SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/index.php)
-   St. John's (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/forumdisplay.php?f=700)
-   -   [St. John's] Tiffany Condos | 2x58m | 2x16 Floors | Approved (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=204264)

statbass Feb 26, 2013 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Copes (Post 6029467)
It isn't pretty though. Let's be honest. It's a pretty standard suburban tower that you'd see off the highway in a lot of places, and isn't particularly striking. That's disappointing. In my opinion the excitement comes from what the development represents, not what it physically is. As far as I'm concerned, it's physically pretty ugly. Maybe I'm alone on that line of thought though.

It's definitely a standard run-of-the-mill design. But I think standard is fine, at least for the area in which it is going. It could be a lot worse and it fits in with the senior's condos that's presently there.

jeddy1989 Feb 26, 2013 12:30 PM

I feel like I need to make a clarification with these condos

This whole area is called Tiffany Estates including the old building which i believe is Tiffany Village and the new towers are called Tiffany Condos.

Remember that right now they are just trying to get the site rezoned to allow the height.. therefore this is NOT what it will look like when complete (just a render for scale)
have a look:

https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.n..._5556950_n.jpg

Figure B1

https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.n...41418387_n.jpg

I don't think we should be showing this off to the whole country right now! it's still in the design stages...

SignalHillHiker Feb 26, 2013 12:41 PM

I think it's O.K. to share - they can just see it here anyway. And I'm excited to see the final designs. I imagine they'll be quite similar to these renders - just, perhaps, more detailed?

I'm falling more and more in love with this proposal. The buildings will look so good at that location. I just can't wait - especially to take pictures that include downtown with those far off in the background.

The glass floors on top will complement MIX, Deacon, the LeMarchant Road Condos, the Marriott extension, potentially the Hilton, potentially the Atlantic Place parkade...

We're really starting to get our own look. These towers, despite being completely generic, are really going to contribute to that. :)

jeddy1989 Feb 26, 2013 12:45 PM

I think it'll look good.. the first building looks good so no reason why the phase two would be ugly lol

This is more infill anyway so I didn't expect them to be midblowing or landmark buildings... they are pretty much what I expected (maybe a bit nicer... I'll bring your attention to my amazing render LOL

https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.n...25736299_n.jpg

PoscStudent Feb 26, 2013 1:14 PM

The picture looks good, the new buildings seem to be a bit different but this gives a good idea.

jeddy1989 Feb 26, 2013 1:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PoscStudent (Post 6029502)
The picture looks good, the new buildings seem to be a bit different but this gives a good idea.

This was my "paint" render from a few months ago, not too far off i guess :P

Architype Feb 26, 2013 2:36 PM

I wouldn't complain too much about the design of the Tiffany condos, they are designed by Stantec, have a look at their website:

http://www.stantec.com/default.htm

They seem to specialize in other areas though, such as airports, sports facilities, and environmental projects. They have an impressive list of projects, such as the BC Place Stadium renovations, also some not mentioned on the site at all. Last year they aquired the PHB group, so I guess it is done in conjunction with the local office. IMO, the proposed buildings would not have any problem getting approved in Vancouver or most other places with pretty high standards.

Architype Feb 26, 2013 2:47 PM

And don't pay too much attention to the peanut gallery in the Canada section, they expect everything to be Calatrava or Gehry. Proposals in their own cities can also get some pretty harsh criticism too however. Stantec does some very solid design work, but it's not completely over the top.

SignalHillHiker Feb 26, 2013 3:03 PM

I'm genuinely not offended when we get negative critiques in the Canada section. Most are reasonable and many are, by any objective standard, deserved. For example, I'd be horrified if just about anyone in the Canada section liked that new Hilton proposal.

Sometimes there are issues of different standards/expectations at play. I think these Tiffany Towers are a good example of that. They're average buildings - not gorgeous, not hideous. They should evoke, at worst, a "Meh..." from mainland Canada. For us, because of their disproportionate significance locally, it's natural that we'd be all about it.

jeddy1989 Feb 26, 2013 3:10 PM

what gets me is that that's not the design rendering lol it's still in the process of being designed

Architype Feb 26, 2013 3:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeddy1989 (Post 6029609)
what gets me is that that's not the design rendering lol it's still in the process of being designed

I think it's pretty close, if it changes it could be for the worse, hope not.
The materials may not all be shown properly yet though.

