Central (1618 Quebec St.) | 18 & 19 st | Completed

[idunno]

Haha you can make so many comparisons with similar projects between Vancouver and Toronto, and that is always the answer. It's so true! Something about the scale and massing of a lot of Toronto projects - what they gain in height and bulk, they lose in street level quality and massing.

That being said, Toronto gets some amazingly bold designs that Vancouver just doesn't seem to be able to handle.

[rsxstock]

Originally Posted by dleung

What Central should have been like:

Pier 27, Toronto

by me

that looks too industrial, like an off shore oil rig

[Pinion]

The columns on Central are a shame but otherwise I think it's much nicer looking too. Very pleasantly surprised so far.

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by dleung

What Central should have been like:

Pier 27, Toronto

by me

The bridge seems to be all steel frame anchored by concrete cores in the side buildings. That's why it doesn't need the columns, it's a lot lighter.

Doesn't looks very good, though. Central's proportions looks better.

[officedweller]

I think that steel construction without supporting columns would have limited the height of the bridge section. The TO example is only 3 storeies each (on 11 storey bases). Central will have a more impressive bridge element.
However, I'm not keen on the sawtooth edge of the bridge units (designed to maximize views) and I think the clean curtain wall of the TO project will end up looking more sculptural.

[BodomReaper]

Originally Posted by officedweller

I think that steel construction without supporting columns would have limited the height of the bridge section. The TO example is only 3 storeies each (on 11 storey bases). Central will have a more impressive bridge element.
However, I'm not keen on the sawtooth edge of the bridge units (designed to maximize views) and I think the clean curtain wall of the TO project will end up looking more sculptural.

If I recall correctly, Central's developer stated that the main factor inhibiting a column-free design was that it would have necessitated a much thicker transfer-slab, which in turn would have pushed the building height a few meters above the site's height-restriction...

[officedweller]

Thanks. That makes sense.

[dleung]

I assumed that the Toronto/Vancouver comparison was an obvious "read and weep" scenario... it takes an extraordinary amount of homerism to suggest that Central looks better. While it's true while many Vancouver projects are smaller and more refined than their Toronto counterparts, this one is clearly the opposite.

Central is the most counter-intuitive way possible to execute the same design as Pier 27.

Originally Posted by BodomReaper

If I recall correctly, Central's developer stated that the main factor inhibiting a column-free design was that it would have necessitated a much thicker transfer-slab, which in turn would have pushed the building height a few meters above the site's height-restriction...

If a transfer slab is the main structural method for your building's design... you're doing it wrong. The bridge element clearly should have been a steel structure; I suspect that the developer was too used to using concrete in Vancouver, and didn't think or have access to a contractor that used steel in residential. Officedweller: more floors in the Toronto bridge mass (ie a thicker "truss" structure) will only make it easier to span large distances, not harder.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by dleung

If a transfer slab is the main structural method for your building's design... you're doing it wrong. The bridge element clearly should have been a steel structure; I suspect that the developer was too used to using concrete in Vancouver, and didn't think or have access to a contractor that used steel in residential.

Since there are height restrictions, the developer would want to maximize how many floors you can squeeze out of a given height. Slab buildings require only 8 or so inches between floors, whereas steel frame would require wilson joists which add a few feet to each floor. Steel frame is fine in Toronto where you can build whatever height you want, but in height restricted Vancouver, you have to make a compromise.

[SFUVancouver]

Originally Posted by BodomReaper

If I recall correctly, Central's developer stated that the main factor inhibiting a column-free design was that it would have necessitated a much thicker transfer-slab, which in turn would have pushed the building height a few meters above the site's height-restriction...

This is correct, based on what was said by the architects at the UDP. The project wouldn't work financially if it lost a floor or two from the bridge or the podiums in order to fit the transfer slab that would have been required, and it wouldn't have worked either if it had been done in steel. The original column design of "chopsticks in a cup" would have been much more visually interesting than the straight up an down columns, but that also became unfeasible because of the complexity and inefficiency the angled columns would have created at the parking levels. The implication throughout was that the unconventional design was barely feasible and creating a true bridge would have been - forgive the pun - a bridge too far. I still think this will turn out to be pretty spectacular once the scaffolding is down.

Pier 27 in Toronto is very neat, structurally, but it's a ghost town at grade and isn't all that comparable to Central's location on SEFC. It sits behind a parking lot; right beside the Red Path Sugar refinery; beside the Toronto Star offices, printing works, parking, and distribution yard; and, most charmingly, nearby is the derelict Captain John's seafood restaurant ship that periodically gets shut down by the health department. (I wouldn't be surprised if it would be safer to eat something made on the McBarge after having sat idle since Expo)

Anyway, Pier 27 sits on Queen's Quay, which may one day prove to be a pretty great street but in the mean time is one of the most bleak, windswept major waterfront avenues I've ever come across. I'm impressed that they did two full bridge elements for the project, but all things being equal, given the choice I would pick Central.

Here are a couple camera phone pictures I took of Pier 27 earlier this year.

