CALGARY | projects - Page 2

trueviking · #21 Posted **Dec 27, 2005, 7:12 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arriviste

Calgary's economy necessitates the abundance of twins. Many of the buildings were built in boom times, but the financiers of such projects were weary of the markets volatility. They would build in phases, as to protect their investment and avoid financial ruin due to the inherant instability of a resource based economy.
Or so I have heard.

that actually makes a lot of sense...because of the rollercoaster economy common to the oil industry...thanks for the explanation...i have always wondered about it but have never had it explained.

Bokimon · #22 Posted **Dec 28, 2005, 12:59 AM**

Great pictures Josh.

As for SOuthland Tower, well it was supposely going to start back in November, but as of this day the site is still untouched and remains a outdoor parking lot for the CHR office. next to the LRT station.

Maybe it was delayed for some reason. Maybe springtime, it might get going.

Coldrsx · #23 Posted **Dec 28, 2005, 4:56 PM**

thanks for the update...calgary has some very nice projects coming along to add to an already impressive skyline. Im curious to see Edmonton and Calgary's skylines in 10yrs.

Capsule F · #24 Posted **Dec 28, 2005, 6:09 PM**

Calgary is very very impressive, as all Canadian cities, but especially Calgary for its size.

FlyersFan118 · #25 Posted **Dec 28, 2005, 6:19 PM**

makes sense I guess...but then why is that only limited to calgary?

TOBoy · #26 Posted **Dec 28, 2005, 7:56 PM**

Dallas had some towers with twins just many never got built

Bank of America
Fountain Place
Lone Star
Republic Centre

Not as many but they there were some.

trueviking · #27 Posted **Dec 29, 2005, 6:45 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlyersFan118

makes sense I guess...but then why is that only limited to calgary?

calgary has a boom/bust economy like few other places....almost exclusively oil driven.

Doug · #28 Posted **Dec 29, 2005, 4:44 PM**

^Historically true, but it hasn't had a quarter if negative growth since 1987. Few North American cities can make that claim.

Arriviste · #29 Posted **Dec 29, 2005, 5:32 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by trueviking

that actually makes a lot of sense...because of the rollercoaster economy common to the oil industry...thanks for the explanation...i have always wondered about it but have never had it explained.

Glad to be of service.
Would Calgary's Skyline seem so dense, and enormous if even half these twins were slightly larger single towers? I doubt it personally. I think the abundance of twins in the current skyline have created a nice dense base for what the skyline will become. With the construction of a few tall towers seemingly imminent (Encana, Imp Oil, etc), they won't suffer the Dubai effect, whereas beautiful structures seem to have been placed in the middle of nowhere.

Coldrsx · #30 Posted **Dec 30, 2005, 1:58 AM**

funny thing is that Edmonton might have challenged for the title of twins...

Manulife was to have a twin as were:

commerce
bell

and we have twins/trips :

oxford towers
scotia
ATB/SUNLIFE

JBinCalgary · #31 Posted **Jan 3, 2006, 4:59 PM**

great news about norman foster, this tower if it is 60+ stories will be one of canadas, and north americas best!

Daver · #32 Posted **Jan 9, 2006, 8:42 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug

^Historically true, but it hasn't had a quarter if negative growth since 1987. Few North American cities can make that claim.

That's agreeable, regarding Calgary, people tend to use "boom/bust" rather loosely. Where it seems Calgary's "bust" is just another day at the shop for most cities. I think Calgary's economy has been consistant enough to maintain tower construction throughout the years surpassing most Canadian centres. Perhaps "boom/bust" should be redefined for Calgary.

mSeattle · #33 Posted **Jan 9, 2006, 9:40 PM**

These really help the tower! I like!

JBinCalgary · #34 Posted **Jan 10, 2006, 3:57 PM**

it sure does

Coldrsx · #35 Posted **Jan 10, 2006, 5:29 PM**

agreed...always for the area beside the tower so blah.

mSeattle · #36 Posted **Jan 10, 2006, 5:59 PM**

How tall are they going to be? Looks like at least 400 ft./121.92 m.

Jasonhouse · #37 Posted **Jan 11, 2006, 6:41 PM**

I like that little box Centrium Place. Different, yet the same.

JBinCalgary · #38 Posted **Jan 11, 2006, 7:11 PM**

i liked the original colonnade rendering better, im amazed this preoject hasnt been completed yet!

jbettcher · #39 Posted **Jan 11, 2006, 9:10 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mSeattle

How tall are they going to be? Looks like at least 400 ft./121.92 m.

They will likely be a bit shorter. Probably around 350 ft./106 m.

The very top point of the spire on the tower is 630~ so ft. tall. These buildings look to be just over half the size.

Wooster · #40 Posted **Jan 11, 2006, 9:49 PM**

Someone did not like my original thread title of "Calgary 1 million metro boom" I guess.