Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshal
I would very much like to know what the Delta rule is though. I can't imagine they would need one, no one would want to build below ground there. There must be geographic limitations to it though. You can definitely dig in North Delta and Tsawwassen.
|
I don't know the specific rule could find out if you wanted. I do know that in my conversations with engineers and even emergency response each has said "basements and underground not allowed in the flood plain." Maybe it is just opinion but these are the engineers that sign off on developments so I take them at their word. And based on that I'd imagine that confirms your thought it is geographic limited. You can build underground and basements in North Delta and parts of Tsawwassen. Some of Tsawwassen is in the flood plain aka Tsawwassen Springs, but parts aren't like up on English Bluff for example. All of Ladner is in the flood plain.
Quote:
|
As for New West, the planners at city hall (I know all of them) would prefer developers to put their parking below grade, even right beside the river. It’s the developers who don’t want to spend money to do it. FYI, planners don’t get into technical details. That would be the City engineering and building departments. It is not the challenge that you seem to think it is.
|
Good to know and I do know planners don't get into that the engineers do, mistake in wording. Either way it actually surprises me then that this gets built in New Westminster. Council allows it then? If it is the desire of the planners that developers put their parking below grade sorry I'm just surprised they don't push back and ultimately put in their report that they are recommending a denial of the development. Then again maybe they do and Council ultimately approves it which is their right.
I don't know and don't really pay attention to New West. I just always wondered why it seems every development along the River has overground parking yet other developments not along the river don't. And why it only happens in New West and not other cities. Seemed to be river related but I stand corrected.
Quote:
|
I will take exception with the talk about 20 years ago, and today, and asbestos, etc., however. I practice here, I work with dozens of big engineering firms, and you're simply off base. It has only become easier to build under those circumstances because of the new membrane technologies. No fights, fair enough. But don't talk with such certainty when you obviously don't know enough about it.
|
Not sure what you're taking exception to. Building codes have changed over the decades, I was simply pointing that out. You can't possibly claim that building code today and standards today are the same as 20 years ago and that engineers and architects back then all were held to the same requirements and/or standards? That's what I'm saying. For you to take exception to me would mean you're claiming otherwise which quite frankly I find hard to believe.
Maybe your standards haven't, but the industry as a whole and the cities themselves have definitely changed and improved in a lot of areas over the years. So I stick to my notion that using a building from the past as an example of what can be done today is still invalid just like using a car built in 1940 and using that as an example of safety standards compared to a car built in 2010 would be ludicrous.
If I'm completely misunderstanding your point then I apologize.
Quote:
|
I am pretty sure that I never spoke to the idea of underground parking and TFN. That would obviously be unnecessary and therefore stupid.
|
You never did. It was more a comment on where most of the frustration is in others. Most of the others against this seem to push the element of "giant parking lot." You didn't specifically though sorry it seemed like I was implying you did.
Quote:
|
One last issue: the whole underground thing is not the crux anyway. The difficulty is in designing the foundations to achieve enough bearing to support the structure in the first place. And remember, engineers do multiple things with what they design; its not good enough to just hold a building up, it also has to meet predetermined requirements for differential settlement, global settlement, vibration, and so on. Through in earthquake loads and the implied survivability of the structure for human safety, and you have a whole lot going on. This all applies to building on mud flats as well as bedrock.
|
Agreed. I pointed that out in another thread to others. It's equally to me difficult if they went the other way and built the parkade on the roof. Clearly I'm no architect or engineer, but I'd imagine just logically parking above the building on the roof would require considerable changes to the structure underneath to handle load and account for the points you raised aka Earthquakes, settlement, vibration, etc. which would also increase costs. To me it is simply easier just to flatten and pave a parking lot and build a square box for retail as they're doing (yes it isn't 'square' and yes I'm simplifying).
Especially considering location, under sea level, in a flood plain, in a major earthquake zone, on largely sand ground, etc.
Prev
Linear Mode
