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

[Klazu]

Another great photo. Man, you can really see how much the two tall towers already shadow each other and there is going to be a lot more towers go up. This complex will be the first Hong Kong level vertical ghetto in the Metro.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Klazu

Another great photo. Man, you can really see how much the two tall towers already shadow each other and there is going to be a lot more towers go up. This complex will be the first Hong Kong level vertical ghetto in the Metro.

Vertical ghetto are you actually serious Why even be part of this forum if you have such a negative view of towers.

Thank you so much for your updates RabidMoose, hope you haven't been too affected by the construction. (Judging by your perspective you're not in Tandem)

[Klazu]

Negative view on towers? What are you smoking, as I have happily lived high up more landmark towers than anyone else on this forum...

What I DO have problem with is tower placement in this complex, which is way, way too tight for livable space. I would never want to live here due to that. Well, that and the eventual parkade flooding that is bound to happen.

[connect2source]

Originally Posted by Klazu

Negative view on towers? What are you smoking, as I have happily lived high up more landmark towers than anyone else on this forum...

What I DO have problem with is tower placement in this complex, which is way, way too tight for livable space. I would never want to live here due to that. Well, that and the eventual parkade flooding that is bound to happen.

Tend to agree here. I have the same issue with the City of Lougheed, totally Chinese style, tons of shadow, towers are way too close to each other, very little privacy, rather dystopian appearance. Like most posters here, LOVE towers but not the super dense Chinese / Hong Kong style developments which seem to be taking root in metro Van.

[vanman]

The tower spacing is opressive and I wouldn't want live in one of these inward facing units either. The towers should be kitty corner at the very least to provide some kind of privacy.

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by Klazu

Negative view on towers? What are you smoking, as I have happily lived high up more landmark towers than anyone else on this forum...

What I DO have problem with is tower placement in this complex, which is way, way too tight for livable space. I would never want to live here due to that. Well, that and the eventual parkade flooding that is bound to happen.

Originally Posted by connect2source

Tend to agree here. I have the same issue with the City of Lougheed, totally Chinese style, tons of shadow, towers are way too close to each other, very little privacy, rather dystopian appearance. Like most posters here, LOVE towers but not the super dense Chinese / Hong Kong style developments which seem to be taking root in metro Van.

Originally Posted by vanman

The tower spacing is opressive and I wouldn't want live in one of these inward facing units either. The towers should be kitty corner at the very least to provide some kind of privacy.

Are y'all just concerned about the spacing of these towers because they are in the suburbs? Because plenty of downtown Chicago, Toronto, and NYC is high-rise towers packed cheek to jowl where you can easily see your neighbours if the blinds aren't drawn.

[Spr0ckets]

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

Are y'all just concerned about the spacing of these towers because they are in the suburbs? Because plenty of downtown Chicago, Toronto, and NYC is high-rise towers packed cheek to jowl where you can easily see your neighbours if the blinds aren't drawn.

I don't know what they're all complaining about.

Burnaby like any other city in the region has a tower proximity restriction for constructing new towers within the vicinity of other towers (I believe is something like 82m?)

If these developments were approved for construction it means it's because they were compliant with that requirement and couldn't have gotten a development or building construction permit otherwise.

In fact, I believe Vancouver's tower restriction might be less (smaller) than that, and yet not one is complainig about Vancouver becoming a "vertical ghetto" like China or Hong Kong.

Yes, sometimes it's not great when the towers are placed right across one another as opposed to staggered, such that you end up see right into someone else's unit, but that's a function of the site constraints and shape, as well as maybe a flaw in how they lay out some of those developments and thus a fault of the architects/planners.

There's nothing in the Greater Vancouver region that looks anything like you'd see in Hong Kong or some of mainland China's denser cities, in terms of how close towers are packed together that would warrant such a comparison and the closest probably in North America would be in parts of New York (where they too do have tower proximity restrictions for new towers, which is partly resulting in this new craze of "skinny" supertall towers on the infamous billionaire's row), as you mentioned and places like Chicago and Toronto.
And even in these cities, for new constructions you'd never see new developments being allowed to build towers that close and in the places where they already are is because those were grandfathered in before the new planning by-laws and restrictions were put in place.
Again, for health and fire safety reasons (like the risk of fires jumping from tower to tower during a fire outbreak, as happened quite frequently in the earlier part of the last century)

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Spr0ckets

I don't know what they're all complaining about.

Burnaby like any other city in the region has a tower proximity restriction for constructing new towers within the vicinity of other towers (I believe is something like 82m?)

If these developments were approved for construction it means it's because they were compliant with that requirement and couldn't have gotten a development or building construction permit otherwise.

In fact, I believe Vancouver's tower restriction might be less (smaller) than that, and yet not one is complainig about Vancouver becoming a "vertical ghetto" like China or Hong Kong.

Burnaby's tower separation design guidelines require 24 to 30 metres (80 to 100 feet) between towers, 100 between faces and 80 corner to corner. Vancouver's minimum separation is 24m (80 feet) between residential towers. It's a bit less for commercial buildings.

There are plenty of people who think Vancouver has too many buildings that are too tall and too close together. You can read their comments on proposals for new towers Downtown, and in the West End. Sometimes they all appear at the public inquiry into a rezoning. So far Council has chosen to acknowledge their concern, but approve the towers anyway.

I suspect that these seem especially dense because they all appeared at once, and not really surrounded by anything else of the same height and proximity. If they were developed one at a time over 20 years they'd be less obvious, and the change would appear less dramatic.

[RabidMoose]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Thank you so much for your updates RabidMoose...

I'm in one of the non-flooded Tandems. I just hope my view of the Lions will remain when the next phase of towers get built. I already lost my view of Mt Baker to the Fulton House down the street and that was depressing.

