Paradox Hotel (1151 W Georgia) | 188m | 67 Fl | Completed - Page 165

vanciti · #**3281** Posted **Jan 12, 2015, 10:34 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prometheus

I highly doubt the accuracy of that information. According to the render used at the construction site and the Trump website, there were 7 more residential floors, plus the penthouse terrace to go (i.e., a total of 8 floors), as of December 15, 2014.

It wouldn't the first time someone said they were further along than they were...If the concrete guys think there is 8 more floors to go and there isn't...I see a big problem coming up.

On another note, the Hotel is apparently very behind schedule at the moment.

officedweller · #**3282** Posted **Jan 13, 2015, 12:09 AM**

Based on Klazu's pic, 8 more floors looks like a total height relative to Shangri-La that is consistent with the planning doc:

Quote:

Originally Posted by officedweller

And the approved height relative to Shangri-La:

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/36776623/CD-1-Text-Amendment---1133-West-Georgia-Street-2009-11-03

Klazu · #**3283** Posted **Jan 13, 2015, 12:41 AM**

Is it me or is that diagram more blurry every time it gets re-posted? Officedweller, you have to admit blurring it more every time just to annoy me!!

Reminds me of this: http://youtu.be/icruGcSsPp0

officedweller · #**3284** Posted **Jan 13, 2015, 1:32 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Klazu

Is it me or is that diagram more blurry every time it gets re-posted? Officedweller, you have to admit blurring it more every time just to annoy me!!

Reminds me of this: http://youtu.be/icruGcSsPp0

It's a quote - so it's just as blurry as before.

Dimswitch · #**3285** Posted **Jan 13, 2015, 2:27 AM**

I think they're just going to keep going until somebody tells them to stop!

Caliplanner · #**3286** Posted **Jan 13, 2015, 2:32 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dimswitch

I think they're just going to keep going until somebody tells them to stop!

.....and me thinks that you're just saying stuff to make people on this forum happier for the New Year!!

red-paladin · #**3287** Posted **Jan 13, 2015, 2:45 AM**

I almost want to create one thread for 'Building height disputes' and another for 'Viewcone and other height restriction impacts on new proposals' so we can redirect anything on both subjects

Prometheus · #**3288** Posted **Jan 13, 2015, 2:48 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by officedweller

that is consistent with the planning doc:

The image from the planning document is from 2009; the render from the Trump website (and construction site) is from 2013 and was part of the new marketing campaign after the project was re-launched in 2012. On a balance of probabilities, I think the most recent render is the correct one.

But you never know. Anything is possible. We will have to wait to see.

trofirhen · #**3289** Posted **Jan 13, 2015, 12:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by red-paladin

I almost want to create one thread for 'Building height disputes' and another for 'Viewcone and other height restriction impacts on new proposals' so we can redirect anything on both subjects

IN ALL SINCERITY, I THINK THAT IS A VERY PRACTICAL IDEA. REALLY. GO FOR IT.

vanciti · #**3290** Posted **Jan 13, 2015, 4:17 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prometheus

The image from the planning document is from 2009; the render from the Trump website (and construction site) is from 2013 and was part of the new marketing campaign after the project was re-launched in 2012. On a balance of probabilities, I think the most recent render is the correct one.

But you never know. Anything is possible. We will have to wait to see.

I would assume the planning document to be the most relevant as that is what a Development Permit & Building Permit are issued on. It would not be the first time a rendering on a condo marketing website did not match a planning document.

If they build off the rendering and not the planning document I suspect they will have some issues when it comes to get an occupancy permit

phesto · #**3291** Posted **Jan 13, 2015, 4:33 PM**

For what it's worth, the companies that do the renderings are often completely independent from the project and not associated with the architect and design team at all. This is a frequent source of inaccuracies.

It would surprise me if they got the floor count wrong on the rendering given that the height is sort of a selling feature, but it certainly wouldn't be the first time its happened.

Vin · #**3292** Posted **Jan 13, 2015, 4:56 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by red-paladin

I almost want to create one thread for 'Building height disputes' and another for 'Viewcone and other height restriction impacts on new proposals' so we can redirect anything on both subjects

You can create it but I doubt many would participate in it simply because such issues regarding viewcones, etc. are brought up as part of a project discussion, and are only unique to projects in downtown Vancouver. Well, I actually see more talks within threads regarding the hatred of seafoam glass glazing but I doubt such a standalone thread would warrant any real interest as most postings regarding it are just passing remarks.

