HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada


Closed Thread

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #4501  
Old Posted Feb 19, 2012, 5:54 AM
Andrewjm3D's Avatar
Andrewjm3D Andrewjm3D is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,702
Quote:
Originally Posted by trueviking View Post
^ do you have a link to that last one?
Here you are sir. http://www.architectsalliance.com/portfolio/in-progress/nhbrc
     
     
  #4502  
Old Posted Feb 19, 2012, 6:17 AM
1ajs's Avatar
1ajs 1ajs is offline
ʇɥƃıuʞ -*ʞpʇ*-
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: lynn lake
Posts: 26,519
interesting stuff
     
     
  #4503  
Old Posted Feb 19, 2012, 6:52 AM
caltrane74's Avatar
caltrane74 caltrane74 is offline
gettin' rich!
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 34,204
Aa is clearly the superior Architect and Designer. The flow of the designs is clean and uniform. Core takes more chances, and it shows the most in some of the messy short condos you've linked to.
     
     
  #4504  
Old Posted Feb 20, 2012, 4:23 PM
urbandreamer's Avatar
urbandreamer urbandreamer is offline
recession proof
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,656
Lowney Sur Ville, Montreal

Quote:
Originally Posted by urbandreamer View Post
Another gorgeous Cardinal Hardy Architects project?
Confirmed by RenderPornStar
     
     
  #4505  
Old Posted Feb 20, 2012, 5:18 PM
WhipperSnapper's Avatar
WhipperSnapper WhipperSnapper is offline
I am the law!
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Toronto+
Posts: 22,892
Quote:
Originally Posted by caltrane74 View Post
Aa is clearly the superior Architect and Designer. The flow of the designs is clean and uniform. Core takes more chances, and it shows the most in some of the messy short condos you've linked to.
I'm not a big fan with many of Core's previous designs in how they meet the street. They have greatly improved with the newest designs though.
     
     
  #4506  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2012, 9:22 AM
Dylan Leblanc's Avatar
Dylan Leblanc Dylan Leblanc is offline
Website Manager
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 9,579
Solo District, Burnaby

http://www.solodistrict.com/

     
     
  #4507  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2012, 10:05 AM
Chadillaccc's Avatar
Chadillaccc Chadillaccc is offline
ARTchitecture
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Cala Ghearraidh
Posts: 22,842
Not bad I guess, at least they're not trying to be interesting and dramatically failing. This is the area around Lougheed mall right? Or is this the one at Willingdon and Lougheed?
__________________
Strong & Free

Mohkínstsis — 1.6 million people at the Foothills of the Rocky Mountains, 400 high-rises, a 300-metre SE to NW climb, over 1000 kilometres of pathways, with 20% of the urban area as parkland.
     
     
  #4508  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2012, 5:04 PM
yaletown_fella yaletown_fella is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,423
Looks like the developer is attempting to create some sort of pedestrian mall between the towers. I also assume the HUGE podium of the left most tower will accommodate some office space.
__________________
Supporter of Bill 23
     
     
  #4509  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2012, 5:06 PM
Metro-One's Avatar
Metro-One Metro-One is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 17,952
You assume correctly. Demolition is already occurring on site. The first phase is the north west tower at 45 floors, the second phase is then the north east tower with the office podium at 48 floors.
__________________
Bridging the Gap
Check out my Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/30634635@N03/with/29495547810/ and Youtube channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCV0_0h9qKlhxXFxuAey_q6Q
     
     
  #4510  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2012, 6:14 PM
Travis007's Avatar
Travis007 Travis007 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Toronto
Posts: 2,213
PSV Condos, Mississauga, Ontario

Next phase of Amacon's Parkside Village development.

From BuzzBuzzHome: http://www.buzzbuzzhome.com/psv-condos-at-parkside-village


__________________
Flickr
     
     
  #4511  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2012, 6:16 PM
dleung's Avatar
dleung dleung is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 6,554
Point towers should be outlawed in Vancouver suburbs. If you can't build them nice, stick with mid-rises, which won't ruin the city/mountain scape.
     
     
  #4512  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2012, 6:41 PM
vanman's Avatar
vanman vanman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Vancouver BC
Posts: 6,485
Richmond has enough midrises to more than make up for the rest of the metro. Besides, wide and squat towers are what block the most views, not tall and slender ones.
     
