[Burnaby] Gilmore Place | Phase I: 64fl 51fl 43fl | 214.8 | U/C

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by towerseeker101

Besides view cones, I always thought it was because of Vancouver's potential seismic activity that it would be best to keep buildings shorter. Although I like the idea of tall skyscrapers, I wouldn't want to live on top of one of those in Vancouver because I'm paranoid.

Tall high-rises are safer in earthquakes then short high-rises. You are significantly safer in a 50 story building then a 10 story building. It is to do with resonance frequencies etc. People who know more about this then me can chime in.

http://www.independent.com.mt/articl...ers-6736162981

Taller = safer in earthquakes. The short stubby high-rises in Vancouver will be exposed to more damage then the taller towers like Shangrila. It will be interesting to see how many of the 15-25 story skinny high-rises in Vancouver will have to be rebuilt due to structural damage after our next big earthquake. As for Gastown with its 10 story brick buildings...It will be a blood bath.

[urbancanadian]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Except that Vancouver (in a long forgotten age, when there was much greater regulatory freedom) constructed the tallest skyscraper in the entire British Commonwealth, not once, not twice, but three times.

Dominion Building, Sun Tower... what's the third one? Marine Building?

[Marshal]

Originally Posted by cornholio

Tall high-rises are safer in earthquakes then short high-rises. You are significantly safer in a 50 story building then a 10 story building. It is to do with resonance frequencies etc. People who know more about this then me can chime in.

http://www.independent.com.mt/articl...ers-6736162981

Taller = safer in earthquakes. The short stubby high-rises in Vancouver will be exposed to more damage then the taller towers like Shangrila. It will be interesting to see how many of the 15-25 story skinny high-rises in Vancouver will have to be rebuilt due to structural damage after our next big earthquake. As for Gastown with its 10 story brick buildings...It will be a blood bath.

I have heard this before, but that article can mislead one's understanding of what is what. For now, all I will say is that across this region, for any given structural system, the era a building was designed/built in is a higher predictor of failures from seismic load, than height. But I will chime in later in the week. I work with engineers on an ongoing basis, to devise design solutions to the seismic resistance they specify. I have a meeting on Wed with a couple of the best, so I will discuss some of these generalities and report back.

As for the article you linked to, there is little commonality between us and Malta. The possible type of earthquake would be similar, though the crusts of the two plates there are very different from our two (N.A. and Juan de Fuca). The forces would be transferred in a different manner: theirs more evenly, ours more forceful in some spots than others as the shock travells through mountain and non mountain formations. Ours would also see the sharpness of the shock hitting empasized as it exits mountainous terrain and keeps up with itself across the ocean and deltas. We live in a very complex place and the force of an earthquake will be unevenly felt (intensity) and distributed.

I have been to Malta. There are ruins from that earthquake. I saw cracks and small collapses in my Aunt's basement/sub-basement. It was amusing, because she said she always worried about the family in BC because of California-style earthquakes. I didn't want to cause any upset to a 90 year old, so I didn't tell her that we would b probably do better in a quake twice what would level Malta into rubble.

[Pinion]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Except that Vancouver (in a long forgotten age, when there was much greater regulatory freedom) constructed the tallest skyscraper in the entire British Commonwealth, not once, not twice, but three times.

Building=/=caring. Outside of this site no one gives a damn how tall anything is.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Pinion

Vancouver has never cared about having tall buildings.

Only after the age when many had their brains screwed by extreme drug use in the 60s-70s, and linking tall buildings to big bad corporations. Before that, Vancouver was pretty progressive when it came to constructing tall.

Originally Posted by Pinion

Building=/=caring. Outside of this site no one gives a damn how tall anything is.

Well, tell that to the rest of the world where the great cities are building shorter and shorter?

Originally Posted by towerseeker101

Besides view cones, I always thought it was because of Vancouver's potential seismic activity that it would be best to keep buildings shorter.

