Toronto has a lot of large skyscrapers under construction.
As far as this new building goes it looks a little bland but time will tell. Would be nice if it was a little taller to be more prominent as it's only marginally taller than the Bow.
|
|
|
|
|
10-30-2013, 09:48 PM
|
#32
|
|
Lifetime Suspension
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Calgary
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeeBass
When this is done put a big blue circle on top and zipline all the way to the big blue circle by Airport Trail
|
I like the way you think.
|
|
|
|
|
10-30-2013, 09:56 PM
|
#33
|
|
A Fiddler Crab
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Chicago
|
Having a prominent skyscraper dominate the city is strange. The vast majority of Taipei is between 6-15 stories tall with a couple of buildings in the 30-40 story range sprinkled around and then there's Taipei 101, looming over the city like the Eye of Sauron.
|
|
|
|
|
10-30-2013, 11:26 PM
|
#34
|
|
Lifetime Suspension
|
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 Following User Says Thank You to T@T For This Useful Post:
|
|
|
10-30-2013, 11:32 PM
|
#35
|
|
Lifetime Suspension
|
Quote:
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.
|
Actually the jammed fault line is just off the coast, David Suzuki put out a model that shows a 250-300 foot tital wave swallowing Vancouver...maybe a tall tower would save lives.
|
|
|
|
|
10-31-2013, 06:55 AM
|
#36
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Calgary
|
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.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Daradon
As for this building, if The Bow is 58 storeys, how is this taller at 56?
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
10-31-2013, 07:20 AM
|
#37
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Vancouver
|
Look at Number One Bloor on the link above. It is only 10.3m taller than Brookfield, but has 19 more stories packed in there.
|
|
|
|
|
10-31-2013, 07:26 AM
|
#38
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Calgary
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by worth
Look at Number One Bloor on the link above. It is only 10.3m taller than Brookfield, but has 19 more stories packed in there.
|
Yup, but Number One Bloor is purely residential. Floor to ceiling heights are considerably lower in residential than office buildings.
|
|
|
|
|
10-31-2013, 08:53 AM
|
#39
|
|
tromboner
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: where the lattes are
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigtime
Yup, but Number One Bloor is purely residential. Floor to ceiling heights are considerably lower in residential than office buildings.
|
Why is that, by the way? With the discussion on SSP about converting some lower grade office space to residential, it got me wondering if one benefit of that would be nice high ceilings (for the photo studio in the 2nd bedroom, of course).
|
|
|
|
|
10-31-2013, 09:20 AM
|
#40
|
|
Voted for Kodos
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by SebC
Why is that, by the way? With the discussion on SSP about converting some lower grade office space to residential, it got me wondering if one benefit of that would be nice high ceilings (for the photo studio in the 2nd bedroom, of course).
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to You Need a Thneed For This Useful Post:
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:03 PM.
|
|
