HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada


Closed Thread

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #6341  
Old Posted Jan 22, 2013, 12:28 AM
Dwils01's Avatar
Dwils01 Dwils01 is offline
Urban Fanactic
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Coquitlam
Posts: 3,282
I think that 900-unit building for the site was just a rumour because I can't see any way of fitting 900 units in this proposal. But I love it
     
     
  #6342  
Old Posted Jan 22, 2013, 12:32 AM
thmx
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Content removed
     
     
  #6343  
Old Posted Jan 22, 2013, 12:38 AM
Dwils01's Avatar
Dwils01 Dwils01 is offline
Urban Fanactic
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Coquitlam
Posts: 3,282
I knew they couldn't fit that many units into the building. Don't know where the news got its info at.
     
     
  #6344  
Old Posted Jan 22, 2013, 1:39 AM
Innsertnamehere's Avatar
Innsertnamehere Innsertnamehere is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 12,830
I can see 700 units in a building like that. Make 350-400 in the tower and the rest in the base.
     
     
  #6345  
Old Posted Jan 22, 2013, 1:58 AM
Dirt_Devil's Avatar
Dirt_Devil Dirt_Devil is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Quebec City
Posts: 901
Very nice proposal for Hamilton! It looks like this city has kept coming with new proposals for a while now which is a good thing because Hamilton is very underrated IMO...!
__________________
- La blonde dit: regarde Jean comme ces chevals sont beaux!

- Jean: Mais voyons ce ne sont pas des chevals, ce sont des chevaux

- La blonde: ahhh bon!...pourtant sa ressemblait a des chevals
     
     
  #6346  
Old Posted Jan 22, 2013, 3:33 AM
SteelTown's Avatar
SteelTown SteelTown is offline
It's Hammer Time
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 20,356
The next big proposal from Hamilton should be the Hard Rock Cafe proposal. Hard Rock and a local group is going to present the plans on Feb 6th, apparently it's worth $250 million (it includes a casino).

BTW the condo tower is 33 storey.
     
     
  #6347  
Old Posted Jan 22, 2013, 4:46 AM
Andrewjm3D's Avatar
Andrewjm3D Andrewjm3D is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,702
The only part I don't like is that long grey slab running up the tower. It would look better as brick or glass. Other then that it's a pretty solid design. Tell me Harry Stinson has no part in this.
     
     
  #6348  
Old Posted Jan 22, 2013, 4:51 AM
davidivivid davidivivid is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Ville de Québec City
Posts: 3,055
Beautiful proposal!!!!
__________________
"I went on a diet, swore off drinking and heavy eating, and in fourteen days I lost two weeks" Joe E. Lewis
     
     
  #6349  
Old Posted Jan 22, 2013, 4:59 AM
thmx
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Content removed
     
     
  #6350  
Old Posted Jan 22, 2013, 6:13 AM
TallBob TallBob is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,135
Another nice looking residential proposal for Edmonton. Nice height too! I also like the Hamilton proposal.
     
     
  #6351  
Old Posted Jan 22, 2013, 10:26 PM
urbandreamer's Avatar
urbandreamer urbandreamer is offline
recession proof
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,656
That Hamilton proposal is awful. Welcome to the 905 c.2004.

700 units? Talk about a condo bubble my gosh!
     
     
  #6352  
Old Posted Jan 22, 2013, 10:56 PM
Architype's Avatar
Architype Architype is offline
♒︎ verified human
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: 🍁 Canada
Posts: 13,994
I think the Hamilton proposal looks reasonably good, at least the rendering does.
     
     
  #6353  
Old Posted Jan 23, 2013, 1:37 AM
Redkey's Avatar
Redkey Redkey is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Toronto
Posts: 156
The Hotel building itself looks decent. Somehow the two heritage buildings in the foreground make the building look much better. Interesting phenomenon.
     
     
  #6354  
Old Posted Jan 23, 2013, 5:22 PM
Coldrsx's Avatar
Coldrsx Coldrsx is offline
Community Guy
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Edmonton, AB
Posts: 68,980
Debate going on at City Hall today on the new arena agreement/design/options/financing.

