HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Jan 12, 2025, 3:45 AM
gaviscon gaviscon is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2021
Posts: 705
1098 & 1099 Harwood, Vancouver

These 2 rental housing towers are already U/C


https://henriquezpartners.com/projects/harwood/











Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Jan 13, 2025, 3:35 AM
Coldrsx's Avatar
Coldrsx Coldrsx is offline
Community Guy
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Edmonton, AB
Posts: 68,772
Getting a really cool late 70s cast-in-place design element heavy vibe from these and love it.
__________________
"The destructive effects of automobiles are much less a cause than a symptom of our incompetence at city building" - Jane Jacobs 1961ish

Wake me up when I can see skyscrapers
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Jan 13, 2025, 2:01 PM
Pellimo Pellimo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2022
Posts: 281
New projets in Québec City (Ste-Foy district)

Le Philippe : 15 floors and 148 apartments







Place Laurier : +/- 750 apartments (minimum....)



Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Jan 13, 2025, 3:02 PM
WhipperSnapper's Avatar
WhipperSnapper WhipperSnapper is offline
I am the law!
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Toronto+
Posts: 22,855
Those two infill rental towers in Vancouver. They don't look bad on the surface. Looking closer, they're twins which isn't bad but, uncommon in Vancouver development ten years ago. One can conclude up to 12 units per floor judging by the render people which means up to 8 of those awful bowling alley suites. Finally, lot coverage. It's so high making the landscaped strips superfluous in a dense residential neighbourhood that excels at greenery. It's going to feel very unVancouver and more generic should the form and coverage be repeated with the neighbouring low rise properties
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Jan 13, 2025, 5:47 PM
Nouvellecosse's Avatar
Nouvellecosse Nouvellecosse is offline
Volatile Pacivist
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 10,950
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper View Post
Just because the 10,000s of absolutely soul crushing units built in Toronto and the rest of Canada have low vacancy doesn't mean the residents are happy living in them or, about raising children in non family apartments. IIRC, That Vancouver blogger that went viral over raising kids in a fashionable Coal Harbour one bedroom moved out for a house.
But not everyone finds the units soul crushing. You're imposing your own response to certain housing types on other people who may or may not feel the same.

The best way to understand how many people feel about height and population density is by comparing it to winter. People in winter countries like Canada or Finland may love winter, but they may also hate or be indifferent to winter yet still choose to live there. When talking to people based in warmer climates I often encounter ones who talk about Canada as if winter is the only notable trait, or at least by far the most important trait. They say things like they could never live here because they would freeze their nads off or some such. And there are some people who genuinely dislike winter enough to leave. So for someone like that who is strongly averse to winter, I'm sure it's easy to assume that anyone who chooses to move to a cold climate must do so because they love winter and that anyone who doesn't would be miserable

But in reality, people get by in winter countries whether they actually like winter or not. A cold region may have a strong economy, abundant water or other natural resources, enjoyable culture, interesting/scenic landscapes, or many other features that could attract a person. And a housing unit in a dense development may have a great location, a competitive price compared to other options, have common amenities, or the unit itself could have features that a person wants. In other words winter and height/density are just not that important. You can say that winter is bad for people because we didn't evolve in cold climates and things like SAD exist and so therefore no one should be living here. But while both winter and height/density are important and they do affect people's lives, they just don't have the encompassing importance the way that some would suggest. As hard as it is for someone who despises winter or who despise height/density to understand, there are many people who see and just shrug without it having that big an impact on their opinion. And planning frameworks tend to recognize this.
__________________
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." - George Bernard Shaw
Don't ask people not to debate a topic. Just stop making debatable assertions. Problem solved.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Jan 13, 2025, 6:26 PM
WhipperSnapper's Avatar
WhipperSnapper WhipperSnapper is offline
I am the law!
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Toronto+
Posts: 22,855
I have never said once that everyone would find these soul crushing but, I have given data that these units and city planning policies average out as less than desirable places to live. There's record dissatisfaction among new Canadians living in Toronto and global residential planning policies would never allow widespread over 20 FSI without significant densities transfers. You found the 60 FSI Bloor Street supertall human filing cabinet too close to The One but still gave a thumbs up. You continue with the faith based narrative that people must like them and I'm the one imposing personal biases and not you. Next you'll say those planning polices are grounded in NIMBYism than based on quality of life studies.

