Brookfield Place Calgary | 247M - 56F | Construction - Page 73

holhm22 · #**1441** Posted **Jan 18, 2016, 1:30 AM**

Update from today

Chadillaccc · #**1442** Posted **Jan 18, 2016, 3:46 AM**

The radius of the curve is getting huge. I'd estimate it will make it all the way to the beam by the time it reaches the top, maybe a bit more. Really loving how this building is turning out. Such a simple touch (the curved corners) has made it so elegant and somewhat unique.

brookfield · #**1443** Posted **Jan 18, 2016, 4:25 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

The radius of the curve is getting huge. I'd estimate it will make it all the way to the beam by the time it reaches the top, maybe a bit more. Really loving how this building is turning out. Such a simple touch (the curved corners) has made it so elegant and somewhat unique.

Does the curve serve any non-aesthetic purpose?

Chadillaccc · #**1444** Posted **Jan 18, 2016, 7:35 PM**

I don't think so. It was a design choice that was tacked on in order to make it somewhat unique among boxes. The original design of the tower was identical to that of Bay Adelaide Centre (Toronto) main tower. It was very boring, but high quality. This choice just gives it that extra layer of quality thanks to the amazing glass by Permasteelisa and the changing/tapering radius of the curve. None of Calgary's top 10 towers are straight up boxes, so maybe the developer just wanted to continue that trend in the skyline.

KoolKool · #**1445** Posted **Jan 19, 2016, 1:47 AM**

The first tower with curve glass in Calgary

brookfield · #**1446** Posted **Jan 19, 2016, 4:27 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

Bay Adelaide Centre (Toronto)

Is the Bay Adelaide Centre the KPMG building?

Chadillaccc · #**1447** Posted **Jan 21, 2016, 7:47 AM**

Now, I'm genuinely not trying to start anything about hating on Edmonton here with this comment, just an observation. I just realized, using the SSP database, that Edmonton only has 16 completed, and 6 UC towers over 100 meters. This is in stark contrast to Calgary which has 14 towers over 100 meters under construction currently, with 62 completed. We literally have almost as many skyscrapers (100+ meter towers) UC as Edmonton does at all. Pretty wild, but having been to Edmonton a lot and loving the city, I never would have guessed. The point is, we have no reason whatsoever to be butthurt about Stantec being 3.8 meters taller than Brookfield.

Edmonton source: http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?cityID=5
Calgary Source: http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?cityID=3

Quote:

Originally Posted by brookfield

Is the Bay Adelaide Centre the KPMG building?

Yes sir, the queen of boxes...

http://www.investtoronto.ca/Mobile/b...=Real%20Estate

drto · #**1448** Posted **Jan 21, 2016, 2:59 PM**

The other thing that almost always gets passed over is that height is almost the only metric that people get hung up on. Stantec may be 13 feet taller but Brookfield is massive in its size (1.4million sq feet vs 800,000 sq feet for Stantec).

Generally speaking, Brookfield would be far taller if it encompassed the same envelope and footprint as Stantec.

suburbia · #**1449** Posted **Jan 21, 2016, 4:15 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by drto

The other thing that almost always gets passed over is that height is almost the only metric that people get hung up on. Stantec may be 13 feet taller but Brookfield is massive in its size (1.4million sq feet vs 800,000 sq feet for Stantec).

Generally speaking, Brookfield would be far taller if it encompassed the same envelope and footprint as Stantec.

True, but it doesn't have the same envelope. Look at The Bow for the saddest result in terms of height based on the sf resulting.

Jay in Cowtown · #**1450** Posted **Jan 21, 2016, 7:56 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

Now, I'm genuinely not trying to start anything about hating on Edmonton here with this comment, just an observation. I just realized, using the SSP database, that Edmonton only has 16 completed, and 6 UC towers over 100 meters. This is in stark contrast to Calgary which has 14 towers over 100 meters under construction currently, with 62 completed. We literally have almost as many skyscrapers (100+ meter towers) UC as Edmonton does at all. Pretty wild, but having been to Edmonton a lot and loving the city, I never would have guessed. The point is, we have no reason whatsoever to be butthurt about Stantec being 3.8 meters taller than Brookfield.

Meh, 3.8 meters isn't even worth mentioning... and I highly doubt anyone from the Chuck will rub it in our face, especially when comparing the two skylines. Edmonton's 250m tall tower surrounded by a bunch of stubbies will pale in comparison to our skyline as a whole!