New photos up!

Option A

(http://photos.edmonton.ca/CityGovernment...p/0/L/SW%20aerial%20of%20arena%20A-L.jpg)


(http://photos.edmonton.ca/CityGovernment...-mCctqX5/0/L/View%20of%20plaza%20A-L.jpg)


(http://photos.edmonton.ca/CityGovernment...own%20104%20avenue%20to%20east%20A-L.jpg)


(http://photos.edmonton.ca/CityGovernment...6j/0/L/View%20of%20SE%20corner%20A-L.jpg)

Option B

(http://photos.edmonton.ca/CityGovernment...s/0/L/SW%20aerial%20of%20arena%20B-L.jpg)


(http://photos.edmonton.ca/CityGovernment...-mLBzjbH/0/L/View%20of%20plaza%20B-L.jpg)


(http://photos.edmonton.ca/CityGovernment...own%20104%20Avenue%20to%20east%20B-L.jpg)


(http://photos.edmonton.ca/CityGovernment...b9/0/L/View%20of%20SE%20corner%20B-L.jpg)

Option C

(http://photos.edmonton.ca/CityGovernment...7/0/L/SW%20aerial%20of%20arena%20C-L.jpg)


(http://photos.edmonton.ca/CityGovernment...-bHbSh9x/0/L/View%20of%20plaza%20C-L.jpg)


(http://photos.edmonton.ca/CityGovernment...oking%20down%20104%20to%20east%20C-L.jpg)


(http://photos.edmonton.ca/CityGovernment...Nh/0/L/View%20of%20SE%20corner%20C-L.jpg)

all from
http://photos.edmonton.ca/CityGovernment..._X47Dtd#!i=2332773323&k=mMwCCNh&lb=1&s=L
__________________
"The destructive effects of automobiles are much less a cause than a symptom of our incompetence at city building" - Jane Jacobs 1961ish

Wake me up when I can see skyscrapers
     
     
  #6355  
Old Posted Jan 23, 2013, 5:25 PM
Wooster's Avatar
Wooster Wooster is offline
Round Head
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,688
I like option C. I've never seen why people can't just cross the street. Cleaner design.

In any event - beautiful arena.
     
     
  #6356  
Old Posted Jan 23, 2013, 5:25 PM
O-tacular's Avatar
O-tacular O-tacular is online now
Fake News
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Calgary
Posts: 25,913
I think it's safe to say they'll end up going with option B. Whenever there's a shittier, cheaper way that's what gets chosen.

EDIT: I agree with Wooster. Option C is the cleanest if they're to do away with the sky bridge.
     
     
  #6357  
Old Posted Jan 23, 2013, 5:30 PM
Coldrsx's Avatar
Coldrsx Coldrsx is offline
Community Guy
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Edmonton, AB
Posts: 68,980
Transportation won't allow C.... even though I like that crossing option best. BUT, if we are doing a bridge, do A.

I suspect A will be chosen.
__________________
"The destructive effects of automobiles are much less a cause than a symptom of our incompetence at city building" - Jane Jacobs 1961ish

Wake me up when I can see skyscrapers
     
     
  #6358  
Old Posted Jan 23, 2013, 5:31 PM
bkd bkd is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 363
Option A or bust.
     
     
  #6359  
Old Posted Jan 23, 2013, 5:32 PM
SignalHillHiker's Avatar
SignalHillHiker SignalHillHiker is online now
I ♣ Baby Seals
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Sin Jaaawnz, Newf'nland
Posts: 36,255
I like Option A most. In my opinion, it's more attractive and more impressive.
__________________
Note to self: "The plural of anecdote is not evidence."
     
     
  #6360  
Old Posted Jan 23, 2013, 6:40 PM
blacktrojan3921's Avatar
blacktrojan3921 blacktrojan3921 is offline
Regina rhymes with fun!
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Regina, SK
Posts: 903
A will certainly be my choice
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Closed Thread

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 5:23 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.