HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #11921  
Old Posted Apr 30, 2020, 3:47 PM
suburbanite's Avatar
suburbanite suburbanite is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,111
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbandreamer View Post
So short Allied and Smart Centres?
Allied is a pioneer in the type of product that I expect to continue to flourish after Coronavirus. The aforementioned TAMI companies have already been living in a watered down version of this experiment for the past decade, and they still have an insatiable appetite for Allied space in King West. The market could probably absorb a dozen projects like King Portland Centre if the supply was there.

Their growth prospects have definitely taken a hit with projects like Union Centre likely shelved, but I don't see them in anywhere close to as precarious a situation as someone like RioCan.
__________________
Discontented suburbanite since 1994
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11922  
Old Posted Apr 30, 2020, 9:33 PM
WhipperSnapper's Avatar
WhipperSnapper WhipperSnapper is offline
I am the law!
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Toronto+
Posts: 17,907
Those industries will be flipped on their heads as a recession is inevitable and there will be less venture capital and will be concentrated towards the impact of the coronavirus. . It wouldn't surprised me if some of the darlings are quietly absorbed for a fraction of their values while others explode out of nowhere. The overall space requirement may not change much. The change will be in their stability as anchor tenants.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11923  
Old Posted May 1, 2020, 5:22 PM
TorontoDrew's Avatar
TorontoDrew TorontoDrew is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,359
Moved

Last edited by TorontoDrew; May 1, 2020 at 9:24 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11924  
Old Posted May 1, 2020, 5:29 PM
FrankieFlowerpot's Avatar
FrankieFlowerpot FrankieFlowerpot is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,271
Nowhere near tall enough for this thread
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11925  
Old Posted May 1, 2020, 7:47 PM
koops65's Avatar
koops65 koops65 is offline
Intergalactic Barfly
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Quarks Bar
Posts: 5,530
The cut-off nowadays is 188 metres.

50 tallest proposals diagram: http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?searchID=89111295
__________________
My Diagram: http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?searchID=52344624
A proud member of the former Airborne Regiment, 87-88
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11926  
Old Posted May 4, 2020, 1:04 PM
caltrane74's Avatar
caltrane74 caltrane74 is offline
gettin' rich!
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 34,063
Thanks for the update.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11927  
Old Posted May 4, 2020, 2:01 PM
Maldive Maldive is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by koops65 View Post
The cut-off nowadays is 188 metres.

50 tallest proposals diagram: http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?searchID=89111295
Hmmm... pages of Toronto proposals (with a few interruptions).

That diagram even tops the serial proposal/marriage resumes of the Gabor Sisters (Zsa Zsa, Eva, Magda).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11928  
Old Posted May 5, 2020, 7:15 PM
LeftCoaster's Avatar
LeftCoaster LeftCoaster is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Toroncouver
Posts: 11,779
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper View Post
Many thanks for your response. It's something that has come up in conversation but, most of us originate from traditional users. It is nice to get perspective from someone with a broader sense.
Or I could just be wrong:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/busi...-the-pandemic/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11929  
Old Posted May 14, 2020, 10:54 PM
WhipperSnapper's Avatar
WhipperSnapper WhipperSnapper is offline
I am the law!
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Toronto+
Posts: 17,907
Indirectly relevant

China has apparently banned towers over 500 metres and severely restricted towers eclipsing 250 metres. If true, this is a major impact on worldwide tall tower stats.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11930  
Old Posted May 16, 2020, 10:58 AM
333609543's Avatar
333609543 333609543 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Toronto
Posts: 277
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper View Post
Indirectly relevant

China has apparently banned towers over 500 metres and severely restricted towers eclipsing 250 metres. If true, this is a major impact on worldwide tall tower stats.
What reason would China have to do this though?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11931  
Old Posted May 16, 2020, 1:35 PM
rbt rbt is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,054
Quote:
Originally Posted by 333609543 View Post
What reason would China have to do this though?
Seems to be mostly safety as they have stricter fire/earthquake/energy requirements for all buildings over 100m; these requirements become more significant with size.

Also partly that they think they're ugly/destructive in context; the height restriction came with improved protection of natural areas and historic buildings., banning copy-cat designs, and clamps down on 'huge, foreign-worshipping and wacky' buildings.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11932  
Old Posted May 17, 2020, 11:06 PM
WhipperSnapper's Avatar
WhipperSnapper WhipperSnapper is offline
I am the law!
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Toronto+
Posts: 17,907
Don't they have local planning? It's odd to impose a national height limit in order to preserve historical areas. It's kinda too late to revert back to China pre 1990s now that every urban area has international commercial designed glass and steel supertalls. What's the difference pumping water 200 metres or 350 metres? It's just more pumps.

My gut tells me China can no longer afford to develop these towers.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11933  
Old Posted May 17, 2020, 11:24 PM
osmo osmo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,704
From my understanding the Shanghai Tower has been an economic failure as China's megatalls was a government lead project with little connection to any reality of demand. Shanghai Tower sits with the majority of the building empty with no remedy in sight due to awkward floor plates made due by the engineering design.

One could guess this new rule is China saving themselves from themselves to just out the idea of flirting with the idea of more massive megatalls out of the question
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11934  
Old Posted May 17, 2020, 11:45 PM
Martin Mtl's Avatar
Martin Mtl Martin Mtl is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,145
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11935  
Old Posted May 18, 2020, 2:34 AM
Spocket's Avatar
Spocket Spocket is offline
Keep yo pimp hand strong
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: China
Posts: 3,230
Interesting news to me. All I can find is information on Beijing instituting height restrictions. Are you sure this is nationwide?

