Edmonton - Bellamy Hill Condo - 35 Story - Page 4

ExcaliburKid · #61 Posted **Jun 11, 2007, 6:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CMD UW

Icon the 3rd, explain? I see no similarities other than its colour scheme.

You're right, the colour scheme is the only thing I was referring to.

Kevin_foster · #62 Posted **Jun 11, 2007, 7:12 PM**

8/10

Who cares about the Parking ... have you seen the grade it's on? I think it would be impossible to do all UG - none of the condos on that slope have UG parking - the entire base of Chateau Lacombe is parking, right? If you didnt have parking above grade on this slope, you would have a giant concrete block anyways...

Also - the cars on the upper deck - who knows what thats all about ???

murman · #63 Posted **Jun 11, 2007, 7:14 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 240glt

This sentence confuses me.

If the concept of greenroof technologies confuses you, I think we've found the root of the issue.

Coldrsx · #64 Posted **Jun 11, 2007, 7:20 PM**

[IMG]

[/IMG]

Coldrsx · #65 Posted **Jun 11, 2007, 7:21 PM**

parking should all have been covered....they could have put cool townhomes facing south.

240glt · #66 Posted **Jun 11, 2007, 7:50 PM**

Quote:

If the concept of greenroof technologies confuses you, I think we've found the root of the issue.

No, the sentence, dickhead.

CMD wrote about visitor parking on the roof, which does not make sense. Is he talking about what appears to be the 5th level terrace or the actual roof ?

Are you , bychance a professional asshole, or is it just a hobby ?

Coldrsx · #67 Posted **Jun 11, 2007, 7:52 PM**

^he is APAAG

Accredited Professional A$$hole Authority Group

and we wouldnt have him any other way

murman · #68 Posted **Jun 11, 2007, 9:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 240glt

No, the sentence, dickhead.

CMD wrote about visitor parking on the roof, which does not make sense. Is he talking about what appears to be the 5th level terrace or the actual roof ?

Are you , bychance a professional asshole, or is it just a hobby ?

Charm school got you a bit on edge, does it?

The Chemist · #69 Posted **Jun 11, 2007, 10:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

[IMG]

[/IMG]

See, now this I like. I didn't like the Oliver, period - not because it's in Edmonton but because the design just doesn't look good to me. This one, on the other hand, just works. Very nice.

I don't like the uncovered parking, though. It should have been underground with townhouses or retail in the podium.

240glt · #70 Posted **Jun 11, 2007, 10:38 PM**

Quote:

Charm school got you a bit on edge, does it?

Didn't go to charm school.

What's your excuse ?

ETA I now see the parking area that CMD was referring to... at the back corner at the top of the parkade. I don't see what the issue is, if it is visitor parking. That back corner is going to butt right up against Park Square, so it'd hardly be a nice place to use as common area or terrace anyways.

I'm a big fan of keeping the visitor parking totally seperate from main parking anyways, for a multitude of reasons. This works for me.

Hardhatdan · #71 Posted **Jun 11, 2007, 10:56 PM**

That open parking on the back faces onto a horrid back alley. I'm not sure anyone would want to spend time on that side of a roof terrace.

I don't know, as long as you cant see the cars from the ground level asthetically it seems fine. However, having cars idling below your condo would be annoying.
Overall, they should probably reconsider that idea.

This tower is okay, but too many punched out windows again...extend the curtainwall downward.

m0nkyman · #72 Posted **Jun 11, 2007, 11:24 PM**

Single women getting dropped off at their doors by a guy would probably be a bit more comfortable with this than in an underground parkade. You need somewhere to get dropped off at and picked up at... taxis and what not. I'm thinking that the grade of street makes that a no-go, so this works for me.

CMD UW · #73 Posted **Jun 11, 2007, 11:49 PM**

Don't get me wrong, given the extreme slope I don't have any issues with a portion of the parking being above-ground. I just don't think the top of the parkade should be used for parking at all. Green it up baby!

Atlguy33 · #74 Posted **Jun 12, 2007, 1:10 AM**

Now that I have seen the color rendering, my verdict is officially: I like it.
Just too close to Edm. House for my comfort.

Hardhatdan · #75 Posted **Jun 12, 2007, 1:29 AM**

Is this another 3 sided bzka special? It better not be, they are notorious for that.
This building is fairly meh still for me, from things I heard it was just supposed to be so much better.

basilbrush · #76 Posted **Jun 12, 2007, 2:19 AM**

The upper floor details are nicer than the Icon towers, but the main tower portion is still too blocky. The above grade parking makes sense for the location, but there are many improvements that could be made on this one.

CMD UW · #77 Posted **Jun 12, 2007, 2:29 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hardhatdan

Is this another 3 sided bzka special? It better not be, they are notorious for that.
This building is fairly meh still for me, from things I heard it was just supposed to be so much better.

Nope, curtainwall and windows on the north facade.

Coldrsx · #78 Posted **Jun 12, 2007, 2:31 AM**

while adding some modernism to the skyline...imagine this was downtown downtown....thats the biggest problem in Edmonton. We build, as we should, all river valley and ignore the warehouse area.

HomeInMyShoes · #79 Posted **Jun 12, 2007, 3:01 AM**

^It'll get there. Q is a start for the fringe and with the two ICON towers it's a definite improvement for things outside the valley. Get that one commercial tower going as we're hoping and it'll seem bustling development-wise.

CMD UW · #80 Posted **Jun 12, 2007, 4:50 AM**

/\ Exactly....the fact is that there are some better parcels with views.