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

[GilmoreStation]

Whatever, they look nice

[donslade]

It's June! Any new pics?

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Klazu

Umm...that roof support takes half the width of the bridge! What are they thinking, creating bottlenecks like that and just for the sake of asthetics.

The only consolation to know is that at least this is reversible even after the project is completed. Just replace them with narrower straight-up columns. Hope a City of Burnaby approving inspector reads this thread.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Vin

The only consolation to know is that at least this is reversible even after the project is completed. Just replace them with narrower straight-up columns. Hope a City of Burnaby approving inspector reads this thread.

It would have been nice to have this in the shape of like a oval to replicate the design of the Brentwood Station design also the oval would probably have meant that they wouldn't need the center supports and the path would be left open. Although I guess that would have been way more expensive so not as plausible budget wise.

[excel]

Today:




















mine.

[Tetsuo]

Shape Properties outta nowhere, their vision and leadership = them being well rewarded.

[Marshal]

Originally Posted by Vin

The only consolation to know is that at least this is reversible even after the project is completed. Just replace them with narrower straight-up columns. Hope a City of Burnaby approving inspector reads this thread.

Let's suppose a City of Burnaby Inspector does read this forum and agrees. What is it you think she/he would have the power to do about it?
(Curious)

[Marshal]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

It would have been nice to have this in the shape of like a oval to replicate the design of the Brentwood Station design also the oval would probably have meant that they wouldn't need the center supports and the path would be left open. Although I guess that would have been way more expensive so not as plausible budget wise.

No. Nothing should mimic the shape/form of the station design: all 'appendages' need to be subordinate and of a quiet contrasting form (all straight lines). Look at Busby's original concept: everything quiet and straight-forward except the two curving elements which are potent by their shape, material, and detailing.

[VarBreStr18]

Originally Posted by Klazu

Umm...that roof support takes half the width of the bridge! What are they thinking, creating bottlenecks like that and just for the sake of asthetics.

Sooner or later someone will trip and fall over the ridiculous wide base of the roof support, then sue the city/ developer. Then something may change!!

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Marshal

Let's suppose a City of Burnaby Inspector does read this forum and agrees. What is it you think she/he would have the power to do about it?
(Curious)

City inspectors can call for a review if they foresee a problem in the future regarding overcorwding at the walkway. May ask developer to change the design of those supporting columns. Change orders can be issued to the contractor: happens all the time.

[donslade]

Thx for the pics. How are the floors counted? (I can't read the floor numbers in the pics)

[Spr0ckets]

Originally Posted by Marshal

No. Nothing should mimic the shape/form of the station design: all 'appendages' need to be subordinate and of a quiet contrasting form (all straight lines). Look at Busby's original concept: everything quiet and straight-forward except the two curving elements which are potent by their shape, material, and detailing.

That's a subjective opinion based on taste and aesthetic sensibility.

The issue here is less to do with the morphology or choice of design rather than with the execution as pertains to its hindrance of the walkway's primary function.

We can pick nits all day on what the designer decided to do or not do from a design-perspective (and such a debate is probably better suited for a design studio crit session), but none of it matters a wit if the end product doesn't perform as optimally required.

[Geof]

Well, the pedestrian bridge is already built. Who knows, maybe it just won't be a problem. The only thing to do at this point is wait and see. (And keep a close eye on such things in future designs.) If it does turn out to be problematic, then is the time to putt pressure on them to fix it.

[gillty]

Am I correct in remembering the plaza is open air? Why even the need for the covered walkway to an open-air plaza?

In the past a covered walkway was there because the long walk down to the old bus exchange.

[Hooknose]

Originally Posted by gillty

Am I correct in remembering the plaza is open air? Why even the need for the covered walkway to an open-air plaza?

In the past a covered walkway was there because the long walk down to the old bus exchange.

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

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

[Marshal]

Originally Posted by Vin

City inspectors can call for a review if they foresee a problem in the future regarding overcorwding at the walkway. May ask developer to change the design of those supporting columns. Change orders can be issued to the contractor: happens all the time.

Sorry Vin but that is not true. Approved projects have no contractual link between City and contractor. Change orders are a contractually defined item in the contractor - owner contract for the construction. The city has no means of issuing one, nor (after they have approved a project and given it a Building Permit) of forcing the developer/owner to issue one. Once a BP is issued, the city has very limited input: they inspect for site safety, adherence to the fire, building, electrical and plumbing codes, adherence to special provisions under zoning . . . and that's pretty much it. A lot of what one might think a city would govern is delegated (legally) by the city to professionals - principally the architects and engineers.

If that walkway is defined as egress for the station (it may not be) and does not have the calculated minimum width, the architect better catch that and instigate changes. The city could only do the same at the time of final inspections. Now, with all that said, any professional, or person with expert knowledge, who notices that it is not properly sized, they are legally duty bound to raise a red flag. If it is not part of the station's egress system, the project team can do whatever stupid thing they want with its design.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Marshal

Sorry Vin but that is not true. Approved projects have no contractual link between City and contractor. Change orders are a contractually defined item in the contractor - owner contract for the construction. The city has no means of issuing one, nor (after they have approved a project and given it a Building Permit) of forcing the developer/owner to issue one. Once a BP is issued, the city has very limited input: they inspect for site safety, adherence to the fire, building, electrical and plumbing codes, adherence to special provisions under zoning . . . and that's pretty much it. A lot of what one might think a city would govern is delegated (legally) by the city to professionals - principally the architects and engineers.

If that walkway is defined as egress for the station (it may not be) and does not have the calculated minimum width, the architect better catch that and instigate changes. The city could only do the same at the time of final inspections. Now, with all that said, any professional, or person with expert knowledge, who notices that it is not properly sized, they are legally duty bound to raise a red flag. If it is not part of the station's egress system, the project team can do whatever stupid thing they want with its design.

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

[Geof]

Originally Posted by Vin

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

I think it is safe (and there are other exits). I just worry that it will a crowded bottleneck.

[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.)

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Spr0ckets

That's a subjective opinion based on taste and aesthetic sensibility.

The issue here is less to do with the morphology or choice of design rather than with the execution as pertains to its hindrance of the walkway's primary function.

We can pick nits all day on what the designer decided to do or not do from a design-perspective (and such a debate is probably better suited for a design studio crit session), but none of it matters a wit if the end product doesn't perform as optimally required.

Thanks Spr0ckets