[Burnaby] Aviara | 32fl | Escala | 42fl | Completed - Page 15

rofina · #**281** Posted **Mar 4, 2015, 1:29 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BodomReaper

Terrific photoset, thanks Klazu!

One thing bugging me are the ledges on the right side of this facade. Why needlessly clutter an otherwise bold, clean form?

Agreed, and agreed.

Just seems like a place for birds to roost. Don't see the point.

Take away those ledges, and the blue squares on the front and this building is near perfection.

Awesome shape, great presence, different colours, but flavourful.

Great project for a residential condo.

I actually think this may be one of the most outstanding projects around, it truly is different than 95% of the square cookie cutter condos being put up.

Klazu · #**282** Posted **Mar 4, 2015, 4:09 AM**

Two more views of Aviara from Renfrew Park.

red-paladin · #**283** Posted **Mar 4, 2015, 4:34 AM**

O.O Klazu can even make Brentwood look badass... and that's before everything that's on it's way up.

osirisboy · #**284** Posted **Mar 4, 2015, 4:48 AM**

I think it looks ok. It needs to get a bit more filled in still

Kirin · #**285** Posted **Mar 19, 2015, 10:49 PM**

New post on Aviara's blog with some new photos:

Another photo from a different perspective then I normally see of Aviara, courtesy of AudiA3 over at skyscrapercity.com.

jb1969 · #**286** Posted **Mar 25, 2015, 6:34 PM**

This has turned out to be a very attractive building. it stands out nicely

osirisboy · #**287** Posted **Mar 25, 2015, 6:43 PM**

Agreed. Looks good

Klazu · #**288** Posted **Apr 1, 2015, 5:44 PM**

First suites have appeared on Craigslist. Move-in date is said to be mid-May.

officedweller · #**289** Posted **Apr 9, 2015, 10:46 PM**

Posted yesterday by Yellow Fever at SSC:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yellow Fever

new updates

IMG_9468 by Yellow Fever @ SkyscraperCity, on Flickr

IMG_9469 by Yellow Fever @ SkyscraperCity, on Flickr

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yellow Fever

IMG_9472 by Yellow Fever @ SkyscraperCity, on Flickr

IMG_9473 by Yellow Fever @ SkyscraperCity, on Flickr

faston · #**290** Posted **Apr 10, 2015, 6:00 PM**

They've got the waterfall (waterwall?) running now and the building sign up as well as the enterphones. Lots of landscaping going on as well.

officedweller · #**291** Posted **Apr 16, 2015, 8:10 AM**

From SSC:

Quote:

Originally Posted by AudiA3

Here you go man..

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yellow Fever

my turn..

IMG_9726 by Yellow Fever @ SkyscraperCity, on Flickr

IMG_9727 by Yellow Fever @ SkyscraperCity, on Flickr

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yellow Fever

IMG_9729 by Yellow Fever @ SkyscraperCity, on Flickr

IMG_9735 by Yellow Fever @ SkyscraperCity, on Flickr

Dylan Leblanc · #**292** Posted **Apr 20, 2015, 9:09 PM**

The second tower has been changed to 42 storeys from 52.

Ledingham McAllister Scales Back Second Aviara Tower - http://www.vancouvermarket.ca/2015/03/02/ledingham-mcallister-scales-back-second-aviara-tower/

Original design

red-paladin · #**293** Posted **Apr 20, 2015, 9:21 PM**

Thanks!

The article is interesting, showing that proposals in Burnaby are often allowed to go higher but turn it down due to the economics of buildings tall towers with a small floor plate.

42 is still a good size for Brentwood though.

dleung · #**294** Posted **Apr 20, 2015, 11:10 PM**

Wow the spandrel colours are horrible. And the townhouses look like commercial units in a strip mall in Mississauga.

osirisboy · #**295** Posted **Apr 20, 2015, 11:55 PM**

Why can't they have larger floorplates?!

I don't mind the spandrel on this. Though I'm kinda screwed up. I Think I'm happy with anything as long as it's not seafoam

LeftCoaster · #**296** Posted **Apr 21, 2015, 12:21 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dylan Leblanc

The second tower has been changed to 42 storeys from 52.

Ledingham McAllister Scales Back Second Aviara Tower - http://www.vancouvermarket.ca/2015/03/02/ledingham-mcallister-scales-back-second-aviara-tower/

I honestly don't understand this. I get that taller is not always better but what is the rationale for dropping density? In a market as large as metro Vancouver it makes absolutely no sense to me.

red-paladin · #**297** Posted **Apr 21, 2015, 12:36 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

I honestly don't understand this. I get that taller is not always better but what is the rationale for dropping density? In a market as large as metro Vancouver it makes absolutely no sense to me.

The article is pretty clear:

Quote:

“Through this design work it became apparent to the applicant that the structure required to support the specific building form for the proposed 52 storey building would be inefficient and uneconomical. As a result, the applicant has redesigned the tower and reduced its height to 42 storeys, with a reduced development density. Given the change in form and density of the tower, the rezoning is required to be forwarded to a new Public Hearing.”

faston · #**298** Posted **Apr 21, 2015, 5:20 PM**

I don't think Ledmac ever wanted to do a 52 story tower. I think they were strongly encouraged to do so by the city with it's new-found love of tall buildings. They (Ledmac) made a good try at it with design and engineering plans as well as a development permit application but ultimately just decided that it wasn't feasible for that site.

I think it's the same down the street at Brentwood. Remember the announcement of 70 story towers?

BodomReaper · #**299** Posted **Apr 21, 2015, 5:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by faston

I don't think Ledmac ever wanted to do a 52 story tower. I think they were strongly encouraged to do so by the city with it's new-found love of tall buildings. They (Ledmac) made a good try at it with design and engineering plans as well as a development permit application but ultimately just decided that it wasn't feasible for that site.

I think it's the same down the street at Brentwood. Remember the announcement of 70 story towers?

Higher than intended proposed heights are probably due to developers being cautious about a potential backlash from neighboring towers - the massing of Aviara I was changed from a box to a wedge after Grand Marquis residents complained about view blockages. If a project ever gets more seriously ensnared in a NIMBY conflagration, the developer will have ~10 floors in hand to offer as a "concession".

LeftCoaster · #**300** Posted **Apr 21, 2015, 7:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by red-paladin

The article is pretty clear: “Through this design work it became apparent to the applicant that the structure required to support the specific building form for the proposed 52 storey building would be inefficient and uneconomical. As a result, the applicant has redesigned the tower and reduced its height to 42 storeys, with a reduced development density. Given the change in form and density of the tower, the rezoning is required to be forwarded to a new Public Hearing.”

Yes I read the article, but that is nonsense. I have yet to see a pro forma where building less condo space equates to a higher return, from a lump sum perspective or an ROE.

Look at Ice condos in Toronto, an 8,000 sq ft floorplate, 67 stories tall, mid level sales price and incredibly profitable.

It's just completely counter-intuitive what's going on in Burnaby.