Shangri-La - Vancouver's Tallest | 197m | 62 fl | Completed - Page 13

LeftCoaster · #**241** Posted **Nov 20, 2007, 5:47 AM**

how could they "pull a fast one on the city?"

djh · #**242** Posted **Nov 20, 2007, 5:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

how could they "pull a fast one on the city?"

ask Peter Wall.

LeftCoaster · #**243** Posted **Nov 20, 2007, 5:28 PM**

my point exactly.

towerguy3 · #**244** Posted **Nov 20, 2007, 5:54 PM**

I'm interviewing the orange vested guy at 12 noon. I'll have camera and microphone on hand

The orange vested guy said 62 floors, another guy said 64 floors, and a younger dude said 67

201 meters puts it at 660 feet, taller than the Bankers Hall in Calgary

and 62 floors means 60 stories cause 4 and 13 are omitted. Why list 59 stories when you can list 60?

Canadian Mind · #**245** Posted **Nov 20, 2007, 6:00 PM**

Wait, what? that poor bastard.

jlousa · #**246** Posted **Nov 20, 2007, 6:12 PM**

*sigh* Yes it'll have more then 61 floors we've been over this already, that is including the mech floors on top. 64 is probably accurate depending on how they label them. But the tower isn't growing, feel free to water it every morning, read the paper to it, but you're not going to see it grow above what's already approved.

Canadian Mind · #**247** Posted **Nov 20, 2007, 6:18 PM**

*Busts out the newspaper.*

LeftCoaster · #**248** Posted **Nov 20, 2007, 6:27 PM**

Can we just end this once and for all! The developer cannot add height past 196m becuase it is ILLEGAL! The developer would face still fines or legal action from the city, not to mention being blacklisted by city hall from ever developing in Vanocuver again. ITS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN!

Why would a developer risk a very successful development, just to add a few more metres to make Shangri-La the temporary second tallest building in western Canada to win some non existant pissing match that exists only on this juvinile fourm?

There will be no "fast one" there will be no extra height, shangri-la will be 196m and that is it... live with it.

towerguy3 · #**249** Posted **Nov 20, 2007, 6:50 PM**

Then why did Emporis list 201 m? Does anyone have a copy of the new Almanac? What does it say?

Canadian Mind · #**250** Posted **Nov 20, 2007, 7:15 PM**

Cause emporis sucks. While I hope they are right, I doubt it is gonna happen.

officedweller · #**251** Posted **Nov 20, 2007, 7:17 PM**

Because Emporis is edited by ordinary people like you and me. Maybe it has come full circle. Maybe an Emporis editor saw your older post here and then amended the Emporis information on that (unsubstantiated) basis.

LeftCoaster · #**252** Posted **Nov 20, 2007, 7:17 PM**

Becuase the people at Emporis dont know squat. Look at the city's development permit... thats the only true source.

jlousa · #**253** Posted **Nov 20, 2007, 8:09 PM**

Anyone else remember BIV stealing misinformation from here and putting it in their paper?

This forum is very well read, unfornately the more misinfo on it, the more well connected people will stop reading it. That's why it bothers me so much to see garbage in here.

Canadian Mind · #**254** Posted **Nov 20, 2007, 8:20 PM**

aye, thats what the rumour mill is for. although that doesn't mean localized rumours can't come up and dissapear in these specific threads aswell dude. Just that this rumour wont die.

slurrey · #**255** Posted **Nov 20, 2007, 9:16 PM**

From a couple of weeks ago...
SHURE LOOKS TALL WHILE DRIVIN DOWN KINGSWAY!

phesto · #**256** Posted **Nov 20, 2007, 9:19 PM**

Thanks for the pic. Driving over the Lions Gate this morning it looks really tall.

Regarding Emporis - As has been suggested you can't always trust the info, although in this case I'm curious as to why someone changed the height, as it was previously correct.

For well over a year Emporis listed Bentall 5 at 500ft, suggesting it would be the tallest building in Vancouver when completed, even though a basic search of the City's website would bring up the most recent DP report with the heights clearly indicated.

I would hope the editors there are actually checking sources and not just reading posts on forums...

giallo · #**257** Posted **Nov 21, 2007, 2:26 AM**

Thanks for the Kingsway view, Slurrey. I haven't seen it from that angle yet.

Delirium · #**258** Posted **Nov 21, 2007, 4:17 AM**

here's a sweet pano from flickr.com > > >

giallo · #**259** Posted **Nov 21, 2007, 4:46 AM**

Shangri-la adds to every angle of the skyline. I didn't expect it to have that much of an impact.

mr.x · #**260** Posted **Nov 21, 2007, 4:57 AM**

it's not tall enough.