Vancouver Convention Centre Expansion Project | Completed - Page 109

Locked In · #**2161** Posted **Oct 18, 2011, 2:03 AM**

Quote:

Trevor Linden to open fitness club at Vancouver Convention Centre

Trevor Linden is opening a fitness club at Vancouver Convention Centre West in early 2012. The 20,000 square-foot club (slightly larger than an international sized hockey rink) will feature views of the ocean and North shore mountains thanks to a wall of windows as wide as five movie screens.

Members of the new Club 16-Trevor Linden Fitness will pay fees starting at $19.99, the lowest fee in the downtown area, organizers say. The club is offering free parking every morning until 9 a.m. The new location will also offer a bike rental service for members and the public.

The club at the Convention Centre is being designed with hands-on input from Linden. It will offer 100 cardio machines with personal flat-screen televisions on each piece, free weights, cable-resistance strength machines and circuit training options and MyRide personal spinning classes. In addition, a She’s Fit! health club will be integrated within the facility’s design, offering an environment for women only. She’s Fit! currently has 12 locations in Greater Vancouver and the Fraser Valley.

...

Source: Vancouver Sun

SpongeG · #**2162** Posted **Oct 18, 2011, 2:09 AM**

cool - should help to fill up some of the empty space

GeeCee · #**2163** Posted **Oct 18, 2011, 3:46 AM**

The Club 16 in Coquitlam seems to do very well.

racc · #**2164** Posted **Oct 18, 2011, 4:02 PM**

Nice to see real paying businesses there. A refreshing break from the whining seaplane companies that, even after the deal not to pay rent for the terminal to PAVCO are still not happy. It is prime waterfront space. I'd say put the space up for bid on the market and let the highest bidder win. If the seaplane operators can't make it work, they should just call it a day.

vanman · #**2165** Posted **Oct 18, 2011, 6:07 PM**

It seems like a waste to put a gym in such a prominent location. And what market are they going after exactly? All the nearby high end condos have gyms that are fully stocked.

Chikinlittle · #**2166** Posted **Oct 18, 2011, 6:14 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by vanman

It seems like a waste to put a gym in such a prominent location. And what market are they going after exactly? All the nearby high end condos have gyms that are fully stocked.

Perhaps your definition of 'fully stocked' is different than a lot of other people who take their fitness seriously, which just happens to be a large percentage of people in this city. From my experience living and owning in several buildings downtown, most strata gyms leave a lot to be desired. Check out the big Steve Nash Sports Club on Granville, or the new YMCA. People are paying a lot more than $19.99 to have truly 'fully-stocked' fitness facilities... $19.99 will steal a lot of their clients (myself included), and capitalize on a market that is currently missed out on as well because of the lower pricing. Not to mention it's basically right on the edge of the CBD so you've go the audience of the downtown office market during the day as well. Plus... with that kind of view? Count me in.

vanman · #**2167** Posted **Oct 18, 2011, 6:29 PM**

I understand, I live downtown and the gym in my building is lame. But Coal Harbour is as high end as it gets. I'm thinking of buildings like Cielo, that has an entire floor at the penthouse level dedicated to a gym. These aren't just your average condo amenities.

I never thought of the captive downtown office workers though, that could be a big source of customers, especially in this health obsessed city.

Yume-sama · #**2168** Posted **Oct 18, 2011, 6:33 PM**

Strata gyms tend to be completely limited to anything but cardio equipment. The only one I've actually seen with a full barbell etc. is the Fairmont Pacific Rim, and I'm pretty sure that's only because they have a team of personal trainers. I thought that weird, considering I had assumed the only reason other gyms didn't have them was insurance / liability issues (like why no hotels in America have gym equipment that you could possibly injure yourself with). And you know the rich people who drop a 45 pound barbell on themselves are worth more when they sue! More to the point, I wonder who would win in a cagefight, Trevor Linden or Steve Nash. That's whose gym I'll join...

officedweller · #**2169** Posted **Oct 18, 2011, 9:20 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by vanman

It seems like a waste to put a gym in such a prominent location. And what market are they going after exactly? All the nearby high end condos have gyms that are fully stocked.

