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

[Cypherus]

I like the dark glazing on the first tower. Makes it distinct from other condos including Solo district and would help block out solar rays from units.

[Marshal]

Caliplanner1: you make it sound like construction near any public realm is an exceptional circumstance. 'Taking chances because their there are no other options' - this is just silly nonsense.

90% of buildings (of all scales) are constructed beside/above streets sidewalks and neighbouring properties. It is nothing more than standard construction safety practices that make this work without facing any level of unacceptable risk; on site or off.

If it were otherwise, we would all know about it: through meaningful statistics, and the fact that every level of government would be investigating the hell out of an unacceptable reality . . . which is just what happened over the last several centuries in an incremental fashion . . . resulting in the regulations and best practices we now employ.

[GilmoreStation]

This project must be costing Shape a ton of money... winder if they will profit from this

[GilmoreStation]

With Sears finally filing for bankruptcy, hopefully shape can move faster with its plan in the East corner

[VarBreStr18]

Originally Posted by GilmoreStation

This project must be costing Shape a ton of money... winder if they will profit from this

When Shape bought Brentwood Mall the parking area was sold as a package, so they are essentially building on their own backyard which does not cost them extra for the land. But with the first phase spread out for years, the rising cost of construction would eat into their profit. They probably do fine, but not as much .
Bet they never anticipated the land itself increase in value 50%. Don't forget they still have 7 more towers to profit.

[Caliplanner1]

Originally Posted by Marshal

Caliplanner1: you make it sound like construction near any public realm is an exceptional circumstance. 'Taking chances because their there are no other options' - this is just silly nonsense.

90% of buildings (of all scales) are constructed beside/above streets sidewalks and neighbouring properties. It is nothing more than standard construction safety practices that make this work without facing any level of unacceptable risk; on site or off.

If it were otherwise, we would all know about it: through meaningful statistics, and the fact that every level of government would be investigating the hell out of an unacceptable reality . . . which is just what happened over the last several centuries in an incremental fashion . . . resulting in the regulations and best practices we now employ.

I'll find any pliable argument to see this project completed quickly. As per your "silly nonsense" assertion here,....being hit with construction (injury?) related lawsuits or lawsuits related to aspects of a given delayed project is an avoidable project risk from an investors standpoint! Peruse the following article and figure out if it's worth the risk in waiting too long to complete say Brentwood tower #2 (at the mall entrance) after the mall area has been opened to the public: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/03/nyreg...on-accidents-are-rising-in-new-york.html

[gillty]

This morning, 2017/06/22, photo my own.

[Marshal]

Originally Posted by Caliplanner1

I'll find any pliable argument to see this project completed quickly. As per your "silly nonsense" assertion here,....being hit with construction (injury?) related lawsuits or lawsuits related to aspects of a given delayed project is an avoidable project risk from an investors standpoint! Peruse the following article and figure out if it's worth the risk in waiting too long to complete say Brentwood tower #2 (at the mall entrance) after the mall area has been opened to the public: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/03/nyreg...on-accidents-are-rising-in-new-york.html

I am already aware of that article (and others). Two things: the vast majority of those accidents were 'on site' with no public threat; and New York's numbers have already declined back to their normal range. The article reports an increase, along with some accident spectacle: and the expected reaction of politicians, and people connected with the industry. It all proved to be an anomaly - the rates continued to go up and down, and they absorbed these statistics.

But ultimately, this remains at the level of anecdote and proves nothing. For the kinds of activities involved (dangerous ones), construction is as safe as reason can expect (unlike say, driving automobiles). Your fixation on this one project, when dozens of others are also being built in close proximity to the public realm, remains silly nonsense. And don't for a second think that this means there is not work to be done to improve things. Safety in the industry is an ongoing and never ending task: improvements and adaptations, better regulation and inspection, and so on.

So, use whatever pliable argument you want (magical ones I assume if they actually influence an actual project), but from an insider's perspective, know you are just trying to make stupidity fly.

