[Burnaby] The Amazing Brentwood | 15 Towers | 186m | 56 flrs | U/C & Proposed - Page 144

excel · #**2861** Posted **Jun 22, 2018, 11:03 PM**

Today:

rofina · #**2862** Posted **Jun 25, 2018, 3:58 PM**

That's exciting - Tower 3 should start making a dent on the skyline in a couple of months.

Could turn Lougheed into a bit of an interesting canyon with Concord framing it on opposite end and hopefully something fun and tall on the Carter sites in the far future.

GilmoreStation · #**2863** Posted **Jun 26, 2018, 2:54 AM**

• Video Link

officedweller · #**2864** Posted **Jun 26, 2018, 4:00 PM**

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&...-lst%2F&usg=AOvVaw3CIwxDK50m0xkh8ddgDk-7

GilmoreStation · #**2865** Posted **Jun 27, 2018, 4:45 AM**

officedweller · #**2866** Posted **Jun 27, 2018, 10:12 PM**

Nice one, thanks!

Tangeray · #**2867** Posted **Jun 27, 2018, 10:41 PM**

Great shot.

Kinda hoakey how the spire of Altus counts as building height and makes it on record a taller tower.

Dimswitch · #**2868** Posted **Jun 28, 2018, 1:53 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tangeray

Great shot.

Kinda hoakey how the spire of Altus counts as building height and makes it on record a taller tower.

Totally agree, but I've had some nasty run-ins about what counts and what doesn't, and makes no sense to me re spires, ariels, antennae, masts etc. but I guess it just depends on who's calling the shots.

Dimswitch · #**2869** Posted **Jun 28, 2018, 2:24 AM**

Notable case in point: One World Trade Tower has what was originally called an antenna (almost 500 feet) at the top but they've now changed it's description to "spire" to officially claim height of 1,776 ft. What baloney, it actually is an antenna

As for the Altus spire (which could pass as a flagpole if it had a flag on top) but it's not visible from downtown Van but the 100 foot mast on top of Harbour Centre is clearly visible from Brentwood or almost anywhere with a view of downtown Van but the mast does not count. I've asked for an explanation and you should see the ridiculous answer I got from some goof in Toronto

Tangeray · #**2870** Posted **Jun 28, 2018, 6:00 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dimswitch

Totally agree, but I've had some nasty run-ins about what counts and what doesn't, and makes no sense to me re spires, ariels, antennae, masts etc. but I guess it just depends on who's calling the shots.

I wonder why the developer would do that...because I'm sure they got approved for a certain height, and I'm sure they wanted to max out the number of saleable square feet so why would they waste the allowed height on a flagpole? Maybe it has to do with them using up all of their allotted FSR?

rofina · #**2871** Posted **Jun 28, 2018, 3:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tangeray

Great shot.

Kinda hoakey how the spire of Altus counts as building height and makes it on record a taller tower.

Funny you should say that - I had the thought the other day that it be great if they installed a competing spire top of Brentwood 1.

The Altus one is an awesome surprise with the LED feature. I love seeing it in the evening and night - some of the patterns are really neat.

GMasterAres · #**2872** Posted **Jun 28, 2018, 6:10 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by GilmoreStation

• Video Link

Thanks for the video but it does suffer from VVS:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bt9zSfinwFA

WhipperSnapper · #**2873** Posted **Jun 28, 2018, 6:46 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dimswitch

Notable case in point: One World Trade Tower has what was originally called an antenna (almost 500 feet) at the top but they've now changed it's description to "spire" to officially claim height of 1,776 ft. What baloney, it actually is an antenna

As for the Altus spire (which could pass as a flagpole if it had a flag on top) but it's not visible from downtown Van but the 100 foot mast on top of Harbour Centre is clearly visible from Brentwood or almost anywhere with a view of downtown Van but the mast does not count. I've asked for an explanation and you should see the ridiculous answer I got from some goof in Toronto

Why are you still crying? The status of Harbour Centre was changed months ago after doing some research since you were incapable of providing any yourself beyond personal anecdotes.

It's not different to understand. Spires count. Antennas don't. 1WTC qualifies as both an architectural expression and a functional mast. It's ambiguous but, there's always ambiguity within set definitions. What's a platypus? Visibility impact and/or appearance has absolutely nothing to do with whether an architectural expression counts or not. The rules do not care if the spire looks like an antennae or vice versa. The rules do not care if you can see it from a distance or not. It doesn't matter that my location bar says Toronto either.

I can understand being disenchanted with the rules. I'm not totally convinced by then either particularly after WTC1. It's no reason to have fanboy hissy fits over it or with an editor asking for proof a dozen times.