[Burnaby] The Amazing Brentwood | 15 Towers | 186m | 56 flrs | U/C & Proposed

[gillty]

Originally Posted by Hooknose

Why do you need a "covered walkway"???

Because this is Vancouver, the home of the 6 month "grey and grizzly" rain season.

I apologize if I did not elaborate on my comment because you must not understand.

So what? You're going to walk the 5 extra meters of the covered walkway and then turn around and head back into the station when you realize its raining, the plaza is open-air, and you don't have an umbrella??


source: Shape Properties

Regardless, the supports for the covered walkway to the Brentwood development are not a pressing concern regarding access the station IMO.

Access to Brentwood Station has much bigger issues such as only 3 compass gate chokepoint, the restricted access to street level bus bays (no elevator, nor escalator on the South) for the #25, #123, #136. The entire station needs an overhaul from the street to the station concourse from an accessibility standpoint, but that is another thread.

[SpongeG]

Its not likely 100% of the people coming off skytrain are going to the mall, most won't need to use the walkway to get where they want to go.

[officedweller]

There may be some people going down a level to the Level 143' anchor store (whatever that may be), but I think the vast majority going to the mall will go over the bridge.

[GilmoreStation]

How quickly are they building Tower 1? The webcam viewing angle sucks so bad

[Andros]

Originally Posted by GilmoreStation

How quickly are they building Tower 1? The webcam viewing angle sucks so bad

Based on what has been discussed before, I believe it is approximately one floor per week.

You are a lucky guy. The webcam stopped showing me anything awhile back.

[donslade]

Originally Posted by GilmoreStation

How quickly are they building Tower 1? The webcam viewing angle sucks so bad

I thought the webcam was down.

[Marshal]

Originally Posted by Vin

Are you sure? Even if the walkway is on public realm and doesn't look safe?

Public Realm? I assume you mean on public property. Then the City or TransLink own it and can decide to do whatever they want. When a developer builds something for the public, that means they are building it for the City (owner) of other level of government or entity (TransLink) on whose property it resides.

"Doesn't look" safe? If the City's building department has reason to question the "actual" safety of something they will close it down until the problem is rectified. This includes sizing: but only as part of required egress or accessibility bylaw

[Marshal]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Thanks Spr0ckets

What are you thankful for?

[Marshal]

Originally Posted by gillty

So what? You're going to walk the 5 extra meters of the covered walkway and then turn around and head back into the station when you realize its raining, the plaza is open-air, and you don't have an umbrella??

From inside the field: a practical issue that is never mentioned is that cover be provided to entrances and other locations where there is crowding. Essentially, to let people run through the rain where its open and come to a stop where space pinches down and traffic both crowds and slows. Yes, architects think about things like this.

[VarBreStr18]

Originally Posted by Geof

I was just down there looking at the pedestrian bridge. On one side, the gap between the support and the edge is nearly as wide as the stairs that are currently in use (a little under 2m?). On the other, it's maybe the width of a narrow sidewalk (4 feet?). I do think it is an unwise design that will result in crowding. Though it occurred to me that the three pathetic fare gates will clog up first (hopefully Translink will fix that sooner rather than later.)

I am sure Translink is well aware of those 3 fare gates at Brentwood because they already have the foresight of putting 6 fare gates even at the Lafarge evergreen terminus station which has a lot less riders.

[Geof]

Originally Posted by VarBreStr18

I am sure Translink is well aware of those 3 fare gates at Brentwood

They are. I recall a report that came out listing stations by travellers per gate per hour, and Brentwood was very high on the list. They will do something about it; the question is when.

[Spr0ckets]

Originally Posted by Geof

They are. I recall a report that came out listing stations by travellers per gate per hour, and Brentwood was very high on the list. They will do something about it; the question is when.

Well, there's about a year or so before Tower #1 and the Retail podium/plaza are fully complete and more or less open and possibly another year after that for Tower#2.
After which one can reasonably expect to see foot traffic to and from the tower and mall and the station on the other hand significantly rise in usage.

That should give you and idea of the timeline they are looking at or that they are faced with before we even begin talking about the other towers.
And this also doesn't include Solo's Altus which will also be complete by then.

I understand it's already an ugly scene during rush hour in the mornings as is, so just imagine more riders and residents on the one hand and more shoppers (to the mall and retail plaza) and mall workers, on the other, added into the mix.

[GilmoreStation]

Originally Posted by Spr0ckets

Well, there's about a year or so before Tower #1 and the Retail podium/plaza are fully complete and more or less open and possibly another year after that for Tower#2.
After which one can reasonably expect to see foot traffic to and from the tower and mall and the station on the other hand significantly rise in usage.

That should give you and idea of the timeline they are looking at or that they are faced with before we even begin talking about the other towers.
And this also doesn't include Solo's Altus which will also be complete by then.

I understand it's already an ugly scene during rush hour in the mornings as is, so just imagine more riders and residents on the one hand and more shoppers (to the mall and retail plaza) and mall workers, on the other, added into the mix.

We are still at least two years away

[mcminsen]

June 10 '17, my pics

[mcminsen]

June 10 '17, my pics

[Marshal]

I thought it was metal - but everyone said it was wood - now we know. Why are architects choosing this? They could have any pattern/texture they want. In the land of the wood, do we really want fake wood too.

Anyway . . . falsely retrograde, but retrograde non-the-less.

[Anorak]

Originally Posted by Marshal

I thought it was metal - but everyone said it was wood - now we know. Why are architects choosing this? They could have any pattern/texture they want. In the land of the wood, do we really want fake wood too.

Anyway . . . falsely retrograde, but retrograde non-the-less.

I would assume for durability reasons

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by Marshal

I thought it was metal - but everyone said it was wood - now we know. Why are architects choosing this? They could have any pattern/texture they want. In the land of the wood, do we really want fake wood too.

Anyway . . . falsely retrograde, but retrograde non-the-less.

If it was at ground level I might be complaining but it makes more sense to have it as metal than using lumber.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Marshal

I thought it was metal - but everyone said it was wood - now we know. Why are architects choosing this? They could have any pattern/texture they want. In the land of the wood, do we really want fake wood too.

Anyway . . . falsely retrograde, but retrograde non-the-less.

Yes we do. Wood grain looks good but wood isn't a good material when exposed to the elements. I've even seen hard tiles now that look like wood. They are excellent since they don't dent so easily like wood, and much much easier to replace.

[Marshal]

I agree that metal is a better choice for this design. But, that is not the issue.