Not true at all. Tall concrete/steel towers above 15 stories are actually safer than many of the wooden shacks we call houses here: they tend to collapse like placards after a big one hits and catch fire easily. In case of a tsunami, they also get washed away easily. The reason why Vancouver refuse tall has to do with mentality and sense of entitlement, more than anything else.

Originally Posted by urbancanadian

Dominion Building, Sun Tower... what's the third one? Marine Building?

Yes, our pride of the yesteryears, not to mention that Lions Gate Bridge was also the longest suspension bridge in the British Empire at the time. Now "viewcones" and DTES are our legacy.

[Vin]

I wonder then they will start constructing those office towers further east for the next phase. That would be a nice little employment centre in the Brentwood neighbourhood. A couple of signature towers like Mississauga's twisting Absolute World would be a great landmark there.

Absolute World:
https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.59340...8i6656!6m1!1e1

[VarBreStr18]

Originally Posted by Vin

I wonder then they will start constructing those office towers further east for the next phase. That would be a nice little employment centre in the Brentwood neighbourhood. A couple of signature towers like Mississauga's twisting Absolute World would be a great landmark there.

Absolute World:
https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.59340...8i6656!6m1!1e1

Those office towers would fit in nicely south of Brentwood station. There is still acres of underdeveloped underutilized sprawls.
Very interesting towers in your link. Definitely irregularly , twisted facade!! Will add zing to the area though .

[Spr0ckets]

Originally Posted by towerseeker101

Besides view cones, I always thought it was because of Vancouver's potential seismic activity that it would be best to keep buildings shorter. Although I like the idea of tall skyscrapers, I wouldn't want to live on top of one of those in Vancouver because I'm paranoid.

Japan has been building tall for decades despite the fact that they're obviously located in a clearly more seismic active and earthquake prone part of the world.

Obviously it's not like they have a choice given the land scarcity and urban density issues they face.

But then again so have a places like San Francisco, Seattle, and even L.A. which was recently seen an uptick in the number of highrises under construction or in the planning stages. And they're all on the same Fault system we are on.

Vancouver's reticence to build tall has always been more based on sentimentalism and aesthetics (Read: Viewcones and NIMBY-ism) than on any actual structural or feasibility limitations based on where its located.

It'll be interesting to see how attitudes towards building tall change or adapt in about 30-40 years when density significantly increases and things like transit don't keep pace, and the city begins feeling the squeeze in terms of places to build and grow out (in non-remote areas).
Cities in other parts of the world (like Hong Kong, the aforementioned, Tokyo, and even East Coast cities) where they don't have the luxury of maintaining aesthetics usually find themselves with nowhere to go but up, and build taller to address housing issues and such.

IN short: ViewCones and Nimby-ism are luxuries that city can afford,..........for now.

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by Spr0ckets

Vancouver's reticence to build tall has always been more based on sentimentalism and aesthetics (Read: Viewcones and NIMBY-ism) than on any actual structural or feasibility limitations based on where its located.

While I agree with that in part, I think cost is also a factor. Going much taller than Shangri-La and Trump would likely be only feasible with large floor plates and adding additional safety features such as seismic dampers. Recouping the cost would require much higher office rents than companies in Vancouver would likely be willing to pay.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by Jebby

While I agree with that in part, I think cost is also a factor. Going much taller than Shangri-La and Trump would likely be only feasible with large floor plates and adding additional safety features such as seismic dampers. Recouping the cost would require much higher office rents than companies in Vancouver would likely be willing to pay.

Obviously, these days we are talking about residential towers, and no city in Canada commands higher prices than downtown Vancouver. If it were not for artificial restrictions imposed by the city, Vancouver's latest real estate boom would likely have produced the tallest residential towers in the entire country.

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Obviously, these days we are talking about residential towers, and no city in Canada commands higher prices than downtown Vancouver. If it were not for artificial restrictions imposed by the city, Vancouver's latest real estate boom would likely have produced the tallest residential towers in the entire country.

I agree with you 100%. If it weren't for artificial restrictions we also likely wouldn't see this massive increase in housing costs.

