Winnipeg | 300 Main St.- Phase II / 360 Main St. | ~142M | 465 Ft | 42F | U/C - Page 6

bomberjet · #**101** Posted **Mar 30, 2016, 5:18 PM**

Yes you would still have to determine if the pad is capable of supporting the new building. Which I assume is what they've been up to in preparing the design.

Depending on what building code changes have occurred since the 70's, that could play a part in the new design. Basically if safety factors have increased since then. Maybe they've decreased too, and the pad will accept more load that the original design.

Maybe one of our structural design friends can weigh in. But from my understanding there are two main methods of structural design: limits states and factor of safety. Limit states is mostly used now a days, which I believe allows for less buffer, which is more cost effective. So it may in fact be easier to put a new building on the old foundation. I would assume the original foundation would've been over designed slightly to account for this, but who knows.

esquire · #**102** Posted **Mar 30, 2016, 5:20 PM**

^ I would think that an apartment tower will have substantially less square footage than the fairly large office tower that was originally conceived, no? Wouldn't that play into it?

drew · #**103** Posted **Mar 30, 2016, 6:00 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoryB

Wouldn't you still need an engineering study to verify the pad is still is acceptable condition and then potentially incur higher costs in the design side as you work around fitting the building to the pad that was made of a different project?

Structural Engineering usually accounts for ~1% of the total construction budget.

Even if this gets complicated, it will never approach the savings associated with having the foundation there (unless you end up having to add to or reinforce the foundation).

As for confirming the condition, I guess that is a concern, but only as to what is exposed, say in the parkade.

Whatever is below grade will be fine.

We add floors onto 100-year warehouses fairly regularly in this city, and things like concrete sampling, etc. aren't ever a concern. Granted this is a much higher structure - but buried concrete will be ok.

drew · #**104** Posted **Mar 30, 2016, 6:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bomberjet

Maybe one of our structural design friends can weigh in. But from my understanding there are two main methods of structural design: limits states and factor of safety. Limit states is mostly used now a days, which I believe allows for less buffer, which is more cost effective. So it may in fact be easier to put a new building on the old foundation. I would assume the original foundation would've been over designed slightly to account for this, but who knows.

Foundation design is now limit states (meaning using factors of safety to determine vertical loads).

Previously, you used unfactored numbers for foundation design, and the geotechnical capacity of the foundation given by the soils engineer was determined using upwards of 300% safety factor.

Anyway you slice it, foundation design is usually very conservative. Even if you don't intend it to be.

buzzg · #**105** Posted **Mar 30, 2016, 6:09 PM**

It seems like there are a lot of things happening all at the same time to make this momentum downtown really click. TNS, SkyCity, and other developments plus The Forks are great yes, but also a small entertainment and restaurant boom downtown, lots more infrastructure funding, Summer Games next year will be great, and one thing that's especially great is the automated traffic lights.

It will be really interesting to see how that affects transit especially on Graham. It's long been talked about how bad it can be with busses stopping at almost every street and really bottlenecking, hopefully this will help smooth things out (especially with all the new residents being added in), and also how it could help squash some of the traffic "concerns" with reopening P&M.

bomberjet · #**106** Posted **Mar 30, 2016, 6:24 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by drew

Foundation design is now limit states (meaning using factors of safety to determine vertical loads).

Previously, you used unfactored numbers for foundation design, and the geotechnical capacity of the foundation given by the soils engineer was determined using upwards of 300% safety factor.

Anyway you slice it, foundation design is usually very conservative. Even if you don't intend it to be.

Yeah, thanks for the info Drew. Limit states uses safety factors of 1.3, 1.5, etc, from what i remember in school. Where the old school was seemed to be factors of just 2, or 3.

Anywho, interesting project when a future tower actually gets built. Has this happened ever before in Winnipeg? Not including adding a couple stories to a warehouse in the exchange.

Spocket · #**107** Posted **Mar 30, 2016, 10:49 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoryB

Wouldn't you still need an engineering study to verify the pad is still is acceptable condition and then potentially incur higher costs in the design side as you work around fitting the building to the pad that was made of a different project?