Once again, you're completely off on another tangent. This isn't a question on height or population densities. This is a question of built densities and their architecture and logistics. Height is mainly for skyline enthusiasts or measuring dicks. Comparing population densities is a skewed understanding that more people will revitalise a shithole and not planning policy. Like the economy reliant on more and more people buying crap but, all that crap is also destroying the planets ecosystems.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Jan 13, 2025, 8:29 PM
Nouvellecosse's Avatar
Nouvellecosse Nouvellecosse is offline
Volatile Pacivist
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 10,950
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper View Post
I have never said once that everyone would find these soul crushing but, I have given data that these units and city planning policies average out as less than desirable places to live. There's record dissatisfaction among new Canadians living in Toronto and global residential planning policies would never allow widespread over 20 FSI without significant densities transfers. You found the 60 FSI Bloor Street supertall human filing cabinet too close to The One but still gave a thumbs up. You continue with the faith based narrative that people must like them and I'm the one imposing personal biases and not you. Next you'll say those planning polices are grounded in NIMBYism than based on quality of life studies.

Once again, you're completely off on another tangent. This isn't a question on height or population densities. This is a question of built densities and their architecture and logistics. Height is mainly for skyline enthusiasts or measuring dicks. Comparing population densities is a skewed understanding that more people will revitalise a shithole and not planning policy. Like the economy reliant on more and more people buying crap but, all that crap is also destroying the planets ecosystems.
First of all, you're the one who brought up height and population densities, not me. You literally said, "Height and population junkies may rejoice" as if that was the only thing anyone would appreciate about the proposal and i replied to set the record straight that this isn't true and explained some of the positives that have nothing to do that that.

Second, regarding the claim that, "I have given data that these units and city planning policies average out as less than desirable places to live." I have not seen any such data. It's certainly possible that new-comers are less satisfied now than in the past but I haven't seen any data showing that, if true, that housing density plays any significant role. There are plenty of other much more obvious possibilities including things like high cost of living, stagnant wages, low housing availability, traffic congestion, and increasing anti-immigration sentiments.

Third, you literally just said, "Just because the 10,000s of absolutely soul crushing units built in Toronto and the rest of Canada...". That was just today in the post I was responding it. So I'm not sure how you can forget it that quickly. Calling them absolutely soul-crushing clearly implies that "soul crushing" is an inherent trait of all these thousands of units themselves rather than just the reaction of some people who don't like them.

Forth, there's no such thing as "Global planning policies." The field of planning differs from country to country and even between regions within countries. For instance, when I interviewed a planner based in London Ont. as part of my planning program. I was surprised when he commented on how different planning is even in different parts of Canada while being significantly different than other countries he visited. And a central, perhaps most important, aspect of planning is recognizing context. We're taught not to make such absolute, universal statements like "this level of density is wrong". It's always a matter of considering the individual site and weighing the pros and cons based on many considerations.

And of course, the elephant in the room is that planners don't set density limits (or enact other policies for that matter). Planners make recommendations that governments accept or reject, fully or in part. And it isn't uncommon for governments not to accept all the recommendations. So there are many policies in place because that's what governments, typical municipal, have chosen to implement. Not because planners said those policies are good or necessary. So if a certain policy is common that doesn't necessarily mean planners have endorsed it, and if it's uncommon that doesn't mean planner oppose it. Well that's the case in Canada at least. But as I said, planning varies greatly around the world. In fact, one of the things we're warned about is that governments don't always follow advice and don't always enact good planning policies so we have to be prepared for that and not easily discouraged.

