Addition | 56M | 20FL | Completed - Page 4

Prometheus · #61 Posted **Oct 24, 2015, 3:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by officedweller

Excavation is not "construction".

It's destruction. Destruction of the Earth's surface.

red-paladin · #62 Posted **Oct 24, 2015, 4:12 PM**

I think of it as site prep, but yes, it's not u/c.

osirisboy · #63 Posted **Oct 24, 2015, 4:12 PM**

Excavation Is constructing the pit and building the retaining walls which use rebar and concrete. It's a very detailed and usually complex stage of the construction process

Vancouver sub forum has placed this stage in the proposal section. However in the canada, Toronto, Ottawa sections for example they do place this stage in u/c

osirisboy · #64 Posted **Oct 24, 2015, 4:23 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by red-paladin

I think of it as site prep, but yes, it's not u/c.

Why not just list projects at this stage as "site prep". It would be more clear and helpful

red-paladin · #65 Posted **Oct 24, 2015, 4:33 PM**

The main reason is that we've had quite a few projects where the pit was excavated (Trump, International Village), but the building was on lengthy hold. We don't want to set a building to U/C and then change it back or put it on hold.

osirisboy · #66 Posted **Oct 24, 2015, 4:36 PM**

There really haven't been that many. It's pretty rare. Not to mention a project can be put on hold even after a crane has been erected.

It can't be that big of a deal to switch a project to on hold or dead, and back again. It is what it is. And such as trump it can happen during u/c anyways

Prometheus · #67 Posted **Oct 24, 2015, 4:45 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by osirisboy

Excavation Is constructing the pit and building the retaining walls which use rebar and concrete. It's a very detailed and usually complex stage of the construction process.

And if you were omnipotent and could--with precision--extract the building (and nothing but the building) from the pit, would the pit and retaining walls not remain? If so, they are not a part of the building. Thus, although the creation of the retaining walls consitutes construction, it does not consititute construction of the building.

Indeed, we do not need to be omnipotent; we do this all the time when we move a heritage house from one location to another. The pit and the retaining walls never come with the house and yet no part of the house was left behind.

Excavation for a building is like clearing the forest and leveling the ground prior to building a log cabin. It's a part of the process of preparing the location in which construction of a building is intended to take place. But it's not construction of the building itself.

osirisboy · #68 Posted **Oct 24, 2015, 5:01 PM**

Way over thinking this

. I get what you are saying. But the "project" is definitely Under construction. Not to mention everyone else on the planet would list it as such lol. Or as previously mentioned, "site rep" .Which I agree is fair and accurate. Much more so than "proposed"

I only bring this up is so when someone is scrolling down a list of 50 projects people can see that for example vancouver house and say Oakridge are at different stages. Versus now where they are all lumped into one category. Which personally I don't find is accurate or helpful.

Prometheus · #69 Posted **Oct 24, 2015, 5:49 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by osirisboy

Way over thinking this.

Simply responding to your suggestion that a pit's retaining walls constituted part of the building, an error which requires little thought to identify.

I personally have no problem with changing the labelling system because the beginning of excavation usually marks the beginning of a process that inevitably leads to the eventual construciton of the building. At the proposal stage, the eventual construction of the building is far less certain. Thus, there is a qualitative difference between the two stages, which may be worthy of formal recognition.

That said, I am personally fine with the current system because it is factually correct and because photos of excavation alone provide all the information I require and constitute evidence more definitive than any label that a project has moved to another phase, whereas it can be difficult to tell from the outside whether a project is complete or just nearly complete. Thus, although changing the system is not unreasonable, there is no compelling need to do so.

osirisboy · #70 Posted **Oct 24, 2015, 6:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Simply responding to your suggestion that a pit's retaining walls constituted part of the building, an error which requires little thought to identify.

Sorry but I never ever said that it was part of the actual "building". Seems like you made the error.

I said the excavation and the building of retaining walls were merely part of the construction process.

Prometheus · #71 Posted **Oct 24, 2015, 7:34 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by osirisboy

Sorry but I never ever said that it was part of the actual "building". Seems like you made the error.

I said the excavation and the building of retaining walls were merely part of the construction process.

I said you "suggested" the retaining walls were part of the building, since the context of the conversation was about the guideline used to identify the different stages of a building (proposed, approved, and under construction) and why the start of excavation does not constitute "under construction."

If you want to rely on a distinction between "project" and "building" in this context, then the construction of the sales centre could be construed as "part of the construction process" and thus "under construction," since it is an example of construction and constitutes an important part of the "project" too.

But I think we have gone off topic long enough.

osirisboy · #72 Posted **Oct 24, 2015, 7:51 PM**

That was your faulty assumption. I honestly wasn't suggesting that retaining walls were part of the actual building (I agree with you. It isn't). I was just describing what excavation entails. And for me, personally it's more accurate to put it under u/c than proposed. That's all

Lmao. Yes

retro_orange · #73 Posted **Oct 24, 2015, 11:19 PM**

Anyway... I have liked this project from when it was first proposed and im glad it got rejigged to keep the Murray Hotel in it's entirety. I like how the townhouses nicely meet up with the hotel and the tower has a cleaner and consistent verticality to the design compared to others in the area. The kitchen is very nice too, the wood looks like real wood!

Pic from: http://www.additionliving.com/

However I don't understand why they are referencing "at the law courts" on their website and some marketing material. Its over a block away, they might aswell say its at the hospital too.