Paradox Hotel and Residences | 188m | 67 Fl | Completed - Page 5

excel · #81 Posted **Nov 27, 2007, 10:25 AM**

some of those stats are way off. last line before the facts is classic.

Canadian Mind · #82 Posted **Nov 27, 2007, 10:39 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hed Kandi

At 61 storeys, it will rival another hotel/residence project, the Shangri-la at 60 storeys.

Tallest of all? No, save that for an 81-storey building under consideration in Surrey. It will be Canada's tallest skyscraper upon completion.

Who the fuck writes this shit?

vanman · #83 Posted **Nov 27, 2007, 5:08 PM**

Quote:

At 61 storeys, it will rival another hotel/residence project, the Shangri-la at 60 storeys.

Tallest of all? No, save that for an 81-storey building under consideration in Surrey. It will be Canada's tallest skyscraper upon completion.

LOL! And that's why I don't read the province.

officedweller · #84 Posted **Nov 27, 2007, 8:15 PM**

I saw that too - brutal!

mr.x · #85 Posted **Nov 27, 2007, 8:52 PM**

just...wow...

Cypherus · #86 Posted **Nov 28, 2007, 2:26 AM**

Did you know you can sue the Province for misinformation if they don't correct that misstatement?

Delirium · #87 Posted **Nov 28, 2007, 2:48 AM**

i lost all faith in the province when they ran this a while back. a rendering of the fairmont hotel

jlousa · #88 Posted **Nov 28, 2007, 3:24 AM**

^^Wow^^ I really am going to lose my view.

excel · #89 Posted **Nov 28, 2007, 7:16 AM**

i didnt realize they were connecting the two buildings the whole way up, interesting design.

Hot Rod · #90 Posted **Nov 29, 2007, 8:47 AM**

lol

Cypherus · #91 Posted **Nov 29, 2007, 10:41 PM**

LOL...what the hell...?

hollywoodnorth · #92 Posted **Nov 29, 2007, 11:03 PM**

hey hey come on now it's not THAT bad......I mean its typical James Cheng right?

officedweller · #93 Posted **Nov 30, 2007, 1:41 AM**

Nahh, the facade isn't "articulated" enough - it would never get through the Urban Design Panel!

raggedy13 · #94 Posted **Dec 7, 2007, 7:52 AM**

Progress as of today...

mr.x · #95 Posted **Dec 7, 2007, 8:14 AM**

so it's completely demolished? man, if only they could've done this baby in time for 2010. thanks for the photos rag.

excel · #96 Posted **Dec 7, 2007, 8:24 AM**

Looks like they are slowly starting to dig. Is the pit going to be around 80 feet like shangri-la?

Canadian Mind · #97 Posted **Dec 7, 2007, 8:43 AM**

wasn't there U/G parking or a foundation for that old shell aswell, meaning demolition will have to continue downwards? If not, then sweet, if so, by what method will they remove it? demolish it then dig out all the chunks, or remove it piece by piece?

LeftCoaster · #98 Posted **Dec 7, 2007, 6:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Canadian Mind

wasn't there U/G parking or a foundation for that old shell aswell, meaning demolition will have to continue downwards? If not, then sweet, if so, by what method will they remove it? demolish it then dig out all the chunks, or remove it piece by piece?

I dont think there was any U/G parking associated with this site, im not 100% on that however.

As for the construction timeline, I think having this guy in the throws of construction around 2010 would look even better than a completed tower... It'l make the city look more dynamic.

Cypherus · #99 Posted **Dec 7, 2007, 6:39 PM**

Looking at the 3rd picture from raggedy13's recent post, it looks like there is no U/G parking. Hence, the soil exposure. I can be wrong, though.

hollywoodnorth · #**100** Posted **Dec 8, 2007, 12:35 AM**

there was NO ug parking.