[Surrey] 3 Civic Plaza | 164m | 48 fl | Completed - Page 43

Shift · #**841** Posted **Apr 8, 2016, 5:27 AM**

First look at the condo glass:

Jebby · #**842** Posted **Apr 8, 2016, 3:03 PM**

Wasn't this building supposed to be iconic?

CurtisVerbatim · #**843** Posted **Apr 8, 2016, 4:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jebby

Wasn't this building supposed to be iconic?

I think it still can be. I'll reserve judgement until its finished

Shift · #**844** Posted **Apr 8, 2016, 4:32 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jebby

Wasn't this building supposed to be iconic?

It already is and it's less than half way up. The massing and architecture look great and will even more so once it slims to half the width. There's nothing like this in Metro Vancouver.

Blease · #**845** Posted **Apr 8, 2016, 5:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jebby

Wasn't this building supposed to be iconic?

Aren't comments on this board supposed to be intelligible?

sryboy · #**846** Posted **Apr 8, 2016, 8:48 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shift

It already is and it's less than half way up. The massing and architecture look great and will even more so once it slims to half the width. There's nothing like this in Metro Vancouver.

Agreed.

officedweller · #**847** Posted **Apr 8, 2016, 9:14 PM**

Thanks for the pics!

GMasterAres · #**848** Posted **Apr 8, 2016, 9:24 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jebby

Wasn't this building supposed to be iconic?

Depends on your definition of iconic. It's one of the first buildings of this type and scale in Metro Vancouver. It's also going to be prominent and large, being one of the tallest and being in Surrey Central, one of the highest in the region (top floor will be nearly 800 feet above sea level). Only a few towers in Metrotown surpass that height (with a few more under construction) and nothing in Brentwood or Downtown Vancouver do. Floor count and building "height" sure, but geographical height (elevation), no.

I think your piggles are regarding the look which I'll reserve judgment on when the tower is finished. It isn't going to win any awards for shiny lots of windows that are purple, orange, or some other bold color.

But look at Trump. When the first glass was going on half the posts were "WOW THAT IS SO UGLY WTF" and now that it is topped out almost all the posts (even from those that said ugly) are "WOW THAT IS AMAZING!"

Also look at Alumni by Bosa (University). A bunch of people saying the spandrel was ugly as all hell. It's now pretty much topped out and quite frankly I think it looks pretty good. Going to win awards? No probably not. But it still isn't "ugly" to me.

So yes it is quite iconic by the definition of iconic. You may think it is ugly right now but I'll reserve judgement to the end when I see the final product.

Klazu · #**849** Posted **Apr 8, 2016, 10:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jhausner

Top floor will be nearly 800 feet above sea level.

Is Central Surrey really that much higher than the sea level? It doesn't feel like it.

GMasterAres · #**850** Posted **Apr 8, 2016, 10:35 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Klazu

Is Central Surrey really that much higher than the sea level? It doesn't feel like it.

Yes. Surrey Central is between 275 and 300 feet above sea level at grade. Where 3-Civic is, is roughly 275 feet. So this tower being about 540 feet high (just above 164 meters), the roof tops out at 815 feet. So without being absolute, your top floor penthouse view will be at something like 785-790 feet above sea level roughly? Something around there. Going to be a pretty good view and you'll see as far as North Vancouver/Downtown to the West, Langley to the east, and the US border to the South. North is _just_ mountains...

Compare that to Shangri-la tallest in Metro Vancouver. It is at 100 feet above with a tower height of 646 feet excluding antenna. So that's roof of 746 feet above sea level or 69 feet 21 meters lower down. Pretty much every point in downtown Vancouver is < 150 feet above sea level with most under 100 feet.

Brentwood around town center is 140 feet above. So a tower would have to be 675 to equal there too aka taller than Shangri-la.

Ultimately the highest town center is Metrotown @ average 415 feet so even higher than Surrey Central. Given that I'd imagine there are some towers likely "higher" than 3-Civic since you only need to be 400 feet to match (121 meters). That would put a bunch of the new under constructions higher. But 3-Civic is still quite high and considering location and what's being built in Metro-town, one of the highest when completed.

Also why I keep saying in other threads that Metrotown really is the most poised to build an outstanding skyline because of its regional height on the ridge there. Could you imagine a tower like Shangri-la in Metrotown for example? Or even a bit higher.

650 to 700 foot tower in Metrotown puts the roof over 1000 feet above sea level. Top floor you could bloody see everything 360 degrees around. To break 1000 feet above sea level in Surrey Central a tower would need to be
725 feet high at least (221 meters).

Klazu · #**851** Posted **Apr 8, 2016, 10:37 PM**

Thanks, I need to check the figure on my car's navigation next time I am in Surrey Central.

By the way, the highest living in Metro Vancouver won't be either in Surrey or Metrotown. Everyone forgets Burnaby Mountain, where new ~14 floor mini towers are going up. Those will offer the highest elevation living, although fairly close to the ground.

GMasterAres · #**852** Posted **Apr 8, 2016, 10:45 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Klazu

Thanks, I need to check the figure on my car's navigation next time I am in Surrey Central.

By the way, the highest living in Metro Vancouver won't be either in Surrey or Metrotown. Everyone forgets Burnaby Mountain, where new ~14 floor mini towers are going up. Those will offer the highest elevation living, although fairly close to the ground.

