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

[WarrenC12]

I lived in one of those buildings with an interior courtyard type area (usually 2-3 stories up). They are a really nice oasis in the city.

I did not have an interior facing unit though.

[dleung]

Originally Posted by chowhou

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.

^^Nope, those are also not comparable, from the scale of the towers, to the length of facing facades. Even your examples show how the floorplates are sculpted to minimize direct overlook. Newer projects have less generous spacing yes, but that's a worthwhile trade off for living close to the action. Gilmore Place, in contrast, is surrounded by what, a hydro substation, Home Depot, a Honda dealership, the FedEx distribution centre, and some tower in the parks?

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by dleung

^^Nope, those are also not comparable, from the scale of the towers, to the length of facing facades. Even your examples show how the floorplates are sculpted to minimize direct overlook. Newer projects have less generous spacing yes, but that's a worthwhile trade off for living close to the action. Gilmore Place, in contrast, is surrounded by what, a hydro substation, Home Depot, a Honda dealership, the FedEx distribution centre, and some tower in the parks?

It's directly built over a Skytrain Station in a rapidly developing town centre. Unless we think Brentwood is some backwater now?

Seems like people here want towers-in-the-park. I gotta say, the least private development I've been in is Olympic Village. Those units barely get a few metres inbetween them. Are we going to start calling OV a "low rise ghetto"?

[dleung]

I just think it should've been a 2 tower site with more generous and intentional-looking public plazas. Simply filling up a site this large is a missed city-building opportunity.

Re Olympic village - it's like asking "why is this restaurant patio cozy, but not a prison yard of the same size?" Those buildings max out at 11 floors, and have a ton of articulation to break up the massing. Daylight is perceived differently at different scales, it's just how it is.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by dleung

Re Olympic village - it's like asking "why is this restaurant patio cozy, but not a prison yard of the same size?" Those buildings max out at 11 floors, and have a ton of articulation to break up the massing. Daylight is perceived differently at different scales, it's just how it is.

https://www.google.com/maps/@49.2711937,...1aR9u3cAUK9UtzqCirLZA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

The massing in those developments does not feel "broken up" to me. All you do when you look out your window is look in other people's windows. I'm not against OV, I think it's a great community, but it's objectively more packed in and less private than Gilmore Place.

[seamusmcduff]

Originally Posted by dleung

^^Nope, those are also not comparable, from the scale of the towers, to the length of facing facades. Even your examples show how the floorplates are sculpted to minimize direct overlook. Newer projects have less generous spacing yes, but that's a worthwhile trade off for living close to the action. Gilmore Place, in contrast, is surrounded by what, a hydro substation, Home Depot, a Honda dealership, the FedEx distribution centre, and some tower in the parks?

How does the height of the tower change the impacts of tower spacing? whether its a 20 story or 50 story tower you're still going to have the same views to the units across, and be shaded in the same way. Also, some of these floorplates are clearly not sculpted to minimize direct overlook (eg. the beach crescent example). Really feels like some people are working backwards to justify why the tower spacing isn't acceptable.

[gaviscon]

[Redtruck]

Originally Posted by seamusmcduff

How does the height of the tower change the impacts of tower spacing? whether its a 20 story or 50 story tower you're still going to have the same views to the units across, and be shaded in the same way. Also, some of these floorplates are clearly not sculpted to minimize direct overlook (eg. the beach crescent example). Really feels like some people are working backwards to justify why the tower spacing isn't acceptable.

For most 60 + story buildings the floor plate are larger and the shadowing increases with height. Also when you have a bunch giant towers tightly spaced together like this it creates a giant wall. Olympic village the units are close together and this is the same with town houses so it is silly to compare them to Gilmore station. We will see when it is complete and fully built out but in my opinion it is too dense plus the tower design is 🞵🞵🞵🞵 for being the tallest tower in metro van.

[seamusmcduff]

Originally Posted by Redtruck

For most 60 + story buildings the floor plate are larger and the shadowing increases with height. Also when you have a bunch giant towers tightly spaced together like this it creates a giant wall. Olympic village the units are close together and this is the same with town houses so it is silly to compare them to Gilmore station. We will see when it is complete and fully built out but in my opinion it is too dense plus the tower design is 🞵🞵🞵🞵 for being the tallest tower in metro van.

