Park Hyatt (1128 W Georgia) | 197m | 62 fl | Completed - Page 122

Metro-One · #**2421** Posted **Feb 18, 2009, 6:21 AM**

Quote:

Doubt that the fins would be lit up at night - it would probably drive the penthouse owners crazy.
I think that's the only place for a logo that is isolated from view from the penthouse suites.

Why not? Many other condos in the area have simple lighting effects on their rooftops and crowns.

jlousa · #**2422** Posted **Feb 18, 2009, 6:27 AM**

There is no crown on this building, the penthouse goes straight up to the top. Most towers have mech. rooms above the penthouse and that's what you see lit up, they don't bother the owners as they can't see it.

Metro-One · #**2423** Posted **Feb 18, 2009, 6:32 AM**

But don't the fins rise relatively far above the penthouse levels? I would think that would be enough clearance for the lights not to be a bother, even 3 simple lights (one on each corner) would add just enough flavor so the building is not lost at night. Also what about beacon lights for low flying aircraft? It seems to me that a building almost 200m tall near a float plane and helicopter port should have some safety lights built in. For goodness sakes the Pitt River bridge towers have beacons on them!

jlousa · #**2424** Posted **Feb 18, 2009, 6:38 AM**

I'm not sure of any flight paths that would take a plane over downtown at a height of 200m. Any helicopter would be grounded well before visibility didn't allow for them to see a large building.

With the 6/49 at $39Million, maybe one could buy the penthouses and install a white/red light so the tower doesn't get lost in the night. Heck maybe project the bat sign onto the clouds we're constantly under.

Yume-sama · #**2425** Posted **Feb 18, 2009, 7:11 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlousa

I'm not sure of any flight paths that would take a plane over downtown at a height of 200m. Any helicopter would be grounded well before visibility didn't allow for them to see a large building.

With the 6/49 at $39Million, maybe one could buy the penthouses and install a white/red light so the tower doesn't get lost in the night. Heck maybe project the bat sign onto the clouds we're constantly under.

Hmm, that could solve our current murder situation...

And freak out all the potheads.

Delirium · #**2426** Posted **Feb 18, 2009, 2:28 PM**

Les Twarog (realtor) posted a bunch of new pics on his website. here are some of them..

all photos can be found here; http://www.lestwarog.com/shangrila/index.html

hotel entrance

lobby

gym

private dining room

entrance to "Market" by Jean-georges

upper courtyard

vanman · #**2427** Posted **Feb 18, 2009, 4:54 PM**

Cool shots thanks.

SpongeG · #**2428** Posted **Feb 18, 2009, 10:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlousa

I'm not sure of any flight paths that would take a plane over downtown at a height of 200m. Any helicopter would be grounded well before visibility didn't allow for them to see a large building.

With the 6/49 at $39Million, maybe one could buy the penthouses and install a white/red light so the tower doesn't get lost in the night. Heck maybe project the bat sign onto the clouds we're constantly under.

if I win i will put up iciclye lights all around it

SpongeG · #**2429** Posted **Feb 18, 2009, 10:53 PM**

I see they are watching Seattle TV - King 5

Quote:

EdinVan · #**2430** Posted **Feb 18, 2009, 11:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by officedweller

That's probably more a function of the location of the original "ROYAL BANK" signs used to be on the tower - even the shield logo was a bit off centre because of that.
The Olympic ones are really just poorly designed.

Could you rephrase this for me? It's probably because I'm really sleepy today, but I'm not sure I follow....

EdinVan · #**2431** Posted **Feb 18, 2009, 11:12 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Why not? Many other condos in the area have simple lighting effects on their rooftops and crowns.

I don't understand why 'condo owners' are spoken of so reverentially. If they don't like lights, they should move to the suburbs. I don't mean that to sound rude, but it's just baffling to me why people who are so annoyed by lights and noise and people and garbage and, well, life, would choose to live in an urban area.

LeftCoaster · #**2432** Posted **Feb 18, 2009, 11:17 PM**

The issue here is that the penthouse owns right up to the roof, so its not just lights outside, it's lights right in the area you just paid 30 million for. For instance if you wanted to go sit on your roof top patio with your wife for a nice romanitic evening LEDs would be illuminating your wife like she was getting an X-ray.... I know would not be pleased and I'm no nimby.

EdinVan · #**2433** Posted **Feb 18, 2009, 11:18 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metro-One

I just came from downtown tonight, the new Bell logo looks great, but i could not believe how non-eventful the Shangri-La was. I could not even see the fins, the building just seemed to tapper out to darkness as if it were in permanent fog! They really need to put some lighting features on it, even some nice simple white light would do or even a red beacon on the top would add something! It is sad that our tallest "signature" tower is so under presented at night. Jlousa's comment intrigues me though, where else would they put the logo?