[rsxstock]

that last pic makes it look like a sugar refinery conveyor

[dleung]

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

This is correct, based on what was said by the architects at the UDP. The project wouldn't work financially if it lost a floor or two from the bridge or the podiums in order to fit the transfer slab that would have been required, and it wouldn't have worked either if it had been done in steel. The original column design of "chopsticks in a cup" would have been much more visually interesting than the straight up an down columns, but that also become unfeasible because of the complexity and inefficiency the angled columns would have created at the parking levels. The implication throughout was that the unconventional design was barely feasible and creating a true bridge would have been - forgive the pun - a bridge too far. I still think this will turn out to be pretty spectacular once the scaffolding is down.

Pier 27 in Toronto is very neat, structurally, but it's a ghost town at grade and isn't all that comparable to Central's location on SEFC. It sits behind a parking lot; right beside the Red Path Sugar refinery; beside the Toronto Star offices, printing works, parking, and distribution yard; and, most charmingly, nearby is the derelict Captain John's seafood restaurant ship that periodically gets shut down by the health department. (I wouldn't be surprised if it would be safer to eat something made on the McBarge after having sat idle since Expo)

Anyway, Pier 27 sits on Queen's Quay, which may one day prove to be a pretty great street but in the mean time is one of the most bleak, windswept major waterfront avenues I've ever come across. I'm impressed that they did two full bridge elements for the project, but all things being equal, given the choice I would pick Central.

What does Pier 27's location have to do with the fact that Central's architecture is vastly inferior? Central's "bridge" element cantilevers so little from either end that no one will even perceive it as crossing anything unless they're looking straight at it from the north/south (assuming they can even see through the forest of fat concrete columns supporting the bridge)

Of course the architect had to rationalize their utter failure before the UDP. Steel joists add maybe 12-18 inches to each floor... How thick is the transfer slab again? If switching to steel is enough to shave off a floor from the building, why not add the lost square footage back to the remaining floorplates? It's because they went too far along with unit layouts and area calculations before giving intelligent thought to the structure... classic design myopia.

Everything is feasible, steel structure and sloped concrete columns included. Bottom line is that Central is a lower price point building, and can't afford those things. The amount of excuses being made for this pile is astonishing.

[SFUVancouver]

Originally Posted by dleung

Bottom line is that Central is a lower price point building, and can't afford those things. The amount of excuses being made for this pile is astonishing.

The fact that you don't care for the building doesn't make it any less true that the more costly bridge structure alternatives were unfeasible within the project's budget. Explanations ≠ excuses.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by dleung

Of course the architect had to rationalize their utter failure before the UDP. Steel joists add maybe 12-18 inches to each floor... How thick is the transfer slab again? If switching to steel is enough to shave off a floor from the building, why not add the lost square footage back to the remaining floorplates? It's because they went too far along with unit layouts and area calculations before giving intelligent thought to the structure... classic design myopia.

Everything is feasible, steel structure and sloped concrete columns included. Bottom line is that Central is a lower price point building, and can't afford those things. The amount of excuses being made for this pile is astonishing.

To be honest, I don't like either design. Central is just over the top massive, and Pier probably looks the same way in Toronto. Maybe when they take all the court yard tables down it will open up a bit. Anyways, I was just trying to offer an explanation as to why they went with slab for the bridge section. Looking at the pictures of Pier in Toronto, the floors on the bridge section appear to be significantly taller than the slab floors.

Mr. x mentioned earlier the potential seismic activity in this area, which is something Toronto doesn't have to deal with. That also may be a contributing factor in the differentiating designs.

[dleung]

The sad thing is that with the amount of concrete they put into those ugly columns, they probably spent just as much as if they had gone for the steel structure. When I say it comes down to costs, I meant that proper design of the structure was prevented by bad project management and dwindling design fees.

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

The fact that you don't care for the building doesn't make it any less true that the more costly bridge structure alternatives were unfeasible within the project's budget. Explanations ≠ excuses.

So when you said "given the choice I would pick Central", or when everyone was going on about how much better it is with its "pleasing-proportions" and "comfortable bulk" relative to than Pier 27, they were talking about affordability... gotcha.

[dreambrother808]

Some people genuinely prefer its dimensions. Your opinions are not universal truths. Deal with it.

[Kapten]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

Some people genuinely prefer its dimensions. Your opinions are not universal truths. Deal with it.

I think Central will be a great addition to Vancouver and the office component is a smart move considering the fact that some potential tenants may prefer this transit-friendly location over more expensive space in a Class A building in the heart of the CBD.

I can't wait to photograph this building when it's complete... but I'll be trying hard to ensure that the suburban-scale McDonald's is not included in my images!

[rsxstock]

Originally Posted by Kapten

I think Central will be a great addition to Vancouver and the office component is a smart move considering the fact that some potential tenants may prefer this transit-friendly location over more expensive space in a Class A building in the heart of the CBD.

I can't wait to photograph this building when it's complete... but I'll be trying hard to ensure that the suburban-scale McDonald's is not included in my images!

isn't the office component already leased to a government agency?

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by rsxstock

isn't the office component already leased to a government agency?

It is. Federal government if im not mistaken.

What offices are they moving there?

[SFUVancouver]

Originally Posted by Jebby

It is. Federal government if im not mistaken.

What offices are they moving there?

If I recall correctly, it's the Canadian Border Services Agency that will occupy the office component of Central. They are currently in the Hydro building on Dunsmuir.