     
  #4513  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2012, 6:45 PM
Andrewjm3D's Avatar
Andrewjm3D Andrewjm3D is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,702
Those Solo District condos look pretty wide to me and a tired design. I do like the podium on the boxier tower though. When I first saw that render I thought it was in North York. As for that PSV condo, damn that looks awful.
     
     
  #4514  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2012, 6:54 PM
dleung's Avatar
dleung dleung is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 6,554
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanman View Post
Richmond has enough midrises to more than make up for the rest of the metro. Besides, wide and squat towers are what block the most views, not tall and slender ones.
Those aren't midrises, they're stumpy high-rises... the worst kind. I mean mid-rises with a distinctly mid-rise typology even if they're as tall as the ones in Richmond.


archdaily.net, profurniture.info

www.colourbox.com, arcspace.com/

Lower-quality versions of the above are much more justified in medium-density centers like Coquitlam or Surrey, compared to a tower-in-a-park that has the same density, but mars the landscape with a bland tower that no one can avoid seeing. Historically, to build high meant ambition, and exclusivity, hence they only things poking out of the skyline are of good quality. Now that it's easy to build up, it translates to repeating floorplates and cheap views for all. That's a tragedy as far as aesthetics go.
     
     
  #4515  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2012, 9:59 PM
Dmajackson's Avatar
Dmajackson Dmajackson is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: B3K Halifax, NS
Posts: 9,939
Halifax Regional Council has apparently let United Gulf move forward with public consultations on their 48 storey Skye Towers proposal. Absolutely nobody thought they would even consider allowing this to move forward since the height is twice the current maximum allowed.



Staff Report (source of photo). This has all of the detailed information
     
     
  #4516  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2012, 10:17 PM
vanman's Avatar
vanman vanman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Vancouver BC
Posts: 6,485
Quote:
Lower-quality versions of the above are much more justified in medium-density centers like Coquitlam or Surrey, compared to a tower-in-a-park that has the same density, but mars the landscape with a bland tower that no one can avoid seeing. Historically, to build high meant ambition, and exclusivity, hence they only things poking out of the skyline are of good quality. Now that it's easy to build up, it translates to repeating floorplates and cheap views for all. That's a tragedy as far as aesthetics go
There's a multitude of tall dull buildings all across NA, this is nothing new. 1930s NY was the pinnacle of perfection, everything has been downhill from there.We both know that the view is king in Vancouver. There's almost no place in this city that you could rubber stamp a 25 story glass condo and not command majestic views. Developers nowadays reach for the view, moreso than prestige IMO. Case in point:

The Austin in Coquitlam. 19 stories in the middle of nowhere. Looks pretty damn nice to me.


And where are these "towers in the park" you speak of? The majority of suburban condos being built north of the Fraser are nothing of the sort.
     
     
  #4517  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2012, 11:20 PM
dleung's Avatar
dleung dleung is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 6,554
Ok... towers with extremely low-density podiums and crappy street interface. The point I was making was about achieving the same density in a less unsightly way.

We all know what developers want, but I'm saying there should be regulations restricting tower development to only the very best-quality designs, and only in designated high-rise nodes that demand much greater density, of which I think Coquitlam is an ill-fitting choice. Most of these 30-40 storey towers in the suburbs have less than 5 FSR... that can be easily achieved with a mid-rise that doesn't ruin the views for everyone else.

This obsession with the view is a localized phenonemon, so if you level the playing field for every project within a certain market range, it's not a problem. Personally I find a view of suburbia from 30-stories up much more boring than beneath the canopy of the tree level.
     
     
  #4518  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2012, 11:28 PM
armorand93's Avatar
armorand93 armorand93 is offline
Transit Nerd
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Calgary (former Winnipegger)
Posts: 2,707
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dmajackson View Post
Halifax Regional Council has apparently let United Gulf move forward with public consultations on their 48 storey Skye Towers proposal. Absolutely nobody thought they would even consider allowing this to move forward since the height is twice the current maximum allowed.


Staff Report (source of photo). This has all of the detailed information
Maybe they're desperate for development, status or the sheer fact they'll have this monster welcoming ships to Canada
     
     
  #4519  
Old Posted Feb 22, 2012, 1:02 AM
whiteford's Avatar
whiteford whiteford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,526
i would love to see that go ahead. that would look great and could boost future proposals to be even taller. i hate hight restictions entirely.
     
     
  #4520  
Old Posted Feb 22, 2012, 1:50 AM
caltrane74's Avatar
caltrane74 caltrane74 is offline
gettin' rich!
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 34,204
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Closed Thread

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:22 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.