Also, simply observing something in real life and acknowledging what you've observed is not "faith" People do chose to buy and rent units in dense housing. I made it very clear in my prior post that I wasn't claiming everyone liked them. I was claiming that they chose to live in them rather than choosing not to. Perhaps because they like the unit or perhaps they thought it was the best option for some other reason. Hence my comparison to winter (which was very important btw).
__________________
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." - George Bernard Shaw
Don't ask people not to debate a topic. Just stop making debatable assertions. Problem solved.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Jan 17, 2025, 11:51 PM
GenWhy? GenWhy? is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 4,663
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse View Post
First of all, you're the one who brought up height and population densities, not me. You literally said, "Height and population junkies may rejoice" as if that was the only thing anyone would appreciate about the proposal and i replied to set the record straight that this isn't true and explained some of the positives that have nothing to do that that.

Second, regarding the claim that, "I have given data that these units and city planning policies average out as less than desirable places to live." I have not seen any such data. It's certainly possible that new-comers are less satisfied now than in the past but I haven't seen any data showing that, if true, that housing density plays any significant role. There are plenty of other much more obvious possibilities including things like high cost of living, stagnant wages, low housing availability, traffic congestion, and increasing anti-immigration sentiments.
This proposal looks to follow the same policies that are in effect city-wide which is 80-foot tower separations, which is how Yaletown was built and it's not too different than Olympic Village at the ground level
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Jan 14, 2025, 12:07 AM
cranes's Avatar
cranes cranes is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 440
Mooregate Way, 15-105 Mooregate Crescent, Kitchener

Anticipated construction start - Sept 2025

@ZEBuilder Nov 21, 2024
Quote:
This is one of the affordable housing redevelopment projects that the Region is undertaking on their existing sites. This is the largest of the redevelopments, there are a few that are in the design phase but they aren't as large in terms of unit count and height at least in the current iterations, Kitchener's PMTSA zoning might change one of the projects but nothings public on that one yet.

In terms of this project the Region is designing it for 378 units, the site will have a 16 and 9 floor building with the 16 floor building having 221 units and an 8 floor podium and the 9 floor building will have a 4 floor podium and contain 157 units. The exact unit mix isn't known however it is planned to include units ranging in size from 1-5 bedrooms. The site itself is located in the center of a crescent with existing highrise and townhome developments surrounding it, this site is currently Regionally owned townhomes.

In terms of transit access there is the 12 and 20 within a 10 minute walk from the site. The 12 runs every 15 minutes with plans to increase frequency to every 10 minutes (it is one of the busiest routes in the network), and the 20 runs every 15 minutes. The 20 feeds into downtown Kitchener and to the Boardwalk (suburban shopping center with everything), the 12 feeds both UW and WLU as well as multiple large employment areas in Kitchener.

For the project SvN is the Architect/Urban Designers, Lithos Group is providing civil services, RWDI is providing wind studies, structural services are being provided by Blackwell Structural Engineers, transportation is being provided by Nextrans Consulting Engineers, Mechanical/Electrical is Reinbold Engineering, and Acoustic/Vibration is being provided by J.E. Coulter Acoustics + Vibrations.

The project already has conditional SPA from the City of Kitchener, the cities SPA files aren't public so getting site plans/TIS/Geotech reports or anything is a hassle, currently there is still a holding provision which is in the process of being lifted.
Model:


Renderings:
105 Moorgate side (9 floor midrise)


15 Moorgate side (16 floors)


@Paclo Nov 21, 2024
Additional rendering:
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Jan 14, 2025, 6:15 AM
Coldrsx's Avatar
Coldrsx Coldrsx is offline
Community Guy
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Edmonton, AB
Posts: 68,772
The I dunno, 12th iteration of this now two decade old project(s)...