Town center...

But yes you're right... can they see over the trees though?

Just kidding well only partially. Think most of the mini tower there actually can't lol...

Also point of clarification if you talk town center in the sense of what Metro Van does, Guildford is 300 feet above also. For reference, Coquitlam averages 80 feet or so, and Lougheed is about the same as Brentwood at 150 feet. Oak Ridge is also about 300 feet so equally in a decent position for some nice high views if they push up really high. Edmonds is also about 300 feet above. New Westminster is quite low in their "town center" but up on the ridge around sixth avenue it does climb to about 320 feet so you could have some really talls there for great elevation.

Metrotown is by far the highest "town center."

Anyway sorry back on topic, 3-Civic still iconic from my perspective, high, super-mixed (hotel, retail, office, residential ALL IN ONE), etc. etc. yabber yabber etc. Ugly? Maybe I don't know we'll see.

osirisboy · #**853** Posted **Apr 8, 2016, 10:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shift

It already is and it's less than half way up. The massing and architecture look great and will even more so once it slims to half the width. There's nothing like this in Metro Vancouver.

does an "iconic" building have to necessarily look good? Lol. But yes it should stick out well

So far I'm not a fan of it. I do like those window cut outs in the side though

GMasterAres · #**854** Posted **Apr 8, 2016, 10:54 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by osirisboy

does an "iconic" building have to necessarily look good? Lol. But yes it should stick out well

So far I'm not a fan of it. I do like those window cut outs in the side though

Iconicly ugly maybe?

Heck definition of iconic is actually something along the lines of "widely known and acknowledged especially for distinctive excellence."

Splitting hairs, an iconic tower can be acknowledged as having distinctive excellence in ugliness.

Like I said I reserve judgement until later.

Shift · #**855** Posted **Apr 8, 2016, 11:32 PM**

I think it looks great aside from the spandrel on the hotel. It's the most interesting tower going up in Metro Vancouver by far. Essentially 3 buildings in one, heavily mixed-use, great massing, details, fronting a brand new plaza. If this was going up in Vancouver it would have a lot more fanfare.

Jebby · #**856** Posted **Apr 9, 2016, 2:00 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shift

It already is and it's less than half way up. The massing and architecture look great and will even more so once it slims to half the width. There's nothing like this in Metro Vancouver.

Iconicly bland, I guess.

Blease · #**857** Posted **Apr 9, 2016, 6:12 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jhausner

Depends on your definition of iconic. It's one of the first buildings of this type and scale in Metro Vancouver. It's also going to be prominent and large, being one of the tallest and being in Surrey Central, one of the highest in the region (top floor will be nearly 800 feet above sea level). Only a few towers in Metrotown surpass that height (with a few more under construction) and nothing in Brentwood or Downtown Vancouver do. Floor count and building "height" sure, but geographical height (elevation), no.

I think your piggles are regarding the look which I'll reserve judgment on when the tower is finished. It isn't going to win any awards for shiny lots of windows that are purple, orange, or some other bold color.

But look at Trump. When the first glass was going on half the posts were "WOW THAT IS SO UGLY WTF" and now that it is topped out almost all the posts (even from those that said ugly) are "WOW THAT IS AMAZING!"

Also look at Alumni by Bosa (University). A bunch of people saying the spandrel was ugly as all hell. It's now pretty much topped out and quite frankly I think it looks pretty good. Going to win awards? No probably not. But it still isn't "ugly" to me.

So yes it is quite iconic by the definition of iconic. You may think it is ugly right now but I'll reserve judgement to the end when I see the final product.

You have to keep in mind that cutting edge style tends to push the imagination and large segments of the public aren't too keen with it. I'm guessing Jebby's probably more comfortable with middle-of-road architectural style than anything too avant-garde.

Jebby · #**858** Posted **Apr 9, 2016, 10:43 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blease

You have to keep in mind that cutting edge style tends to push the imagination and large segments of the public aren't too keen with it. I'm guessing Jebby's probably more comfortable with middle-of-road architectural style than anything too avant-garde.

lol, seriously? This is mediocre at best. The design is decent, but the execution so far is very much mediocre. It looks cheap, but maybe that was intentional to help it blend in with the rest of Surrey.

scryer · #**859** Posted **Apr 10, 2016, 12:46 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jebby

lol, seriously? This is mediocre at best. The design is decent, but the execution so far is very much mediocre. It looks cheap, but maybe that was intentional to help it blend in with the rest of Surrey.

I hope not. Surrey can afford to make bold architectural statements while meeting its needs.

Blease · #**860** Posted **Apr 10, 2016, 2:21 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jebby

lol, seriously? This is mediocre at best. The design is decent, but the execution so far is very much mediocre. It looks cheap, but maybe that was intentional to help it blend in with the rest of Surrey.

My comment was actually meant for Jhausner, but it looks like I touched a nerve nonetheless. So, let me start by admitting I have limited knowledge of architecture, but I generally agree with the view of the City of Surrey, Century Group, and the ZGF Cotter architectural team, that 3 Civic is a forward looking building. I'm not sure how you can criticise it, given that the building has barely reached 40% of its full height. Are you an architectural authority, or do you just prognosticate from a basement-suite or between casual jobs?