You would already have the basic specs based on the initial design. All you should need to do is make sure that there are no structural weaknesses. I mean, of course you can't just plop a Burj Khalifa on the pad but so long as you build within the parameters of what can be supported and nothing has deteriorated since initial construction it should be pretty easy.

WhipperSnapper · #**108** Posted **Mar 30, 2016, 11:54 PM**

Has anyone considered they may demolish the pad and start over? It happens more often than not. Parameters are very different for residential. Adapting residential to this office floor plan wouldn't make much sense. At most, they would use the existing foundation to support a transfer slab at the surface and build from there.. Of course, I speculate a commercial podium with residential above.

1ajs · #**109** Posted **Mar 30, 2016, 11:57 PM**

wonder if artis reits going to pull a spire trick on sky?

LilZebra · #**110** Posted **Mar 31, 2016, 2:49 AM**

^^^

Has more to do with Sacred Geometry than who owns what property.

LilZebra · #**111** Posted **Mar 31, 2016, 2:58 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biff

The reclad of 360 should start in April. The design of the apartment building is just entering the construction documents phase of design.

So is 360 Main going to basically look the same, or will it change colour or texture in any way shape or form?

Why is there no sketches or drawings or 3D images?

Over to you Biff.

BAKGUY · #**112** Posted **Mar 31, 2016, 4:31 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spocket

This will be one of the easier projects. No soil samples to take. No drilling piles. No foundation work to do at all. Garry's not that busy along that particular stretch either. Main Street may be a pickle but I suspect that Graham will be avoided for the most part with most deliveries taking place along Garry or Main. I could be wrong of course. Overall, this is about as easy it gets.

GARRY? Garry does not border it. Garry is a block over? You must have meant FORT ?

Urban recluse · #**113** Posted **Mar 31, 2016, 4:44 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimj_wpg

So is 360 Main going to basically look the same, or will it change colour or texture in any way shape or form?

Why is there no sketches or drawings or 3D images?

Over to you Biff.

Different exterior; the idea of a higher, angled roof was thrown around.

LilZebra · #**114** Posted **Mar 31, 2016, 5:59 AM**

^^^

Please show.

How can a developer start a project like that without getting approval from PP&D?

Jeremy6 · #**115** Posted **Mar 31, 2016, 6:20 AM**

Can't wait to see this recladded. It will really have an impact to our fast growing skyline

trueviking · #**116** Posted **Mar 31, 2016, 6:22 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urban recluse

Different exterior; the idea of a higher, angled roof was thrown around.

It's ray wan. It's gotta have a hat. It's standard detail #14.

LilZebra · #**117** Posted **Mar 31, 2016, 6:32 AM**

Maybe if it looked like 1000 de la Gauchetière in Montreal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1000_d...ucheti%C3%A8re

Lachine Lachine, the Washing Machine. Lots and lots of Soap.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjpWtPb_goE

Spocket · #**118** Posted **Mar 31, 2016, 12:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BAKGUY

GARRY? Garry does not border it. Garry is a block over? You must have meant FORT ?

Ah, yes, I stand corrected. Fort...the forgotten street.

Spocket · #**119** Posted **Mar 31, 2016, 12:38 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

Has anyone considered they may demolish the pad and start over? It happens more often than not. Parameters are very different for residential. Adapting residential to this office floor plan wouldn't make much sense. At most, they would use the existing foundation to support a transfer slab at the surface and build from there.. Of course, I speculate a commercial podium with residential above.

Not likely given that it's a retail mall underneath. Of course they could do it but they don't seem to have any reason to and they probably chose this spot precisely because it was a cheaper build.

bomberjet · #**120** Posted **Mar 31, 2016, 1:24 PM**

Considering the mall and parkade below, I would doubt that would get ripped out. I think if they absolutely needed to, or wanted to, they could install new caissons/piles between the existing. If there's issues with clear space for residential between the existing column layout.