The waterfront side of the building is likely a hard sell to other businesses - it's not visible from the street, there's limited walk by trafffic (esp. in winter), so a "repeat destination" service oriented business makes sense.
(i.e. remember the retail disaster at the north end of Canada Place?)
But even the north side of the Convention Centre isn't a short walk from the office core and there are more convenient gyms - but the cost is sure to attract people.

EdinVan · #**2170** Posted **Oct 18, 2011, 10:05 PM**

I think some people prefer to go to a bigger gym instead of the one in their building because it's a little less boring and they're more likely to meet other people.

nova9 · #**2171** Posted **Oct 19, 2011, 12:57 AM**

let's not forget the other classes that you can take and remember, Linden only has a few more years to capitalize on his Capt. Canucks status. Plenty of people joined the 1st Steven Nash Club to be part of the hype and certainly a lot will join the DT Club 16 to do the same. (His allure doesn't extend to the new generation of Canucks fans. All my students are born after 1994 now so they only have a linden-less Stanley Cup run to refer to)

Locked In · #**2172** Posted **Nov 5, 2011, 7:28 PM**

This place can't get a break - I wonder if we'll see Harbour Air and VHFC play the blame game on this for a while now...

Quote:

Float plane partially sinks at Vancouver terminal facing safety, design complaints
wendy stueck
Globe and Mail Update
Published Saturday, Nov. 05, 2011 1:30PM EDT
Last updated Saturday, Nov. 05, 2011 1:35PM EDT

A float plane took on water and partially sank overnight at Vancouver Harbour Flight Centre, a new float plane terminal in downtown Vancouver.

The plane, a single engine Otter owned by Harbour Air, had been loaded with barrels of water up to its departure weight limit of 9,000 pounds and tied to the dock as part of an engineering review of the facility.

“We have no idea why it took on water,” Paul McElligott, president of Ledcor Resources, said Saturday morning in a telephone interview, adding that conditions were calm overnight. VHFC is investigating the incident.

“It’s been tied up there since Thursday at noon...there will be a full investigation and we’ll find out why.”

Source: Globe and Mail

Millennium2002 · #**2173** Posted **Nov 5, 2011, 8:29 PM**

Frankly I don't really trust Harbour Air participating in a review of a facility that it obviously doesn't like... because it most likely will complain at even the most minor issue.... also, the safety concerns and incidents that they claim haven't materialized for the other current operators at VHFC, and they've been using the terminal since the summertime....

jlousa · #**2174** Posted **Nov 6, 2011, 12:15 AM**

I have a hard time following the story. It appears to be Harbour Air's plane. It appears to have happened at the new terminal. Why is there a Harbour Air plane at the new terminal? They haven't moved yet and are still using the old terminal. Were they conducting testing? Seems to be a lot of info missing.

GeeCee · #**2175** Posted **Nov 6, 2011, 1:17 AM**

According to a News1130 article that I read earlier today, as well as a Global TV story, PAVCO was doing some sort of engineering/safety study to prove the new dock's safety, and this was the result.

SpongeG · #**2176** Posted **Nov 6, 2011, 4:41 AM**

pic from cbc

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/britis...e-sinking.html

osirisboy · #**2177** Posted **Nov 6, 2011, 3:49 PM**

am I missing something? How does the dock cause a plane to sink???

vanlaw · #**2178** Posted **Nov 6, 2011, 3:52 PM**

Looks like the dock held up just fine. If it was a test to check the dock, looks like it passed. HA`s plane - not so much

osirisboy · #**2179** Posted **Nov 6, 2011, 4:03 PM**

so just to be clear the new terminal had nothing to do with the plane sinking?

jsbertram · #**2180** Posted **Nov 6, 2011, 4:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by vanlaw

Looks like the dock held up just fine. If it was a test to check the dock, looks like it passed. HA`s plane - not so much

Going just by the screen grab, it looks like the dock kept the plane from submerging. Quite unusual to see a plane sink tail-first though; I would have expected one of the pontoons to fail since this was a static load test, but I also would expect the plane to list port or starboard depending on which pontoon failed. Highly suspicious to me if both pontoons took on water.

I wonder if the rear cargo area was overloaded to get the static load needed for the test, so the plane's centre of mass was too far back.

New Dock - 1
HA - 0