Edit: It seems that there is a directive from the central government but it does still allow for over 500 meters in "special circumstances". Of course, in China, that just means that Beijing has direct control rather than regional officials.
__________________
Giving you a reason to drink and drive since 1975.

Last edited by Spocket; May 18, 2020 at 2:45 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11936  
Old Posted May 18, 2020, 2:37 AM
urbandreamer's Avatar
urbandreamer urbandreamer is offline
recession proof
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,053
Maybe they found spending 5 minutes in a highrise elevator kind of stupid with the virus going around?
__________________
I'd rather be homeless than live in a condo...but I do like watching attractive ones get built...like Woodwards, 42 in Waterloo, and anything by Daoust/Saucier+Perrotte/Nomade/aA/Teeple
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11937  
Old Posted May 19, 2020, 5:39 PM
WhipperSnapper's Avatar
WhipperSnapper WhipperSnapper is offline
I am the law!
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Toronto+
Posts: 17,907
I've only seen the same blurbs repackaged over and over. They read as a nationwide ban on anything over 500 metres and special circumstances for anything over 250 metres. No real depth or explanation.

Re: Shanghai Tower

The Middle East is full of failed mega projects too. Dubai, the original, the epicenter, probably has spent 20 billion dollars on unrealized dreams. The Palm and World islands that were built sit mostly empty and there are hundreds of abandoned foundations and half built towers.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11938  
Old Posted May 19, 2020, 6:59 PM
ericmacm's Avatar
ericmacm ericmacm is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Windsor, ON
Posts: 273
I would say that the ban could probably be safety related in regard to the quality of the structures being built. The construction industry in China is notorious for the use of of subpar materials, lack of oversight, and quality control issues. Chinese concrete is well known to be of inconsistent quality, containing unprocessed sand from sea beds (as opposed to river beds) which corrodes steel at the cost of saving money. Issues aren't evident immediately, but they will surface in a decade or two. A very tall structure compounds these issues significantly, especially in the event of an earthquake. China gets significant earthquakes literally all over the country, so no city is truly safe from this risk.

Many structures built in China have seen a lot of corners being cut. Even tall structures, such as the Ping An Finance Center, have been found to contain concrete with unprocessed sea sand in samples. For a 500m+ tower, this could make it incredibly dangerous in a couple of decades once the salt in the concrete corrodes steel supports. Since it appears to be impossible to enforce proper quality control, keeping structures shorter will generally reduce the risk that natural disasters would have on already dubious build quality.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11939  
Old Posted May 19, 2020, 7:40 PM
misher's Avatar
misher misher is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 4,537
Quote:
Originally Posted by ericmacm View Post
I would say that the ban could probably be safety related in regard to the quality of the structures being built. The construction industry in China is notorious for the use of of subpar materials, lack of oversight, and quality control issues. Chinese concrete is well known to be of inconsistent quality, containing unprocessed sand from sea beds (as opposed to river beds) which corrodes steel at the cost of saving money. Issues aren't evident immediately, but they will surface in a decade or two. A very tall structure compounds these issues significantly, especially in the event of an earthquake. China gets significant earthquakes literally all over the country, so no city is truly safe from this risk.

Many structures built in China have seen a lot of corners being cut. Even tall structures, such as the Ping An Finance Center, have been found to contain concrete with unprocessed sea sand in samples. For a 500m+ tower, this could make it incredibly dangerous in a couple of decades once the salt in the concrete corrodes steel supports. Since it appears to be impossible to enforce proper quality control, keeping structures shorter will generally reduce the risk that natural disasters would have on already dubious build quality.
Naturally poor quality exists everywhere and it seems like we've only begun taking earthquake safety seriously in the past few decades. Likely most old buildings cannot withstand an earthquake.

Of course in China you have incidents such as this, though when you consider the population of China an incident such as this is actually quite rare.



America also has its own incidents, for instance the tower in New Orleans that collapsed during construction.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2019/1...ction-orig.cnn

Or locally the 1988 Station Square collapse in Burnaby.


Its actually surprising that China doesn't have more incidents given that we have so many here with a much smaller population and stricter quality controls/regulations.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11940  
Old Posted May 19, 2020, 9:09 PM
ericmacm's Avatar
ericmacm ericmacm is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Windsor, ON
Posts: 273
I do agree that poor quality is found everywhere. No country is immune to it. There are numerous other examples, such as the geotechnical failure of the Millennium Tower in San Fransisco, the structural issues of Danbrook One in Victoria and the issue with an undisclosed residential tower in Surrey which was accidentally designed with a different building code.

The main reason we don't see much of this out of China at the moment is most likely because of the restrictive nature of the media and the fact that most prominent structures are relatively new. A lot of older structures are demolished before they would reach the point of falling down, and most tall buildings in the country have been built within the past couple of decades and are still relatively young. I wouldn't be surprised if the engineering was fine, especially for some large towers designed by international firms. Some are probably even overengineered to some degree.

The problem is ultimately with the contractors and if they decide to cut corners by sourcing cheap material. Like with any country, certain contractors are better than others, but the way the construction industry operates there (no spec sheets, lack of communication laws between parties, corruption, and loan structuring) encourages the cutting of corners so one can pocket more money. The industry there is still relatively unregulated, the culture of the industry makes it very hard to regulate, and the consequences of this will begin to surface as these new buildings age in the coming decades.

I see this new nationwide ban on tall buildings as a way to start regulation. Any higher-profile buildings over 250m will be under the microscope, and as a result, any quality issues will come to light and will eventually (hopefully) force a new culture of quality in Chinese construction.
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


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 6:27 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.