[Burnaby] Concord Metrotown | 230.1m | 65,45,33 fl | U/C - Page 41

griswold · #**801** Posted **Apr 13, 2026, 7:31 PM**

Weird that the bottom slabs on the shorter towers are much thicker than the tall one

jollyburger · #**802** Posted **Apr 13, 2026, 11:10 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by griswold

Weird that the bottom slabs on the shorter towers are much thicker than the tall one

Seems like the Grand Tower has more columns that continue through the slab versus the shorter towers. Maybe there's not as much retail under that tower so they don't have any need for column free spaces under those towers.

https://www.mikestewart.ca/presale/concord-metrotown-metro-downtown-burnaby-presale-condos/

Spr0ckets · #**803** Posted **Apr 14, 2026, 5:15 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by griswold

Weird that the bottom slabs on the shorter towers are much thicker than the tall one

Quote:

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Seems like the Grand Tower has more columns that continue through the slab versus the shorter towers. Maybe there's not as much retail under that tower so they don't have any need for column free spaces under those towers.

https://www.mikestewart.ca/presale/concord-metrotown-metro-downtown-burnaby-presale-condos/

It's actually weirder than all that.

If you look at the three towers head-on like I did when I was riding the skytrain, the shortest tower seems to have the thickest transfer slab among the three, with the middle tower having the next thickest one and then the Grand Tower transfer slab so thin it almost doesn't even seem like a transfer slab at all. Especially for a tower of that height.

But then you realize that the three towers actually have a double-transfer slab system with all three sharing a second transfer slab that defines the top of the podium, and which spreads the load even more down to the parkade and the foundation below.
It's conceivable that that second lower transfer slab is thicker in parts under the tallest tower - which primarily has a grand double height entrance lobby underneath it allowing it to be thicker - than it is underneath the two shorter towers.

The other two towers also look like they'll have double height entrance atriums, but much smaller in area with the rest of the footprint beneath the towers themselves, being a dual storey retail at grade and the bike-amenity space above them.

The other thing you notice is that the space underneath the towers before you hit those transfer slabs and the towers themselves is tallest with more headroom under the Grand Tower (at which point it looks almost triple height high), and gets shorter as you proceed westwards towards the shortest tower - partly obviously because of the increasing thickness of the respective transfer slabs, but also because it looks like the shortest tower sits the lowest before you hit the tower stem.
I imagine they'll need some of that headroom underneath Grand tower's transfer slab for lots of mechanical ducts and systems attached to the bottom of its transfer slab - more than the other two towers - and still have a tall Amenity space underneath.

By the way, that render you're showing is from a much earlier version of the design when the podium was 4 storeys tall (instead of the two it is now) and the transfer slab configuration was much different (it looks like in that version they all just shared the one singular extended transfer slab at the top of the entire podium and didn't have secondary individual ones above it and beneath the towers themselves like the current design seems to have.

jollyburger · #**804** Posted **Apr 14, 2026, 5:45 AM**

But with that podium level transfer slab when you look at the photos with the running track that cuts through is that level that thick?

Credit: Lexus https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=10575468&postcount=790

Here's the current version of the podium

https://mynextcondo.com/building/concord-metrotown-west-tower/

officedweller · #**805** Posted **Apr 14, 2026, 5:47 AM**

It could also be that the additional height on the Grand Tower requires more direct transfer of the building forces downwards through continuous columns (as noted by Jollyburger) and that reliance on transfer slabs could weaken the performance of the structure as a whole (i.e. what's the most height/mass you can put on top a transfer slab?). Just guessing there.

I remember seeing floorplans of Shangri-La condos and the columns there were massive in width, so I think those were probably continuous.

Quote:

AI Overview
There is no strict, absolute height limit for a tower built on a transfer slab. In modern structural engineering, transfer slabs (or beams) are used to support supertall skyscrapers, often allowing them to reach 400+ meters (1,300+ feet) and over 100 stories. The limit is determined by economics, structural efficiency, and the ability of the slab and supporting columns below to carry the immense vertical and lateral loads.

Key Factors and Examples:

100+ Stories: The 106-story Pinnacle Sky Tower in Toronto, at approximately 352 meters, is a recent example of a massive tower resting on a transfer system, allowing the residential tower to have a different grid than the lower levels.

Supertall Applications: Transfer slabs are frequently used to transition from commercial spaces (wide columns) to residential/hotel spaces (narrower columns). They are routinely utilized in 10- to 30-story residential buildings and can be engineered for much taller structures.

Design Limitations: The main constraints are the thickness of the transfer slab (often 2-3 meters thick) and the load capacity of the columns and foundations below it.

Structural Considerations:

Positioning: The most demanding loads often occur when the transfer slab is positioned around 40% of the building's total height, requiring robust engineering to manage drift and shear.

Load Distribution: Transfer slabs (or "foundations in the sky") allow for massive loads to be redistributed from the dense tower layout above to a different column arrangement in the parking or lobby areas below.

