Downtown Vancouver Updates - Page 66

vanman · #**1301** Posted **Apr 5, 2008, 7:20 PM**

The Onni community garden on Pacific Boulevard (near Granville)

Various Concord buidings:

A now decimated Plaza of Nations.

excel · #**1302** Posted **Apr 5, 2008, 8:14 PM**

^wow its so open now. just one big concrete playground.

flight_from_kamakura · #**1303** Posted **Apr 6, 2008, 12:04 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by vanman

The Onni community garden on Pacific Boulevard (near Granville)

what a great shot of the gardens. man, i'm really looking forward to seeing this are built out following the realignment of the onramps.

vanhattan · #**1304** Posted **Apr 6, 2008, 7:08 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by flight_from_kamakura

what a great shot of the gardens. man, i'm really looking forward to seeing this are built out following the realignment of the onramps.

Yes, great shot. Too bad ONNI decided to put up a huge ugly bill borad on the Pacific side. (see left middle photo). It will block out all direct sunligt to my "garden spot" that ONNI assigned to me. Guess I won't be planting anything, unless it can grow in the total shade. What a waste.

moizmad · #**1305** Posted **Apr 8, 2008, 4:03 AM**

Who exactly is responsible for the bldg heights listed on the Diagrams page?
After all this time, I find it unbelievable that Granville Sq. is still listed at 478 ft.
I surely thot that there would be a correction to this egregious error. I would love to know from where this information is obtained. There is no way that bldg (incl the little booth) is 478 ft above the main entrance on Granville Sq. I think it is 428 ft and there must be a glop of something making the "2" look like a "7". Let's get this fixed soon.

phesto · #**1306** Posted **Apr 8, 2008, 5:02 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by moizmad

Who exactly is responsible for the bldg heights listed on the Diagrams page?
After all this time, I find it unbelievable that Granville Sq. is still listed at 478 ft.
I surely thot that there would be a correction to this egregious error. I would love to know from where this information is obtained. There is no way that bldg (incl the little booth) is 478 ft above the main entrance on Granville Sq. I think it is 428 ft and there must be a glop of something making the "2" look like a "7". Let's get this fixed soon.

Mispelling the word 'thought' would be an egregious error.

Granville Square has always been measured from grade, which is the CP tracks, not the elevated plaza. Below are the heights listed on Emporis, which are taken directly from the building's owner and are accurate:

Height from elevated plaza main entrance to main roof: 403 feet (123 m)
Height from elevated plaza main entrance to mechanical penthouse: 417 feet (127 m)
Height from elevated plaza main entrance to top of control tower: 430 feet (131 m)

Height from CP railway tracks to main roof: 439 feet (134 m)
Height from CP railway tracks to mechanical penthouse: 454 feet (138 m)
Height from CP railway tracks to top of control tower: 466 feet (142 m)

LeftCoaster · #**1307** Posted **Apr 8, 2008, 3:41 PM**

Don't even listen to him Phesto... he has been saying the exact same thing for the past 2 years... its actually kind of wierd.

Good use of the word egregious though... one of my favourite outta left field academic words.

vanlaw · #**1308** Posted **Apr 8, 2008, 4:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

one of my favourite outta left field academic words.

I like "de facto" - pulled that one out at the poker table at a casino recently - didnt even mean to "pull out" and academic word. Got lots of strange looks from the others.

moizmad · #**1309** Posted **Apr 9, 2008, 1:05 AM**

I'm a "she" for starters. Yes I admit it, any chance I get to use "egregious"
cannot be passed over. Now all seriousness aside, isn't it understood that bldg heights are always taken from main entrance street level, so why does Gr Sq. get it's measurement from sub levels? No other bldgs do.

moizmad · #**1310** Posted **Apr 9, 2008, 1:10 AM**

Secondly, Leftcoaster claims those Emporis figures are accurate, and 466 ft to
the top of the control booth.....so whoever is in charge here, pls change the
Diagrams page from 478 to 466, even tho that number is ridiculous. Why don't we count the 70 ft of sub levels for Shangri La and list it as 715 ft?

moizmad · #**1311** Posted **Apr 9, 2008, 1:19 AM**

Thirdly, if we're gonna measure Gr Sq from the railway tracks (how absurd is that by the way) I mean, why limit it to that, how about the ocean bed or better still, the Marianna Trench, then we could claim the tallest bldg ever.....
some 37,000 ft! If you want to be silly, go all the way, don't f*ck around.

mr.x · #**1312** Posted **Apr 9, 2008, 1:34 AM**

In this picture, the ground level of Granville Square clearly starts at the CP Tracks. Therefore, the number is accurate.

With Shangri-la, the ground level is clearly at Georgia Street....and we had to dig. Apples and oranges.

moizmad · #**1313** Posted **Apr 9, 2008, 1:56 AM**

Balderdash! Why not the Marine Bldg or Shaw? Both of them have their sub levels exposed on the north side. I don't care about bottom levels or train tracks...the proper method is MAIN ENTRANCE STREET LEVEL, how thick are you guys? Leftcoaster quotes the accuracy of Emporis, I just came from there and none of their numbers agree with his. They list Gr Sq at 138 metres or 453 feet. Jesus, can anyone around here get these numbers right? They also list Shangri La at 201 meters, 659 ft. And not all, but about 1/2 of their measurements differ from the Diagrams page here. Bottom line is, I think my own estimates are probably more accurate than any of you bozos.

deasine · #**1314** Posted **Apr 9, 2008, 2:00 AM**

wow... angry... better watch out there. Mr.x2 is still the moderator btw. I wouldn't try to make too many enemies on this forum.

But if you were to make a point, I will try to put more sources and evidence in your posts. Here you go: http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=granvillesquare-vancouver-canada

mr.x · #**1315** Posted **Apr 9, 2008, 2:03 AM**

Oh noooo....Granville Square is listed as higher than it actually is.

Moving on.....

deasine · #**1316** Posted **Apr 9, 2008, 2:05 AM**

dreambrother808 · #**1317** Posted **Apr 9, 2008, 2:07 AM**

lol

moizmad · #**1318** Posted **Apr 9, 2008, 2:32 AM**

I don't give a hoot if I offend someone. So we have 3 to 4 different heights for Gr Sq. I mean is it THAT difficult to get something right? Ever since I was a kid, the Empire State Bldg has been 1,250 ft (1,472 with the TV Tower). It doesn't change a bit every year or so, sometimes 1,230, sometimes 1,275...it is always 1,250 ft. and it's measurement isn't from train tracks, or high tide or low tide, it is from the bldgs main entrance street level. Maybe I'm asking too much here, but for a site like this to take the attitude that it doesn't really matter if these figures are right or wrong is beyond me, you might as well just put rough estimates of all the bldgs, I mean, who cares?

jlousa · #**1319** Posted **Apr 9, 2008, 2:53 AM**

First they are free to list it from whatever entrance they chose. They have obviously chosen the Waterfront Rd entrance. There is nothing wrong with that.

Second Emporis is a laughing stock in the industry. It is for skyscraper enthusiasts only. Contrary to whatever they advertise no one uses them. I think there was a post either here or SSC where someone from here emailed someone there and they claimed they received confirmation that Shangri-la was 62 stories and over 200m. They even quoted a person that never provided that false information as their source. To me it seems like it's run by a bunch of height obsessed fanatics with no concept of reality.

May I ask why you care so much what the height is?

vanman · #**1320** Posted **Apr 9, 2008, 2:57 AM**

Somebody is crazy.