Century Park






https://www.weareplanworks.ca/projec...aster-planning
__________________
"The destructive effects of automobiles are much less a cause than a symptom of our incompetence at city building" - Jane Jacobs 1961ish

Wake me up when I can see skyscrapers
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2025, 2:42 PM
Coldrsx's Avatar
Coldrsx Coldrsx is offline
Community Guy
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Edmonton, AB
Posts: 68,772
A nice little infill for a mature central hood in Edmonton.

https://edmonton.taproot.news/briefs...athcona-county
__________________
"The destructive effects of automobiles are much less a cause than a symptom of our incompetence at city building" - Jane Jacobs 1961ish

Wake me up when I can see skyscrapers
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2025, 7:26 PM
isaidso isaidso is offline
North of Gilead
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: North of Gilead
Posts: 11,007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldrsx View Post
A nice little infill for a mature central hood in Edmonton.

https://edmonton.taproot.news/briefs...athcona-county
Only in Canada/US would this be considered 'nice'. It's a grey box with no architectural detail to speak of. A wall of glass at grade?



A lot of New Builds in Europe look like this. Architectural detail, colour, human scaled at grade, etc. If you plonked that Edmonton proposal in the square below I doubt you'd find anyone describing it as nice. You'd get lots calling it a depressing shoebox ruining the place.



.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRdwXQb7CfM
__________________
ELBOWS UP CANADA, ELBOWS UP UKRAINE, ELBOWS UP GREENLAND
CANADA, EUROPE, NZ, AUSTRALIA, JAPAN, MEXICO STRONG

US REPUBLICANS/MAGA/ICE NOT WELCOME HERE, STAY OUT

Last edited by isaidso; Jan 18, 2025 at 7:43 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Jan 17, 2025, 5:28 PM
gaviscon gaviscon is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2021
Posts: 705
Initially posted by jollyburger in the Vancouver thread.

'McCarthy Plaza': 72 storeys, 258.4m

Proposed across the road from Concord Metrotown

Quote:
Originally Posted by jollyburger View Post
Inside Metrotown's Tallest Proposed Tower: The 72-Storey McCarthy Plaza

Dialog is the architect.











https://storeys.com/mccarthy-plaza-k...otown-burnaby/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Jan 17, 2025, 5:33 PM
Coldrsx's Avatar
Coldrsx Coldrsx is offline
Community Guy
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Edmonton, AB
Posts: 68,772
For once Metrotown trying to be like Brentwood
__________________
"The destructive effects of automobiles are much less a cause than a symptom of our incompetence at city building" - Jane Jacobs 1961ish

Wake me up when I can see skyscrapers
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Jan 17, 2025, 5:44 PM
giallo's Avatar
giallo giallo is online now
be nice to the crackheads
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 12,566
I really like this angle.

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Jan 17, 2025, 5:56 PM
Coldrsx's Avatar
Coldrsx Coldrsx is offline
Community Guy
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Edmonton, AB
Posts: 68,772
Stature!
__________________
"The destructive effects of automobiles are much less a cause than a symptom of our incompetence at city building" - Jane Jacobs 1961ish

Wake me up when I can see skyscrapers
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted Jan 17, 2025, 7:12 PM
GeneralLea's Avatar
GeneralLea GeneralLea is offline
Midtowner since 2K
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Midtown Toronto
Posts: 5,926
Looks good! Though this seems like fantasy render-ville, and I'm not convinced this will actually be built as rendered.
__________________
"Living life on the edge"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted Jan 17, 2025, 7:35 PM
WhipperSnapper's Avatar
WhipperSnapper WhipperSnapper is offline
I am the law!
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Toronto+
Posts: 22,855
Vaughan has already built a better version of this lol

The details aren't revealed. Is it golden or is that reflecting the mood lighting? The only thing one can make out is a larger point tower mass which typically implies shitty floor plans.