Prometheus · #**3293** Posted **Jan 13, 2015, 5:00 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by trofirhen

IN ALL SINCERITY, I THINK THAT IS A VERY PRACTICAL IDEA. REALLY.

Trofirhen, let me see if I understand your concept of VERY PRACTICAL: If people want to discuss any issue relevant to the Trump Tower, then they should discuss it in the Trump Tower thread, unless the issue has to do with how many floors the Trump Tower has or how many more floors remain to be constructed. If people have any questions or thoughts regarding how many floors the Trump Tower has or how many more floors remain to be constructed, then they should have to exit the very thread specifically dedicated to discussing all issues regarding the construction of the Trump Tower and go to a completely different thread.

That's what you consider a "VERY PRACTICAL" idea?

LOL!

Vin · #**3294** Posted **Jan 13, 2015, 5:00 PM**

Being a nerd n all, I physically counted the floors of the building yesterday and it totalled 57 so far. Hope that relieves a little of the itch for some of you.

Prometheus · #**3295** Posted **Jan 13, 2015, 5:43 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by vanciti

I would assume the planning document to be the most relevant...

Yes, but:

1) There might be an updated planning document (showing fewer floors) that has not come to light.

2) An updated planning document may not have been necessary (and people who know more may want to chime in here). You certainly need approval for an increase in the maximum FSR. But I am not sure a developer needs additional approval if he decides not to use the entire maximum FSR.

I would not be displeased if there are eight more floors to go. But I would be surprised.

Prometheus · #**3296** Posted **Jan 13, 2015, 5:48 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vin

Being a nerd n all, I physically counted the floors of the building yesterday and it totalled 57 so far. Hope that relieves a little of the itch for some of you.

Well, the mystery is not how many floors have been constructed (because we can just count); the mystery is how many floors the building will have due to the conflicting documents.

But out of curiosity, according to you, how many floors were there before the first balcony floor?

Calgarian · #**3297** Posted **Jan 13, 2015, 6:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by vanciti

I was on a tour at the site on Friday...8 more floors to go for top out.

Thanks, love the impact this is having on the skyline already. Might make a trip out to Van this summer, looking forward to checking this beauty out in person!

vanciti · #**3298** Posted **Jan 13, 2015, 7:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Yes, but:

1) There might be an updated planning document (showing fewer floors) that has not come to light.

2) An updated planning document may not have been necessary (and people who know more may want to chime in here). You certainly need approval for an increase in the maximum FSR. But I am not sure a developer needs additional approval if he decides not to use the entire maximum FSR.

I would not be displeased if there are eight more floors to go. But I would be surprised.

On item 2. An updated planning document would be required. A building Permit can only be issued in accordance with the Development Permit. If you apply for 1 and reduce the FSR, reduce the unit count etc an amendment to your DP is required.

Who knows if my guy was right, I would certainly hope so considering who it was and what his role is, however it wouldn't the first time someone was wrong.

trofirhen · #**3299** Posted **Jan 13, 2015, 7:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calgarian

Thanks, love the impact this is having on the skyline already. Might make a trip out to Van this summer, looking forward to checking this beauty out in person!

There's a neat view of it if you look at it from up the curve of the Melville Connector from Dunsmuir.
Either stand beside Burrard Skytrain Station, or on the corner directly by Park Place. You're surrounded by some of the snazziest architecture in the city, on Burrard.
Then look west up the curve of Melville, past Bentall and Past the Hyatt and you can feel how it looms over the others. Dramatic feeling to the city at that point, IMO.

Vin · #**3300** Posted **Jan 13, 2015, 8:28 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Well, the mystery is not how many floors have been constructed (because we can just count); the mystery is how many floors the building will have due to the conflicting documents.

But out of curiosity, according to you, how many floors were there before the first balcony floor?

I would say 3 full-ceilinged floors in the podium proper. However the podium has an additional glass-tent-covered top floor with swimming pool and club. Therefore there should be 4 floors before the first balcony floor?