[WhipperSnapper]

It's an insult to the entire industry to suggest they can't come up with a formula to protect shoppers from construction areas above them.

[HelloKitty]

Originally Posted by GilmoreStation

With Sears finally filing for bankruptcy, hopefully shape can move faster with its plan in the East corner

It doesn't look like Sears stores in the Lower Mainland (Brentwood, Metrotown, etc.) are included among those to be closed. Just the outlet at Abbotsford.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-o...for-creditor-protection/article35418399/

[Caliplanner1]

Originally Posted by Marshal

I am already aware of that article (and others). Two things: the vast majority of those accidents were 'on site' with no public threat; and New York's numbers have already declined back to their normal range. The article reports an increase, along with some accident spectacle: but from an insider's perspective, know you are just trying to make stupidity fly.

You need to slow down....go back and read the article. It clearly points to the increase in construction accidents being connected to AN INCREASE IN CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY. Hence, the logic here is: more construction activity TENDS to occur during times of increased construction activity. Thus, increased construction can be defined in terms of the growth in the sheer numbers of new construction OR growing intensity/PROLONGED intensity of construction within a given project after most related construction is done.

LOL,...I'm not sure who you think you are talking to about making "stupidity fly! Prevention is still better than cure in preempting/reducing such construction period risks! Drop the "I must win argument" and move on!

[Spr0ckets]

Originally Posted by HelloKitty

It doesn't look like Sears stores in the Lower Mainland (Brentwood, Metrotown, etc.) are included among those to be closed. Just the outlet at Abbotsford.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-o...for-creditor-protection/article35418399/

They were too slow to adapt to a fast changing market climate (consumers' shopping habits, technology, internet commerce) and seemed stuck on this notion that a '90's retail business model would still hold 2 years later.

It's almost like the Music industry and the advent of digital music (mp3's and downloadable content and the death of physical records/tapes/discs).

To be fair to them though, a lot of bog box retailers are facing lots of shut-downs and layoffs all over North America as shoppers' habits have drastically changed how you can operate. Sears were just more harder hit than most others. (Also spare a thought for the likes of long and recently departed, Zellers, and Target. Not an easy business to be in at the moment)

They can blame the likes of newly minted 'second most wealthiest person alive' Jeff Bezos and the like with the Amazons and E-Bays and all that.

[Marshal]

Originally Posted by Caliplanner1

You need to slow down....go back and read the article. It clearly points to the increase in construction accidents being connected to AN INCREASE IN CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY. Hence, the logic here is: more construction activity TENDS to occur during times of increased construction activity. Thus, increased construction can be defined in terms of the growth in the sheer numbers of new construction OR growing intensity/PROLONGED intensity of construction within a given project after most related construction is done.

LOL,...I'm not sure who you think you are talking to about making "stupidity fly! Prevention is still better than cure in preempting/reducing such construction period risks! Drop the "I must win argument" and move on!

I need to win? What is there to win? Stamping out stupidity? Perhaps, but I don't think you matter that much. Correcting misinformation and incorrect deduction? No. In this case I'm 3/4 recreational. There is nothing here that will change anything that is real or that matters.


And, it must be the case that you aren't playing the 'must win' game, so I'll just give you a win for fun: prevention is always better than cure. Agreed. The rest is nonsense/lack of knowledge. I will also give you a secondary win: we should move on. Agreed. Talk some other time on some other issue, OK?

[Andros]

Originally Posted by Andros

I wonder too !

They even dismantled crane#3 two days ago??!#

Crane#3 is back up.

Sorry folks! I was a bit over-zealous

Apparently, the crane was only re-positioned. I compared crane#3's current position to what was on the last posted over-head site video (2:20)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwMVNCg4MiU

It appeared the crane has been moved about 10 feet or so to the East (closer to the edge of the podium).



I also notice a large number of forms arriving today on two wide-load trailers.



It is all conjecture at this point but if the forms are intended to be used for Tower 2, we may see the second tower starting to rise soon.

[Marshal]

You might be right. They don't go through the expense of making forms of that nature if they can't be used many times over.