That nondescript mid rise office the podium wraps around can't be long for the world. Fresh Street Market looks like a boring financial institution. Boy, all those stairs.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2025, 10:11 PM
Nouvellecosse's Avatar
Nouvellecosse Nouvellecosse is offline
Volatile Pacivist
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 10,950
^ In fairness that appears to be a main square and waterfront in the heart of a Copenhagen which is a relatively major capital city. Not just some random development on a residential street. Perhaps Europe has a recent trend of new buildings that copy older styles, but for many decades their typical residential areas were largely not anything to get worked up over. Depending on the country, there has been everything from council estates in the UK, Soviet highrises in the former eastern block, to just basic utilitarian homes unadorned by detailing and bright colours. I believe it was Kool or someone here on the forum who lives (or lived) in Stockholm who talked about the huge contrast between the historic central parts of the city which he found beautiful and grand compared to the rest which he considered drab and depressing. From what he described, it seems like they just have a greater contrast than we do. Which shouldn't be surprising considering that being more historic gives them a more established city centre aesthetic, while modernism partly originated in Europe with early figures like Adolf Loos, Le Corbusier, and Mies et al.

Personally I don't think we need our residential areas to be touristy showcases. Our city centres tend to have lots of colour, texture, and vibrancy despite being of a different type. And in Europe there are countless random residential areas where you get rather drab, monotonous residential buildings. So you see all kinds of examples ranging from interesting and/or attractive landmarks down to bland council estates.

The other thing that's important to remember modernist buildings and their derivatives function as a negative space meaning that their beauty and aesthetic appeal comes largely from what they lack rather than from what they have. That provides a contrast to, and relief from, busier and more visually detailed elements (buildings, forests, etc.) Which means they don't do well on their own as the prevailing visual element. So it's not surprising that modernism arose out of the visual excesses of the Victorian-era and was superseded by things like POMO, Neo-futurism, and Deconstructivism which offer the more prominent visual presence demanded by landmarks and central spaces.
__________________
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." - George Bernard Shaw
Don't ask people not to debate a topic. Just stop making debatable assertions. Problem solved.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted Jan 20, 2025, 3:21 PM
WhipperSnapper's Avatar
WhipperSnapper WhipperSnapper is offline
I am the law!
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Toronto+
Posts: 22,855
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse View Post
^ In fairness that appears to be a main square and waterfront in the heart of a Copenhagen which is a relatively major capital city. Not just some random development on a residential street. Perhaps Europe has a recent trend of new buildings that copy older styles, but for many decades their typical residential areas were largely not anything to get worked up over. Depending on the country, there has been everything from council estates in the UK, Soviet highrises in the former eastern block, to just basic utilitarian homes unadorned by detailing and bright colours. I believe it was Kool or someone here on the forum who lives (or lived) in Stockholm who talked about the huge contrast between the historic central parts of the city which he found beautiful and grand compared to the rest which he considered drab and depressing. From what he described, it seems like they just have a greater contrast than we do. Which shouldn't be surprising considering that being more historic gives them a more established city centre aesthetic, while modernism partly originated in Europe with early figures like Adolf Loos, Le Corbusier, and Mies et al.

Personally I don't think we need our residential areas to be touristy showcases. Our city centres tend to have lots of colour, texture, and vibrancy despite being of a different type. And in Europe there are countless random residential areas where you get rather drab, monotonous residential buildings. So you see all kinds of examples ranging from interesting and/or attractive landmarks down to bland council estates.

The other thing that's important to remember modernist buildings and their derivatives function as a negative space meaning that their beauty and aesthetic appeal comes largely from what they lack rather than from what they have. That provides a contrast to, and relief from, busier and more visually detailed elements (buildings, forests, etc.) Which means they don't do well on their own as the prevailing visual element. So it's not surprising that modernism arose out of the visual excesses of the Victorian-era and was superseded by things like POMO, Neo-futurism, and Deconstructivism which offer the more prominent visual presence demanded by landmarks and central spaces.
The point being made got lost in translation with posting a European heritage district with strict guidlines. Not only that, IIRC, Copenhagen doesn't have private development. The municipality chooses the architect and approves every aspect of the designs for developers than to build. Good or bad, it's a highly authoritative process.

As for the Edmonton building, I don't know how anyone can call it nice either. That doesn't mean it's awful. It's just not nice. Adding more thought and interest, in particular, the repetitive CRU design shouldn't break any budget. What would cost more but, would be a valued investment considering this building could be there over 100 years from now is a staggered ground floor to eliminate the concrete steps.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 1:35 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.