Having said that... They sure can about that arena they're building up there, not to mention the football stadium they already have! lol

The Fisher Account · #**1451** Posted **Jan 21, 2016, 8:17 PM**

HomeInMyShoes · #**1452** Posted **Jan 21, 2016, 8:58 PM**

^Thanks for this photo and the one in the Telus thread. That shot makes me love this building a lot.

tomthumb2 · #**1453** Posted **Jan 21, 2016, 9:15 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jay in Cowtown

Meh, 3.8 meters isn't even worth mentioning... and I highly doubt anyone from the Chuck will rub it in our face, especially when comparing the two skylines. Edmonton's 250m tall tower surrounded by a bunch of stubbies will pale in comparison to our skyline as a whole!

Having said that... They sure can about that arena they're building up there, not to mention the football stadium they already have! lol

Agree 100%. Hopefully we'll live long enough to see a real super tall in our city some day. AND an impressive arena and stadium!

The Fisher Account · #**1454** Posted **Jan 21, 2016, 10:23 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by HomeInMyShoes

^Thanks for this photo and the one in the Telus thread. That shot makes me love this building a lot.

No prob! Gotta make my visits to the Bow count!

H.E.Pennypacker · #**1455** Posted **Jan 21, 2016, 10:24 PM**

Great shot... The tower looks so sleek there and the glass looks amazing.

speedog · #**1456** Posted **Jan 22, 2016, 1:06 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

Now, I'm genuinely not trying to start anything about hating on Edmonton here with this comment, just an observation. I just realized, using the SSP database, that Edmonton only has 16 completed, and 6 UC towers over 100 meters. This is in stark contrast to Calgary which has 14 towers over 100 meters under construction currently, with 62 completed. We literally have almost as many skyscrapers (100+ meter towers) UC as Edmonton does at all. Pretty wild, but having been to Edmonton a lot and loving the city, I never would have guessed. The point is, we have no reason whatsoever to be butthurt about Stantec being 3.8 meters taller than Brookfield.

Edmonton source: http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?cityID=5
Calgary Source: http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?cityID=3

Yes sir, the queen of boxes...

http://www.investtoronto.ca/Mobile/b...=Real%20Estate

You are aware the is a very real reason why this is in Edmonton, aren't you? Or at least part of the reason?

Chadillaccc · #**1457** Posted **Jan 22, 2016, 6:38 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by speedog

You are aware the is a very real reason why this is in Edmonton, aren't you? Or at least part of the reason?

I am aware of the former height restriction. However, as a Montrealer put it (in regards to their height restriction) none of the large new proposals in Montreal, even though they're in the middle of a relatively substantial boom, come close to pushing the heigh restriction. Their tallest currently uc/proposed is 183 meters while the height restriction is 210 meters. Why is this? As that poster put it, because there's no demand.

Edmonton would have an ocean of 150 meter towers, or at least an ocean of 80 - 120 meter towers and a few punching to the maximum if there had ever been demand for it. Instead, they have 15 towers between 80 and 120 meters and 7 towers taller than that, with only 2 pushing the maximum, because there wasn't enough demand.

All of that said, it seems like Edmonton's height restriction was eliminated at the exact perfect time as that's basically when demand started for increased options of high rise/skyscraper living, and the perfect storm with Stantec looking for a new HQ and the city building a new arena for the Oilers.

MalcolmTucker · #**1458** Posted **Jan 22, 2016, 4:52 PM**

I will be pleasantly surprised if the condo portion of Stantec isn't eliminated or deferred. I have similar worries with Telus Sky, though that is less obvious on how it would be done.

Surrealplaces · #**1459** Posted **Jan 22, 2016, 5:31 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

I will be pleasantly surprised if the condo portion of Stantec isn't eliminated or deferred. I have similar worries with Telus Sky, though that is less obvious on how it would be done.

I was wondering that about Stantec as well. If they go ahead with the condo portion I have a feeling there will be some money lost. I wouldn't be surprised to see it deferred until the economy picks up, but you never know.

s4.audios · #**1460** Posted **Jan 22, 2016, 5:58 PM**

Stantec's residential portion will be rentals.

A third residential tower is to be built on the current Greyhound station site, I believe that one will be condos as with on top of the Marriott. The third tower is pretty much the last one to have no real announcements yet even the cineplex in it's podium pictured in all the renders hasn't been officially announced. If anything I'd say it is the only one in risk of deferral.