8X on the Park | 98m | 36Fl | Completed - Page 12

retro_orange · #**221** Posted **Apr 17, 2016, 8:48 AM**

see previous post.

pic from officedwellers post http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...6&postcount=41

i wish this render was smaller... would have been a great addition.

Jebby · #**222** Posted **Apr 17, 2016, 7:02 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by retro_orange

another thing is the render on the new website make the interiors look like an office building with old style fluorescent lighting.

It's just a render...

csbvan · #**223** Posted **Apr 17, 2016, 7:56 PM**

I like the new version far more. It will depend on execution, obviously.

SFUVancouver · #**224** Posted **Apr 17, 2016, 9:17 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by retro_orange

see previous post.

i wish this render was smaller... would have been a great addition.

Here you go:

privatejet · #**225** Posted **Apr 18, 2016, 10:06 PM**

Lots more renderings from Brenhill's website

Vin · #**226** Posted **Apr 18, 2016, 10:20 PM**

Still think the new design is ugly, as compared to the original (2nd design):

Quote:

Originally Posted by officedweller

NICE!
New version (website address says Dec 2013):
(Note that the top NE corner is not cut away for the view cone - it looks stepped back and angled instead (more elegant)
(but closer to the neighbouring co-op across the alley))

http://www.gblarchitects.com/work/1111-richards-street/

whatnext · #**227** Posted **Apr 18, 2016, 11:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vin

Still think the new design is ugly, as compared to the original (2nd design):

I agree. It's a disjointed mishmash, the original was much more cohesive.

Klazu · #**228** Posted **Apr 22, 2016, 8:31 PM**

There was a big ad on Metro newspaper today. The ad mentioned that there will be over one hundred 3-bedroom units. That's huge!

officedweller · #**229** Posted **Apr 22, 2016, 9:45 PM**

Yeah, the north (left) side of the park-facing façade is a bit disjointed / underwhelming.

Based on that last pic - it would be very cool if their public art contribution was an installation
to cover up the blank walls of the adjacent co-op building! - but that won't happen...

Quote:

Originally Posted by privatejet

Lots more renderings from Brenhill's website
...

...

retro_orange · #**230** Posted **Apr 22, 2016, 11:56 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by officedweller

Yeah, the north (left) side of the park-facing façade is a bit disjointed / underwhelming.

Based on that last pic - it would be very cool if their public art contribution was an installation
to cover up the blank walls of the adjacent co-op building! - but that won't happen...

It's gonna be a big grey slab with a trellis when finished. I have taken architectural rendering at BCIT, there has been a lot of highlighting added to those renderings. Now whose gonna take bets on which section of massing gets the cheap seafoam or light grey spandrel, double your money if the building gets both!

vanman · #**231** Posted **Apr 23, 2016, 1:21 AM**

You're being too critical. From the renderings it looks as though the quality of materials is high with dark (stone?) paneling all the way up the building as well as minimal use of spandrel. Even without the trellis it would look better than 90% of the bland painted concrete towers in Yaletown.

retro_orange · #**232** Posted **Apr 23, 2016, 1:44 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by vanman

You're being too critical. From the renderings it looks as though the quality of materials is high with dark (stone?) paneling all the way up the building as well as minimal use of spandrel. Even without the trellis it would look better than 90% of the bland painted concrete towers in Yaletown.

We will just have to wait and see. There's always the "subject to change" clause. I am looking forward to seeing the terrible 80's social housing building demolished.

Klazu · #**233** Posted **Apr 23, 2016, 2:45 AM**

How can this building have so many balconies so close to each other if there indeed are so many 3-bedroom units? Most units will have two (or more) balconies?

officedweller · #**234** Posted **Apr 23, 2016, 5:39 AM**

I think the balconies are more for sun shading to reduce solar gain on the west side of the tower
- like wrap-around balconies.

That's better than using spandrel to reduce the window size!

Maybe the trellis / grid didn't give them enough LEED points, so they went with the balconies instead?

retro_orange · #**235** Posted **Apr 23, 2016, 6:01 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by officedweller

I think the balconies are more for sun shading to reduce solar gain on the west side of the tower
- like wrap-around balconies.

That's better than using spandrel to reduce the window size!

Maybe the trellis / grid didn't give them enough LEED points, so they went with the balconies instead?

True, i still don't understand how buildings covered in floor to ceiling windows and thin spandrel can earn enough LEED points as well. I am incredibly curious as to how many of these buildings will look after 30-40 years of sub-optimal maintenance (inevitably will happen to some) will the neighborhood still be popular or rundown because most buildings were built within 20 years of each other and out of style yet not vintage enough to be cool again.

jbrizzy · #**236** Posted **Apr 26, 2016, 1:22 AM**

I think if you think about it as three distinct sections, and they can pull of the contrast between them in terms of colour, materiality, and pattern, it could actually turn out quite well.

Vin · #**237** Posted **Apr 26, 2016, 2:17 AM**

The more I look at this monstrosity, the more I wish this thing never got approved. Why couldn't they stick withe the original design?

officedweller · #**238** Posted **Apr 26, 2016, 3:08 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vin

The more I look at this monstrosity, the more I wish this thing never got approved. Why couldn't they stick withe the original design?

The one you reference as the "original" design was actually the 3rd design.

retro_orange · #**239** Posted **Apr 26, 2016, 7:59 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by officedweller

The one you reference as the "original" design was actually the 3rd design.

I thought the one in the middle was just to show massing without detail, but it was an actual proposed concept? yikes... Fingers crossed for one more redesign! (even if it happens as it's being constructed like Telus)

*The reason I'm so pessimistic about this one is that it seems whenever a developer is put through the legal wringer over little things, multiple UDP turndowns thus needing redesign or excessive public opposition, the project always seems to turn out sub par or downright awful as all those things weigh heavily on the bottom line. Paying for lawyers and legal work, and the people power it takes to redesign large projects like this always seems to come out of the funds for the finishing details which is what most people see daily as they walk, drive by or god forbid have to see from their own windows.

Prometheus · #**240** Posted **Apr 26, 2016, 11:57 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by retro_orange

The reason I'm so pessimistic about this one is that it seems whenever a developer is put through the legal wringer over little things, multiple UDP turndowns thus needing redesign or excessive public opposition, the project always seems to turn out sub par or downright awful as all those things weigh heavily on the bottom line. Paying for lawyers and legal work, and the people power it takes to redesign large projects like this always seems to come out of the funds for the finishing details...

The extra costs of an expensive approval process are also born by the future purchasers in the form of higher prices.