[Andros]

Originally Posted by rofina

There is a perforated silver, metal, mesh type going overtop of all the black metal cladding.
You will never see the deformation once that is installed, and the final product will be much lighter.

I snapped this earlier today.
You are right on !!



** The picture did not do it justice. It accentuates the deformities even though I hardly noticed them when it was viewed under natural light.
** The black lines are cables in front of the installation.

[Marshal]

Thanks for the pics. That is so good to see.

[Caliplanner1]

Originally Posted by Marshal

I need to win? What is there to win? Stamping out stupidity? Perhaps, but I don't think you matter that much. Correcting misinformation and incorrect deduction? No. In this case I'm 3/4 recreational. There is nothing here that will change anything that is real or that matters.


And, it must be the case that you aren't playing the 'must win' game, so I'll just give you a win for fun: prevention is always better than cure. Agreed. The rest is nonsense/lack of knowledge. I will also give you a secondary win: we should move on. Agreed. Talk some other time on some other issue, OK?

You are the one making stupid arguments. The article's data based argument is simple and clear. The more construction activity time within a given project, the greater the risk of construction related injury. To the converse, the less construction activity time, the less the potential chances of injury. I don't care how good your construction safety management standards are the logic of the argument is there for even the most simplistic layman thinker to see,...because ACCIDENTS DO AND WILL HAPPEN REGARDLESS OF HOW SOPHISTICATED/SOUND YOUR ACCIDENT PRECAUTIONARY TECHNOLOGY IS. So common sense (even if you think I lack your INSIGHTFUL knowledge") points to increased safety if all/most construction is wrapped up before opening to the general public! Geez...get over you rigid academic/professional blinders.....and that's coming from me,...a planning professional with OVER 40 years of rigid/professional blinding service!

[Marshal]

Originally Posted by Caliplanner1

You are the one making stupid arguments. The article's data based argument is simple and clear. The more construction activity time within a given project, the greater the risk of construction related injury. To the converse, the less construction activity time, the less the potential chances of injury. I don't care how good your construction safety management standards are the logic of the argument is there for even the most simplistic layman thinker to see,...because ACCIDENTS DO AND WILL HAPPEN REGARDLESS OF HOW SOPHISTICATED/SOUND YOUR ACCIDENT PRECAUTIONARY TECHNOLOGY IS. So common sense (even if you think I lack your INSIGHTFUL knowledge") points to increased safety if all/most construction is wrapped up before opening to the general public! Geez...get over you rigid academic/professional blinders.....and that's coming from me,...a planning professional with OVER 40 years of rigid/professional blinding service!

I thought you wanted to stop?

So, the more construction, the more accidents. That's a point for you? OK, the more you breath, the more you smell things. The more you walk, the more your shoes wear out. There must be even more obvious nonsense out there. Again: I say you win this one. Regardless, this 'point' of yours could only come from a teenager . . . . but, apparently not. 40 years? Good one. Seriously, lets both shut up.

[Caliplanner1]

Originally Posted by Marshal

I thought you wanted to stop?

So, the more construction, the more accidents. That's a point for you? OK, the more you breath, the more you smell things. The more you walk, the more your shoes wear out. There must be even more obvious nonsense out there. Again: I say you win this one. Regardless, this 'point' of yours could only come from a teenager . . . . but, apparently not. 40 years? Good one. Seriously, lets both shut up.

I want YOU to stop being foolish! I can go on showing you up forever. So let me turn your examples above around to show you a point of planning logic. If you are poor or not wanting to spend copious amounts of money on shoes, then you will choose to walk selectively/efficiently (so as to minimize wear and tear and predicted possible costs). If you are prone to smell foul air the more you breathe (not BREATH) then you take preemptive steps by wearing a nose/face mask. LOL...I have tackled COMPLEX public sector planning problems in both poor third world economies touting socialism to first world U.S.(re: ones requiring creative foresight)....so be mindful of who you're referring to as a "teenager" (in terms of thinking)!