Except for the Bell logo's size; it's just a smidgen too big for the roof (the old Bell logo was of a better size). But I'm not complaining; I'm very pleased to see a lighting feature in that area -- it makes up for the loss of the HSBC's lighting feature (they now turn it off at night, thinking they're going to save a bundle of money).

officedweller · #**2434** Posted **Feb 19, 2009, 12:13 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by EdinVan

Could you rephrase this for me? It's probably because I'm really sleepy today, but I'm not sure I follow....

They probably didn't want to go to the expense of drilling a better placed hole for the wiring and/or re-wiring for the new signs.

The replacement signs on Bentall IV are actually the worst. The original logo was the red Canada Trust logo - then TD took them over but the proportions of its logo were different - so the TD is there, but there are "filler" strips beside it that are aluminum panel - not the precast stone like the original cladding. Bentall III has an awkward looking BMO logo too - the original was the "M" inset in the precast.

zivan56 · #**2435** Posted **Feb 19, 2009, 1:17 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

The issue here is that the penthouse owns right up to the roof, so its not just lights outside, it's lights right in the area you just paid 30 million for. For instance if you wanted to go sit on your roof top patio with your wife for a nice romanitic evening LEDs would be illuminating your wife like she was getting an X-ray.... I know would not be pleased and I'm no nimby.

So they paid 30 million without even thinking about such things? Well, they certainly got what they deserve...
It's not like the design and lighting was kept a secret for them...and if it was, they should sue the developers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EdinVan

I don't understand why 'condo owners' are spoken of so reverentially. If they don't like lights, they should move to the suburbs. I don't mean that to sound rude, but it's just baffling to me why people who are so annoyed by lights and noise and people and garbage and, well, life, would choose to live in an urban area.

+1.
Seriously, don't live there and expect it to be a suburb.

This is causing Vancouver to have an old folks home type atmosphere where it should be most vibrant...and causing places like Granville Street to be too much for most people to handle.

I say, f*** the people living downtown near major streets. They chose to live in the centre of a major city, and want it to be dead slient? Get real

LeftCoaster · #**2436** Posted **Feb 19, 2009, 1:27 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by zivan56

So they paid 30 million without even thinking about such things? Well, they certainly got what they deserve...
It's not like the design and lighting was kept a secret for them...and if it was, they should sue the developers.

I think its you who needs to do some thinking... they bought the penthouse on the premise that there would be no lights shining directly into their property... WTF lighting design are you even refering to? At no point have there been any lighting design plans indicating illuminated fins, and that is certianly something their real estate agent would make aware to the seller if there were.

zivan56 · #**2437** Posted **Feb 19, 2009, 1:33 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

I think its you who needs to do some thinking... they bought the penthouse on the premise that there would be no lights shining directly into their property... WTF lighting design are you even refering to? At no point have there been any lighting design plans indicating illuminated fins, and that is certianly something their real estate agent would make aware to the seller if there were.

Boo hoo hoo, cry me a river

I really don't give a damn about them...they should move if they aren't satisfied. There are people that are waiting in line to buy it next...who can put up with a couple of lights lighting up their patio.

LeftCoaster · #**2438** Posted **Feb 19, 2009, 1:41 AM**

Are you drunk?

No one is crying.

There never was a lighting plan so if all of a sudden there were a bunch of spotlights in their pool I think that would be a bit of a surprise.

Also I wasn't aware of a lineup to buy 15+ million dollar condos in this city... last I checked there were a few still available.

zivan56 · #**2439** Posted **Feb 19, 2009, 2:30 AM**

Ok, think for a second, you are arguing some person who is loaded with money can dictate what the city should look like? Is there a policy somewhere that says how many lumens of light are allowed up onto a patio? Nope...so they should shut up and be quiet or sell the place...it's pretty simple. Now, if it were in Maple Ridge miles from civilization, then it would be an issue. However, in the middle of a major city no way.
I ask you to look at your first reply to me and ascertain as to who is the drunk or who possibly didn't take their pills today.

LeftCoaster · #**2440** Posted **Feb 19, 2009, 2:41 AM**

Can you please read my post rather than just responding to whatever you please?

Here I'll make it easy for you:

THERE NEVER WERE ANY PLANS TO LIGHT THE FINS!

They were not canceled because some Nimby billionare who bought the penthouse didn't want them.... THERE NEVER WERE ANY.

LIGHTING THE FINS WAS NOT PART OF J M CHENG'S ORIGINAL DESIGN!

There, I surely hope that was clear enough.