[Burnaby] Station Square | 35,38,48,41,52 fl | Completed - Page 47

Spr0ckets · #**921** Posted **Aug 16, 2016, 11:54 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by officedweller

The arrow below shows the angle of the rendering.
The new tower lines up with the 3rd(2nd?) tower (hiding it).
The 2nd(3rd?) tower is shown in the rendering to the left of the new tower (at the end of the side street).

Okay I see now; it makes more sense with your explanation.

The view is from McKay, which, for some reason I had never expected to see a view from.

So would it be safe to assume that this tower will be rental (seeing as it's tower #4 if we are to go based on the order they're planning to build them).
Or are they just not going to name it Tower #4 and then hope to sell off the units somehow that way?

It's funny the semantic and numerological mental gymnastics that marketing folks have to navigate to sell units in this city.

Klazu · #**922** Posted **Aug 17, 2016, 12:09 AM**

If they used an expensive architecture firm I doubt it will be rental.

officedweller · #**923** Posted **Aug 17, 2016, 1:36 AM**

Based on what freeform said, it sounds like they are skipping "Tower 4".
The dumb thing is that the towers are/will be known by their street addresses.

If they're that conscious of it - call them Towers A, B, C, D and E for marketing.

Jebby · #**924** Posted **Aug 17, 2016, 2:21 AM**

It's really a shame they couldn't demolish or redevelop the existing towers. The surface parking and the towers on stilts really affect the urban form of the project.

Freeform · #**925** Posted **Aug 17, 2016, 3:10 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by officedweller

Based on what freeform said, it sounds like they are skipping "Tower 4".
The dumb thing is that the towers are/will be known by their street addresses.

If they're that conscious of it - call them Towers A, B, C, D and E for marketing.

Tower 4 was the first tower built and is complete. Tower 1 isn't a tower and is the "reno" at the very south end of the development. These phase/tower numbers represent the order and values as they pertain to the construction process and not the marketing number system of which I can't comment.

logan5 · #**926** Posted **Aug 17, 2016, 3:51 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jebby

It's really a shame they couldn't demolish or redevelop the existing towers. The surface parking and the towers on stilts really affect the urban form of the project.

What a big waste of time and money. That part of Station Square is no better than before. They tore out more expensive materials to put in cheaper material. It gives me little hope for the so called Yaletown style restaurant row.

officedweller · #**927** Posted **Aug 17, 2016, 4:19 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freeform

Tower 4 was the first tower built and is complete. Tower 1 isn't a tower and is the "reno" at the very south end of the development. These phase/tower numbers represent the order and values as they pertain to the construction process and not the marketing number system of which I can't comment.

Thanks.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jebby

It's really a shame they couldn't demolish or redevelop the existing towers. The surface parking and the towers on stilts really affect the urban form of the project.

Maybe some day someone will buyout the strata corp(s) for those towers.

urbancanadian · #**928** Posted **Aug 17, 2016, 6:59 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jebby

It's really a shame they couldn't demolish or redevelop the existing towers. The surface parking and the towers on stilts really affect the urban form of the project.

I seem to recall that there is still the potential for one or two more towers to be added over the longer term in the surface parking area, possibly even with an extension of Silver Avenue. The existing (older) towers would remain but the retail "mall" would be demolished. Maybe that's why they went relatively cheap in the renovation.

-------------------------

I really like the design for 6080 McKay Avenue. It looks much more streamlined than the previous towers, while still retaining their general appearance.

I'm eager to see the design for the final tower. It's on the corner, and is the tallest of the bunch so I expect it'll be the nicest.

retro_orange · #**929** Posted **Aug 17, 2016, 7:31 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by urbancanadian

I seem to recall that there is still the potential for one or two more towers to be added over the longer term in the surface parking area, possibly even with an extension of Silver Avenue. The existing (older) towers would remain but the retail "mall" would be demolished. Maybe that's why they went relatively cheap in the renovation.

-------------------------

I really like the design for 6080 McKay Avenue. It looks much more streamlined than the previous towers, while still retaining their general appearance.

I'm eager to see the design for the final tower. It's on the corner, and is the tallest of the bunch so I expect it'll be the nicest.

I believe there was a plan floated a few years back to build townhouses around the bases of the Grand Corniche towers. Hopefully they come to fruition at some point. If anything the towers will get a new facade with a rainscreen before they get bought out and demolished.

Jebby · #**930** Posted **Aug 17, 2016, 2:22 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by officedweller

Maybe some day someone will buyout the strata corp(s) for those towers.

Unless they're rentals, I have a hard time seeing anyone being able to completely buy out the owners in order to demolish and rebuild. It would also have to come at a hefty premium that might not make financial sense.

Klazu · #**931** Posted **Aug 20, 2016, 1:08 AM**

Station Square few days ago.

Downtown Burnaby

giallo · #**932** Posted **Aug 20, 2016, 2:51 AM**

Love that last shot. Metrotown is starting to fill out nicely.

BodomReaper · #**933** Posted **Aug 20, 2016, 5:57 PM**

Thanks for the pics. While it can't be described as beautiful, Station Square 1 looks pretty decent. Glazing isn't bad, spandrel used well, the protruding box worked, and the podium doesn't look like an industrial building (unlike The Sovereign.) Bodes well for the towers co-designed with Kohn Pederson Fox.

Klazu · #**934** Posted **Aug 21, 2016, 1:55 AM**

Yeah, I would call the first tower "totally okay". Nothing special about it, but nothing annoying either. I am sure it will work well as part of the big cluster of towers.

vanman · #**935** Posted **Aug 28, 2016, 8:37 PM**

My pics from today.

Jebby · #**936** Posted **Aug 29, 2016, 3:17 AM**

Is there going to be parking in the podium?

Sheba · #**937** Posted **Aug 29, 2016, 6:21 AM**

Check out this link (pdf). It's site 2 / 3 restaurant row.

Jebby · #**938** Posted **Aug 29, 2016, 2:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheba

Check out this link (pdf). It's site 2 / 3 restaurant row.

Thanks.

It will be parking, then. No wonder it looks so overbuilt.

red-paladin · #**939** Posted **Aug 29, 2016, 3:40 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jebby

Thanks.

It will be parking, then. No wonder it looks so overbuilt.

It's office on the second and third floor, not parking.

Jebby · #**940** Posted **Aug 29, 2016, 3:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by red-paladin

It's office on the second and third floor, not parking.

Ok, now I"m confused. It looks like a parkade, especially considering the windows won't be floor to ceiling and this plan says parkade. I'm guessing I'm completely disorientated as to which directions the pictures are taken from...?