...But the concern is apparently around views and being close to other residence. regardless of the height, the neighbouring tower is going to create shadowing issues. Regardless of whether the towers are 20m or 40m, the shadowing effects are going to be similar for the bottom half of the towers residents. And the towers may have larger floor plates when they're taller, but not to the point of it creating a wall that's any different to the view issues you would also see in a Vancouver development. I don't think facing a 25m wide tower in Vancouver is going to be any easier to see past than a 30m wide tower in Burnaby.

The geometrical differences between this and what is Vancouver, and it's effects on residents is being overstated in this thread imo

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Redtruck

[...]the tower design is 🞵🞵🞵🞵 for being the tallest tower in metro van.

Let's just agree on this point. FYI it's only going to be the tallest in Metro Van for a couple years before Concord Metrotown surpasses it.

[Spr0ckets]

Originally Posted by cairnstone

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.

Yeah but there's a limit to how close you can build to the guideway,.....obviously.

The point about surface settling had to do with the city allowing a developer to build a development that straddles over the guideway like happens with the Main Street-Science World Skytrain station which could create a complicated situation for the sub-surface structure that may not be as straightforward to predict for how it would settle.


Regardless it was beside the point that this factor along with the building setbacks from the property lines, along with the shape of this site having two acute angle ends - all combined with the allowable minimum tower separation meant that there's only so far they could have gone with tower spacing if they wanted to get as much density as they were aiming for and which complicated layout of the towers on this site more so than you'd find on other sites where this combination of factors didn't exist.

[madog222]

The crane on tower 1 is starting to come down.

[urbanight93]

This development is depressing; it is so incredibly utilitarian, cold and soulless that I can't believe it's being mentioned in the same breath as OV. A view is a view but you cannot convince me that 50 storey wall of windows is the same as view of 10 storeys and sky.

I feel sorry for the future users for their inevitable exasperating experience of waiting for the next elevator (given that it's likely they aren't enough).

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by urbanight93

This development is depressing; it is so incredibly utilitarian, cold and soulless that I can't believe it's being mentioned in the same breath as OV. A view is a view but you cannot convince me that 50 storey wall of windows is the same as view of 10 storeys and sky.

I feel sorry for the future users for their inevitable exasperating experience of waiting for the next elevator (given that it's likely they aren't enough).

I think the developers mail goal was that they wanted to challenge Plaza 88 for the ugliest TOD in Metro Van. At least they painted the concrete on this one.

[dleung]

I happen to prefer unpainted concrete 9 times out of 10. Especially with a little moss on it for the full west-coast feel lol

Lots of raw concrete in Mount Pleasant these days. With all those little unapologetic/modern buildings in an industrial area, it's the closest thing Vancouver has to the Hayden tract in LA

[madog222]

The original Maintenance Free™ green wall.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

I think the developers mail goal was that they wanted to challenge Plaza 88 for the ugliest TOD in Metro Van. At least they painted the concrete on this one.

That’s funny, I love Plaza 88. The shopping center wrapped around the Skytrain guideway and station with the movie theatre is one of the best urban train station integrations Canada has. Full urban Japan feel.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

That’s funny, I love Plaza 88. The shopping center wrapped around the Skytrain guideway and station with the movie theatre is one of the best urban train station integrations Canada has. Full urban Japan feel.

I don't mind the mall.

I hate the Carnarvon elevation. It just feels bleak in a way that I don't think I've felt anywhere else in Canada. The townhouse as the base facing Carnarvon as an especially cruel joke. They face into a hill and have 6 floors of parkade blocking any sunlight from the south. I don't think those windows actually ever get any direct sunlight.

I'm hoping the new development makes the streetscape a bit better, but otherwise that exterior streetscape all the way around is pretty miserable.

Streetview

From the street, I don't think the original development has a single elevation that addresses in the street without some particularly awful element being present.

The fourth tower is much less offensive though.

[officedweller]

Surprised they've gotten some vines to grow on the north side (up top of the parkade).

[hollywoodnorth]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Surprised they've gotten some vines to grow on the north side (up top of the parkade).

those look like invasive blackberries (https://bcinvasives.ca/invasives/himalayan-blackberry/) which will grow literally anywhere