[Burnaby] Gilmore Place | 214.8m | 64fl | Phase 1 Completed - Page 16

officedweller · #**301** Posted **Apr 6, 2017, 5:42 AM**

For reference, Shangri-La is 642ft tall.

Klazu · #**302** Posted **Apr 6, 2017, 5:49 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Also, why not just release the exact height?? If it is a true 700 footer (hate using feet for buildings, means nothing to me) we are looking at over 213 meters! (that means something to me, because I am not American).

Hear, hear to both comments. If you're going to market it as the new tallest, please be clear about the height too.

Metro-One · #**303** Posted **Apr 6, 2017, 6:12 AM**

Just feels so odd to advertise it as the regions tallest and to only give a general height.

Vin · #**304** Posted **Apr 6, 2017, 3:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by logan5

Holy. That's tallest by a pretty good margin. If Brentwood can support a 700 footer, imagine what DT Vancouver would have sans height restrictions. Probly have a couple 1000 footers by now.

You are starting to see the irony now?

Yesterday Skyscraperpage had Brisbane on the banner and wow, the Gold Coast skyline just looked amazing with the couple of >700 foot towers they have. Then I saw some pictures of Vancouver's downtown skyline from Kitsilano beach and I thought, "Boy, that is so sad."

Gold Coast:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Parra 1

[/url]Cityscape over the Beach by S♡C, on Flickr

Vancouver:

Quote:

Originally Posted by vanman

However, all's not lost: yay for a couple of 700 footers coming up in Brentwood area! I am looking forward to seeing the skyline in the next 5 years!

Spr0ckets · #**305** Posted **Apr 6, 2017, 7:00 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vin

You are starting to see the irony now?

Yesterday Skyscraperpage had Brisbane on the banner and wow, the Gold Coast skyline just looked amazing with the couple of >700 foot towers they have. Then I saw some pictures of Vancouver's downtown skyline from Kitsilano beach and I thought, "Boy, that is so sad."

Gold Coast:

Yeah but do they have cool mountains (that you can see from virtually every other part of the GVA) and viewcones (which only make sense from only specific (read :arbitrary) locations in the city)?
No?
pshh...

See?

(*seriously though, I hope this Gilmore tower stands a trend, if not a trickle of developers pushing for supertall towers in the Burnaby region at least, until Vancouver get their heads out of their backsides. If ever that happens.

osirisboy · #**306** Posted **Apr 6, 2017, 7:37 PM**

Thank god we don't have 700 footers downtown it would clearly block the mountains. Lol

Jebby · #**307** Posted **Apr 6, 2017, 8:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by osirisboy

Thank god we don't have 700 footers downtown it would clearly block the mountains. Lol

They might block views from the most important part of city which I believe is located on the corner of Cambie and 12th.

Vin · #**308** Posted **Apr 6, 2017, 8:40 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spr0ckets

Yeah but do they have cool mountains (that you can see from virtually every other part of the GVA) and viewcones (which only make sense from only specific (read :arbitrary) locations in the city)?
No?
pshh...

See?

(*seriously though, I hope this Gilmore tower stands a trend, if not a trickle of developers pushing for supertall towers in the Burnaby region at least, until Vancouver get their heads out of their backsides. If ever that happens.

Never thought about that!

Yesh, our precious rocks.....

LeftCoaster · #**309** Posted **Apr 6, 2017, 9:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Just feels so odd to advertise it as the regions tallest and to only give a general height.

It's likely they are still in final discussions with the City of Burnaby or their contractor and do not know the exact height at this time, only that it will be the tallest.

Either way it's pretty exciting.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vin

You are starting to see the irony now?

I think you might be a little confused on the definition of irony...

The city enacted viewcones to preserve views of the mountains. Ironic would be if the views of the mountains were blocked by shorter buildings.

Irony is not the city not having tall buildings because it blocked tall buildings...

LeftCoaster · #**310** Posted **Apr 6, 2017, 9:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metro-One

I hope they mean base of the building to top of the tower is over 700 feet.