[Marshal]

Well, I had my meeting with my engineers . . . and I didn't really learn anything new. The height of a building is irrelevant to seismic design. And liquefaction is equally irrelevant. Why? Because we have the technology to overcome most all possible issues. The only real factor today, is cost. Tall buildings, like the ones Burnaby is putting up, could be built in Richmond just as safely, except the costs of the needed foundations would be crazy high. Any height can be made equally safe, but different technologies become required at various points in the height to floor spread ratio.

So, anything can be built anywhere, but all the difficult places, like Richmond, cost too much. Also, those same places have other accompanying issues that also add to costs. Dealing with groundwater is a big one - both during a liquifaction/earthquake event, and just normally for the use of below ground spaces.

And so, building on rock offers the opposite. Rock, through its sheer mass, resists seismic forces (especially lateral ones). Rock will handle virtually any load with an appropriate foundation. Rock allows tall buildings (though we use this equally in wood frame housing) to be 'tied' to the ground such that the vertical elements (Core, columns, shear walls) can resist seismic load through both compression and tension. This is where harmonics come into play, as the building sways physically, it also 'sways' structurally through repeated compression-tension cycles.

[Marshal]

And, if anyone is curious, we do include seismic design in wood frame construction, including SFH.

The seismic design elements for these are: 1) tie downs to hold the wood structure to the foundation; 2) metal strapping (often diagonal) to hold wood structural components together; and 3) sheer planes to resist sheer forces locally and take that load away from other assemblies: these are sheer walls and horizontal sheer plates (TYP. in floors) and they resist orthogonal sheer and torquing generated sheer. These can be concrete, plywood or metal. The area required is "the more the better" but often a surprisingly small area can produce ample resistance.

[Caliplanner1]

Originally Posted by Marshal

Well, I had my meeting with my engineers . . . and I didn't really learn anything new. The height of a building is irrelevant to seismic design. And liquefaction is equally irrelevant. Why? Because we have the technology to overcome most all possible issues. The only real factor today, is cost. Tall buildings, like the ones Burnaby is putting up, could be built in Richmond just as safely, except the costs of the needed foundations would be crazy high. Any height can be made equally safe, but different technologies become required at various points in the height to floor spread ratio.

So, anything can be built anywhere, but all the difficult places, like Richmond, cost too much. Also, those same places have other accompanying issues that also add to costs. Dealing with groundwater is a big one - both during a liquifaction/earthquake event, and just normally for the use of below ground spaces.

And so, building on rock offers the opposite. Rock, through its sheer mass, resists seismic forces (especially lateral ones). Rock will handle virtually any load with an appropriate foundation. Rock allows tall buildings (though we use this equally in wood frame housing) to be 'tied' to the ground such that the vertical elements (Core, columns, shear walls) can resist seismic load through both compression and tension. This is where harmonics come into play, as the building sways physically, it also 'sways' structurally through repeated compression-tension cycles.

New York City (at the Lower/Southern tip of Manhattan near the ocean) has serious/costly hydrology-based construction issues.....with many buildings (and infrastructure) requiring the constant pumping/removal of (subterranean) water. The big difference here though is that the relatively more profitable urban economy of New York city renders such higher hydraulic maintenance costs negligible.

[towerseeker101]

Originally Posted by Marshal

Well, I had my meeting with my engineers . . . and I didn't really learn anything new. The height of a building is irrelevant to seismic design. And liquefaction is equally irrelevant. Why? Because we have the technology to overcome most all possible issues. The only real factor today, is cost. Tall buildings, like the ones Burnaby is putting up, could be built in Richmond just as safely, except the costs of the needed foundations would be crazy high. Any height can be made equally safe, but different technologies become required at various points in the height to floor spread ratio.

So, anything can be built anywhere, but all the difficult places, like Richmond, cost too much. Also, those same places have other accompanying issues that also add to costs. Dealing with groundwater is a big one - both during a liquifaction/earthquake event, and just normally for the use of below ground spaces.