Architype Feb 26, 2013 3:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker (Post 6029603)
For example, I'd be horrified if just about anyone in the Canada section liked that new Hilton proposal.

Sometimes there are issues of different standards/expectations at play. I think these Tiffany Towers are a good example of that. They're average buildings - not gorgeous, not hideous. They should evoke, at worst, a "Meh..." from mainland Canada. For us, because of their disproportionate significance locally, it's natural that we'd be all about it.

Ah luvs the Hilton (v2.0), just the way ah luvs Velvet Elvis paintings.
I did the new diagram drawing for it, and it was such a mess that it was imposible to make it look like anything but a mess.


Ahem, I think the (Tiffany) designs shown are far above anything I've seen proposed in St John's in a long time, at least for residential on that scale. The thing is they don't look amateurish like many others do. I know it's subjective; I could explain more, but it might take a long time.

Townie709 Feb 26, 2013 8:54 PM

I'm surprised that Tiffany Condo's hasn't even as much as made a headline yet. I feel like emailing CBC and VOCM to tell them about it :haha:

jeddy1989 Feb 27, 2013 1:27 PM

I agree... the 155 room hilton garden Inn that's 12 stories in a field next to the delta has gotten about 2000000000000000 times the attention lol and this is a proposal for 2 16 story condos (first of it's kind here) and ZERO attention (probably a good thing all the same lol) I remember when the other building started .. it was within regulations so there was barely a peep and Shannie mentioned how she couldn't believe that such a large building whisked through without much input.

Oh well lol .. great thing about this one is that it's neighbors are the rest of Tiffany Estates lol

Chances are that we wont see much on it.

Also hopefully this is the beginning of more exciting things coming soon such as the hotel on the Atlantic place Garage.

SignalHillHiker Feb 27, 2013 1:30 PM

I'm fine with it not making headlines. I'm as offended by opposition to development outside the heritage area as I am to proposals that don't reflect our heritage within it.

I'd love to see nothing but towers at least this height from Empire Avenue to the Outer Ring Road. :D

statbass Feb 27, 2013 3:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Architype (Post 6031146)
Just wait, I'm sure there will be NIMBYs lurking. The buildings may even cast a shadow on a school, and maybe some other things in the area. However, they have done a good job at justifying the development at 16 stories as opposed to 10, especially in that they only occupy half as much land as the other proposal.

However, the LUAR did state the shadowing would not affect the school during lunchtime hours, so I think concerned parents would not have much of a case here. Although, some of these parents would probably complain if their child was getting too much UV exposure. It only goes to show you can't please everyone. I just hope NIMBYism will not be as prevalent with this development as it usually is with downtown developments.

Architype Feb 27, 2013 3:20 PM

You're right, shadowing will only be most noticable to the immediate west/northwest in the morning and east/northeast in the afternoon, and depending on the time of the year. In winter areas to the north may be affected, but it's mostly vacant land. The school is however to the north, but won't get too much shadowing because the sun to the south will be high enough for most of the year, and the two buildings are spaced apart far enough to not form a continuous wall.

Architype Feb 27, 2013 3:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker (Post 6028399)
BTW... can't get over the angle of Architype's shot above. You could not photograph that neighbourhood more attractively. It's perfect. I have to find it once construction starts. :D

Thanks, I think it was taken from somewhere around the Queens Battery, just below the hill. If you look carefully, you will see that the east end of Southcott Hall, barely visible near the stair railing, is lined up with Tiffany Village.

http://www.pbase.com/joecanada/image...5/original.jpg

niccanning Feb 27, 2013 4:43 PM

What happened to the little buildings on the south side that were included in the original proposal? Seems like they have been replaced with a parting lot :(

Architype Feb 27, 2013 5:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by niccanning (Post 6031294)
What happened to the little buildings on the south side that were included in the original proposal? Seems like they have been replaced with a parting lot :(

I think the surface parking must be for staff, services, and visitors. They could stilll put townhouses there in the future I guess, and add some underground parking. Part of the reason for their elimination was to make the project more economical.


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:58 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.