Currently in the "hurry up and finish" tolerance phase of this construction. The secant piles process before excavation started was brutal. BANG BANG BANG every day.

[Redtruck]

Onni went with the absolute minimum spacing to cram as many towers as possible. When towers are this large the minimum spacing should increase. I agree this will give off Hong Kong vibes when fully built out.

[dleung]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Burnaby's tower separation design guidelines require 24 to 30 metres (80 to 100 feet) between towers, 100 between faces and 80 corner to corner. Vancouver's minimum separation is 24m (80 feet) between residential towers. It's a bit less for commercial buildings.

There are plenty of people who think Vancouver has too many buildings that are too tall and too close together. You can read their comments on proposals for new towers Downtown, and in the West End. Sometimes they all appear at the public inquiry into a rezoning. So far Council has chosen to acknowledge their concern, but approve the towers anyway.

I suspect that these seem especially dense because they all appeared at once, and not really surrounded by anything else of the same height and proximity. If they were developed one at a time over 20 years they'd be less obvious, and the change would appear less dramatic.

I doubt they have 100 feet between the towers, maybe 80. The only worse project is City of Lougheed. One would have to be a total sucker to pay any more than 60% of downtown psf prices to live in such-cramped conditions set in the middle of nowhere. Plenty of areas downtown outside the CBD have way better tower spacings (especially false creek/coal harbour). Onni must be making a killing on this site

[madog222]

Scaling off this diagram it's 30m between towers 1 and 2 and 40m between 2 and 3. Also 30m between towers in phase 2 and 3.

Originally Posted by officedweller

http://www.gilmorestation.ca/content/20160128-gilmore-brochure.pdf

[chowhou]

Found some "vertical ghettos" in Vancouver. Absolutely scum areas too.









Points for every ghetto you can identify.

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by dleung

I doubt they have 100 feet between the towers, maybe 80. The only worse project is City of Lougheed. One would have to be a total sucker to pay any more than 60% of downtown psf prices to live in such-cramped conditions set in the middle of nowhere. Plenty of areas downtown outside the CBD have way better tower spacings (especially false creek/coal harbour). Onni must be making a killing on this site

Onni did sell the project at about $100 PSF less than most other Brentwood projects at the time, so I doubt they made that much of a killing on it.

[Spr0ckets]

Originally Posted by Redtruck

Onni went with the absolute minimum spacing to cram as many towers as possible. When towers are this large the minimum spacing should increase. I agree this will give off Hong Kong vibes when fully built out.

I mean,......there are some site constraints on this site that likely meant they couldn't get more spacing like they might have liked or that would have pleased people more.

I can think of one GIGANTIC site constraint in particular,.......that runs right through the site, .....and which probably also had it's own spacing requirements placing limits on how far the towers could be from it let alone each other.

This site is unique in that respect.

So maybe not simply a matter of trying to cram in as many towers as possible or as they could get away with.


EDIT : I realize that the cities (CoV) and Translink have permitted tower construction straddling skytrain guideways in the past.
I doubt they'd ever allow that again and specifically on a site with this area's soil conditions - especially seeing the settling issues that this area has post-construction.

[Abii]

Originally Posted by dleung

I doubt they have 100 feet between the towers, maybe 80. The only worse project is City of Lougheed. One would have to be a total sucker to pay any more than 60% of downtown psf prices to live in such-cramped conditions set in the middle of nowhere. Plenty of areas downtown outside the CBD have way better tower spacings (especially false creek/coal harbour). Onni must be making a killing on this site

Middle of nowhere?

Millennium and Expo both connect there. You have proximity to the Fraser Valley, Port Moody, Coquitlam proper and Burnaby. SFU is literally a stone throw away. Very odd comment.

[Klazu]

Originally Posted by Redtruck

Onni went with the absolute minimum spacing to cram as many towers as possible. When towers are this large the minimum spacing should increase. I agree this will give off Hong Kong vibes when fully built out.

Exactly. Some are completely missing the point by comparing to tower spacing in Vancouver when there is nothing that comes even close to the scale of this complex. We are talking about several 60-70 storey towers at close proximity. These buildings are going to shadow and loom at totally different scale to anything that exists today. It will feel oppressive once all completed.

Spacing guidance should absolutely scale with the size of the buildings.

[Redtruck]

[QUOTE=chowhou;9933445]Found some "vertical ghettos" in Vancouver. Absolutely scum areas too.

None of these examples are even close to comparable. Gilmore station plaza is completely boxed in and all the units facing it.

[cairnstone]

Originally Posted by Spr0ckets

I mean,......there are some site constraints on this site that likely meant they couldn't get more spacing like they might have liked or that would have pleased people more.

I can think of one GIGANTIC site constraint in particular,.......that runs right through the site, .....and which probably also had it's own spacing requirements placing limits on how far the towers could be from it let alone each other.

This site is unique in that respect.

So maybe not simply a matter of trying to cram in as many towers as possible or as they could get away with.


EDIT : I realize that the cities (CoV) and Translink have permitted tower construction straddling skytrain guideways in the past.
I doubt they'd ever allow that again and specifically on a site with this area's soil conditions - especially seeing the settling issues that this area has post-construction.

As long as you follow the guide they give you and play their game you will be allowed to build around the guideway. surface settling has no bearing on the guideway. Each column is independently monitored for movement and regular surveys to double check.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Redtruck

None of these examples are even close to comparable. Gilmore station plaza is completely boxed in and all the units facing it.

Oh yeah you're right, my mistake for not showing three tower developments with a boxed in shaded plaza in the middle.

Nothing like that in the city at all!





You can't reason a person into a position they didn't reason themselves into I guess.

If big buildings scare you, that's fine, but you know you don't have to live there right? There's no need to be so negative about development.