And so, building on rock offers the opposite. Rock, through its sheer mass, resists seismic forces (especially lateral ones). Rock will handle virtually any load with an appropriate foundation. Rock allows tall buildings (though we use this equally in wood frame housing) to be 'tied' to the ground such that the vertical elements (Core, columns, shear walls) can resist seismic load through both compression and tension. This is where harmonics come into play, as the building sways physically, it also 'sways' structurally through repeated compression-tension cycles.

Thanks Marshal! Always great to hear from an expert! You learn something new every day.

[Marshal]

Originally Posted by Caliplanner1

New York City (at the Lower/Southern tip of Manhattan near the ocean) has serious/costly hydrology-based construction issues.....with many buildings (and infrastructure) requiring the constant pumping/removal of (subterranean) water. The big difference here though is that the relatively more profitable urban economy of New York city renders such higher hydraulic maintenance costs negligible.

There is a tower in the West End (about 30 floors) where they got it wrong and the foundation turned out to be incapable of properly dealing with the flow of ground water (it is on a steepish slope) resulting in the potential for the foundation to be undermined.

The cheapest fix was a very effective, if strange, solution. They installed refrigerated lines through the area around that side of the foundation. This was then hooked up to a freezing unit in the basement, along with a back-up generator. The ground has been frozen ever since (30+ years): which creates a dam to channel the groundwater around the foundation's exterior, and increases the load capacity in that area. Ice and dirt as structural components!

If you want to know the building, its easy; just find the one that is leaning west by 0.5 degrees.

[Large Cat]

Originally Posted by Vin

I wonder then they will start constructing those office towers further east for the next phase. That would be a nice little employment centre in the Brentwood neighbourhood. A couple of signature towers like Mississauga's twisting Absolute World would be a great landmark there.

Absolute World:
https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.59340...8i6656!6m1!1e1

Looking at photos like this makes me remember how glad I should be to live in Vancouver. Toronto has amazing towers like here, but right next to them and surrounding them, absolutely god-awful sprawl-sized roads making it dangerous/impossible to reasonably walk to those towers. Screw that. I don't want to live in a land of double-King George Boulevards, no matter how good the architecture may be.

[Caliplanner1]

Originally Posted by Marshal

There is a tower in the West End (about 30 floors) where they got it wrong and the foundation turned out to be incapable of properly dealing with the flow of ground water (it is on a steepish slope) resulting in the potential for the foundation to be undermined.

The cheapest fix was a very effective, if strange, solution. They installed refrigerated lines through the area around that side of the foundation. This was then hooked up to a freezing unit in the basement, along with a back-up generator. The ground has been frozen ever since (30+ years): which creates a dam to channel the groundwater around the foundation's exterior, and increases the load capacity in that area. Ice and dirt as structural components!

If you want to know the building, its easy; just find the one that is leaning west by 0.5 degrees.

LOL....thanks Marshal.....when I find that building I'll make sure that I stay the hell away from that "leaning tower of New York"....

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Large Cat

Looking at photos like this makes me remember how glad I should be to live in Vancouver. Toronto has amazing towers like here, but right next to them and surrounding them, absolutely god-awful sprawl-sized roads making it dangerous/impossible to reasonably walk to those towers. Screw that. I don't want to live in a land of double-King George Boulevards, no matter how good the architecture may be.

Hey, the photo shown isn't Toronto, silly, it's Mississauga: the equivalence of far-flung hoods like White Rock or Coquitlam/Langley to downtown Vancouver. Tell me those places don't have sprawls like that?

There are areas that are densifying quite nicely in Mississauga\:
https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.58765...7i13312!8i6656

You can't expect a field of nothing just a decade ago to suddenly become downtown Vancouver, can you?

[Marshal]

Originally Posted by Caliplanner1

LOL....thanks Marshal.....when I find that building I'll make sure that I stay the hell away from that "leaning tower of New York"....

I'm not sure if you think I was joking or not. Just in case: I'm not joking.