Highly doubtful. the Gilmore site is roughly 22M above sea level, if they meant 700ft in geodetic height it would mean the tower would be only 191M and therefore not the tallest in the Metro.

osirisboy · #**311** Posted **Apr 6, 2017, 10:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

Highly doubtful. the Gilmore site is roughly 22M above sea level, if they meant 700ft in geodetic height it would mean the tower would be only 191M and therefore not the tallest in the Metro.

Right, But they said specifically the tower itself will be over 700 feet tall

idunno · #**312** Posted **Apr 6, 2017, 10:39 PM**

This is exciting! But I'm still hoping for a last-ditch redo of the design by an awesome architect, similar to Station Square's KPF redesign for its tallest tower(s).

That being said, I won't be crossing my fingers.

Jebby · #**313** Posted **Apr 6, 2017, 11:37 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by idunno

This is exciting! But I'm still hoping for a last-ditch redo of the design by an awesome architect, similar to Station Square's KPF redesign for its tallest tower(s).

That being said, I won't be crossing my fingers.

What not a starchitect like James Cheng?

vanman · #**314** Posted **Apr 6, 2017, 11:43 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by idunno

This is exciting! But I'm still hoping for a last-ditch redo of the design by an awesome architect, similar to Station Square's KPF redesign for its tallest tower(s).

That being said, I won't be crossing my fingers.

True. The current design is quite bland.

vanman · #**315** Posted **Apr 7, 2017, 12:39 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vin

Yesterday Skyscraperpage had Brisbane on the banner and wow, the Gold Coast skyline just looked amazing with the couple of >700 foot towers they have. Then I saw some pictures of Vancouver's downtown skyline from Kitsilano beach and I thought, "Boy, that is so sad."

Agreed. Like the Gold Coast, Vancouver would look spectacular with only a handful of slim towers in the 230-275m range. The saddest part is that the demand is there but cannot be met.

officedweller · #**316** Posted **Apr 7, 2017, 6:43 AM**

If the corner balconies have bright white glass (or perforated steel)
- the tower can be quite prominent at the Gilmore-Lougheed corner, despite the bland rear facades.

Mind you, the staggered balconies seems to be too common a trend these days.

Quote:

Tower I and Tower III are the counterpoint to Tower II in the use of dark and light colours, drawing from a charcoal and white motif.
The subject tower is distinct from the other two towers in that it breaks up the verticality by using offset balconies with fritted balcony glass
in a zipper like pattern.

http://www.vancouvermarket.ca/2016/11/18...lace-to-include-three-towers-1563-units/

Spr0ckets · #**317** Posted **Apr 7, 2017, 4:56 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jebby

What not a starchitect like James Cheng?

James Cheng is only a starchitect by Canadian standards (and even then probably only west coast).

I wouldn't put him in the same category as KPF.

I'm still amazed as to how Anthem were able to get them for Station Square #5

Jebby · #**318** Posted **Apr 7, 2017, 5:00 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spr0ckets

James Cheng is only a starchitect by Canadian standards (and even then probably only west coast).

I wouldn't put him in the same category as KPF.

I'm still amazed as to how Anthem were able to get them for Station Square #5

I was being sarcastic. The guy is mediocre at best.

Vin · #**319** Posted **Apr 7, 2017, 5:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

I think you might be a little confused on the definition of irony...

The city enacted viewcones to preserve views of the mountains. Ironic would be if the views of the mountains were blocked by shorter buildings.

Irony is not the city not having tall buildings because it blocked tall buildings...

Come on, a shorter city wall is actually blocking off much of the mountain views from Fairview slopes. Just look at the photo of Gold Coast that I posted: Now imagine the north shore coastal mountain range behind them.

Also, despite enacting the viewcones policies to protect mountain views from a couple of arbitrary locales, taller buildings are starting to pop up east of Vancouver, essentially starting to block off the mountain ranges there. I'm sure this would not be the case if viewcones never existed in the first place, i.e. tall towers would be confined to the downtown area only. Hence the irony.

Vin · #**320** Posted **Apr 7, 2017, 5:56 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by vanman

Agreed. Like the Gold Coast, Vancouver would look spectacular with only a handful of slim towers in the 230-275m range. The saddest part is that the demand is there but cannot be met.

Aye aye, but as I stated before, hopefully Burnaby can make up for this loss.

I have high hopes for the Brentwood neighbourhood, and this Gilmore development.