While technically feasible to go higher, engineering requirements for safety and structural integrity dictate the practical height limit, which in the current era has reached 300-400+ meters.

https://www.google.com/search?q=what%27s...L8QUmGTRWfTpviw&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Side note: SkyTower uses a lot of sheer walls for structural rigidity.

https://urbantoronto.ca/news/2024/04/canadas-tallest-tower-be-taller-again.55744

officedweller · #**806** Posted **Apr 14, 2026, 5:50 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jollyburger

But with that podium level transfer slab when you look at the photos with the running track that cuts through is that level that thick?

https://mynextcondo.com/building/concord-metrotown-west-tower/

Yeah, looks like a parapet wall.

jollyburger · #**807** Posted **Apr 14, 2026, 6:18 AM**

That Concord Metrotown real estate video I posted earlier has a drone footage which clearly show the podium roof and it is a small wall around the edge of the podium roof/garden outdoor area.

• Video Link

It has a bunch of those square columns around the exterior of that level. I assume if the tower circular columns just follow through that slab with no column changes above then it's not serving as a transfer slab for the towers?

I just noticed the transfer slabs above that also have some "lips" to the edges so it's slightly thinner. Even the thin ones for the Grand Tower have a small lip.

EDIT: Actually in the previous photo with the running track if you look at the transfer slab above where it hooks into the worker elevators you can see the lip and how thin it is. And you can see the slab has thicker section running around the exterior of the tower.

Credit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6ud9DUskrw

officedweller · #**808** Posted **Apr 14, 2026, 6:24 AM**

Looks like the Grand Tower columns line up (no transfer) whereas the other towers columns' don't all line up (so there are transfers).

jollyburger · #**809** Posted **Apr 14, 2026, 6:30 AM**

New drone video from April 2nd

• Video Link

osirisboy · #**810** Posted **Apr 14, 2026, 1:07 PM**

The grand tower has a larger core

jollyburger · #**811** Posted **Apr 14, 2026, 4:17 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by osirisboy

The grand tower has a larger core

From an old DH story

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/concord-metrotown-burnaby

On the exterior photos of the towers like officedweller mentioned you can see the sheer walls that run up and down through the balconies. Which is probably easier to see in this drone video

• Video Link

gaviscon · #**812** Posted **Apr 14, 2026, 9:17 PM**

Do they have development permits for phase 2 yet?

jollyburger · #**813** Posted **Apr 14, 2026, 9:24 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by gaviscon

Do they have development permits for phase 2 yet?

I think they did the rezoning but no building permit.

Lexus · #**814** Posted **Apr 16, 2026, 6:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spr0ckets

I imagine the fact that these are enclosed balcony system, along with the installation of that lighting feature - all imply that the balcony railing and finishing will take longer than it would for a typical tower with standard non-enclosed balconies.

Also, it might simply be a matter of schedule management.
They might simply be slow-walking the completion of those two shorter towers to allow the taller tower to top out and have the entire development's completion to be more in sync.

As per the rezoning application (similar to the Brentwood project), Phase 1 is split into sub‑phases A and B.
Phase 1A includes the 33‑ and 45‑storey towers, while Phase 1B includes the 65‑storey signature tower.
Based on the Brentwood project, Phase A was completed and occupied several months ahead of Phase B, and I would expect a similar sequencing and timeline to occur here.

jollyburger · #**815** Posted **Apr 16, 2026, 8:27 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lexus

As per the rezoning application (similar to the Brentwood project), Phase 1 is split into sub‑phases A and B.
Phase 1A includes the 33‑ and 45‑storey towers, while Phase 1B includes the 65‑storey signature tower.
Based on the Brentwood project, Phase A was completed and occupied several months ahead of Phase B, and I would expect a similar sequencing and timeline to occur here.

They said Phase 2 site prep was going to happen in 2025 and nothing so who knows when we see it.

Lexus · #**816** Posted **Apr 23, 2026, 6:55 PM**

2026, Apr 23

I chose a poor launch location and experienced intermittent signal loss. Lesson learned.

• Video Link

Spr0ckets · #**817** Posted **Apr 24, 2026, 6:30 PM**

Looks like there's something like 12-14 floors left to go for the Grand Tower - plus the crown - based on a comparison of where they are at now (and where it lines up with the top of the middle tower's crown framing), relative to that section cut drawing above that jollyburger posted

Which would approximately put them at a mid-to-late Fall topping out, I reckon.

I was also curious as to whether they did any energy modeling for that tower in particular - but primarily to the extent that that south-facing concave-profiled side might reflect.....AND concentrate sunlight onto some poor tower residents in the Maywood area, potentially.

I'm reminded of an incident that occurred when I was in grad school in LA, many years after they had built and completed the Frank Gehry-designed Disney Concert hall in downtown LA, with it's Guggenheim Bilbao-like curvy surfaces.
No one realized at the time that having considerably reflective aluminum panels on a curvilinear surfaces like that, might end up inadvertently over-heating next door neighbouring buildings during hot summer days in much the same way a reflective magnifying or concave mirror does.
(.....or perhaps they designed it far too early for the kind of energy modeling to be done, that could nowadays suss this kind of thing out.)

After many complaints and a County-initiated investigation and study, they were eventually forced to go back and sandblast and unburnish the reflective panels to reduce the reflection that was heating up one neighbouring residential tower in particular - or at least the residential units in it - as well as blinding nearby drivers driving by.

Granted this tower facade doesn't curve to anywhere the degree that the Disney center does, but it piqued my curiosity.