Location: Kelowna via Calgary via Edmonton via Saskatoon
Posts: 335
Would it have been cost-prohibitive to just take this down with a controlled implosion via exposives rather than slowly pick away at it like they're doing?
Would it have been cost-prohibitive to just take this down with a controlled implosion via exposives rather than slowly pick away at it like they're doing?
For a small building like this, it's probably significantly cheaper and safer to take it down like they are doing.
Location: Kelowna via Calgary via Edmonton via Saskatoon
Posts: 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by You Need A Thneed
For a small building like this, it's probably significantly cheaper and safer to take it down like they are doing.
That sucks! The optics of a controlled implosion would have been awesome. They could have had people pay $$ to watch from elevated floors on surrounding towers and roofs (or likely not because of some safety bs but we can always dream)
That sucks! The optics of a controlled implosion would have been awesome. They could have had people pay $$ to watch from elevated floors on surrounding towers and roofs (or likely not because of some safety bs but we can always dream)
You could have cameras on nearby roofs. There wouldn't be any people nearby.
^^^ Very nice tilt shift photo. It has been interesting watching the old Herald building being demolished, but it will be awesome to see the new building rise.
__________________
ELBOWS UP CANADA, ELBOWS UP UKRAINE, ELBOWS UP GREENLAND
CANADA, EUROPE, NZ, AUSTRALIA, JAPAN, MEXICO STRONG
US REPUBLICANS/MAGA/ICE NOT WELCOME HERE, STAY OUT