Wall Centre To Go Yaletown Green?

AlexYVR · #1 Posted **Jun 29, 2007, 5:44 AM**

All hearsay, but it's from a friend who owns a place on the 42nd floor -

The Wall Centre is experiencing serious problems right now. The seals on the windows have dried out and become permeable. First noticed in only a few units, all units have now tested positive for condensation in the windows - they may theoretically all need to be replaced. If this is the case, the city will force the owners to - you guessed it - go completely light green.

If this is true, it's a travesty. One Wall Centre is a beautiful building for a few reasons, but it's most noticeable because it stands out from the Concorde Pacific condos and the Yaletown Green and tan concrete aesthetic of which Vancouver seems to be so fond.

Any thoughts/confirmations?

MistyMountainHop · #2 Posted **Jun 29, 2007, 5:48 AM**

Whoever the person is that would force them to change the colour should be thrown from the top of One Wall Centre so they can appreciate its significance.

Jared · #3 Posted **Jun 29, 2007, 5:48 AM**

The Wall-Tower-Window-Colour saga continues...

SpongeG · #4 Posted **Jun 29, 2007, 6:03 AM**

haha

isn;t that what happenned to that building on davie and richards? something happenned and all the windows had to be replaced thats why it was in a big tent for so long

Canadian Mind · #5 Posted **Jun 29, 2007, 6:16 AM**

Christ, can't start a petition to make the building dark blue eh (or a etition to let the constructor do whatever colour they want)

Its a landmark building, as such it should stand out... I'd love to see it as a violet, red, or gold colour, just to be unique.

Hot Rod · #6 Posted **Jun 29, 2007, 7:37 AM**

Isn't the 42nd floor in the lighter-colored/clear glass region though?

If so, then perhaps the city will make Wall put up the same blue glass as the lower 2/3rds of the building.

NOW THAT WOULD BE TOTALLY AWESOME!!!!

EastVanMark · #7 Posted **Jun 29, 2007, 7:56 AM**

If this is true, then this is just even more stupid than when they forced developers of the Wall Center to change the color of the glass from a sharp, beautiful, UNIQUE, blue to a plain, BORING, colorless version they were stuck with for the top portion of the building. Imagine what tourists must think when they see this wonderful building that has seamless blue glass up 2/3 up the building, then all of a sudden a drastic change to plain see through glass for the top 1/3. It looks STUPID!!!!!

This latest development would fit the mold of keeping everything plain, without soul. Why is contrast such a dirty word in this town? Not EVERYTHING can be clear or green glass. The Wall Centre was one of our only buildings to be able to have a landmark status. If the glass changes, it will join the ranks of the plain, boring architecture this city is shoving down our throats. (cause they know whats best, and they have decided to protect us from blue glass). MORONS!!

TwoFace · #8 Posted **Jun 29, 2007, 2:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlexYVR

The Wall Centre is experiencing serious problems right now. The seals on the windows have dried out and become permeable. First noticed in only a few units, all units have now tested positive for condensation in the windows - they may theoretically all need to be replaced.

I that is true, than this is a LEAKY CONDO, not good, won't look pretty under a tarp for a couple of years.

jlousa · #9 Posted **Jun 29, 2007, 5:10 PM**

Funny I haven't heard anything about this, not that it's not possible though, I'll try to find out when I'm back in town. I do know they just awarded a large contract to redevelop their plaza though, not sure what they have in store for it.

204 · #10 Posted **Jun 29, 2007, 6:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlousa

I do know they just awarded a large contract to redevelop their plaza though, not sure what they have in store for it.

The whole plaza is tiled and they are constantly repairing them. Water pools in many areas after it rains. My guess is that the tiling will be completely replaced.

officedweller · #11 Posted **Jun 29, 2007, 7:52 PM**

There's no reason that changing the panes because of leaky seals would force a change in colour of the glass - especially the colour of the top 1/3rd of the tower which the City mandated. Possibly for the bottom 2/3rds, but not the top - in addition, when the glass compromise was reached, no doubt there would have been a written settlement agreement - neither the City nor Wall Financial (or the condo owners/strata as successors in title?) would be able to alter that agreement unilaterally (to allow/force green glass) without the consent of the other party.
Given the owners in the pricey building, it is unlikely that the owners would initiate a change to cheaper green glass, but that is a possibility.

vanhattan · #12 Posted **Sep 29, 2007, 5:42 PM**

WTF???

I have lived in many cities in North America, and never have I witnessed such poor construction standards as they have here in Vancouver!!! Why can't this city build something worth living in that wont fall apart moments after being built? How can companies and builders get away with making such poor product????!!! No wonder everyone views a 10 year old building here as ancient!
I live in a new building, maybe I should buy an assignment so that I move when it is 4 years old before the windows or other structural features fail......

Very sad indeed. I feel for the owners!

Mike K. · #13 Posted **Sep 29, 2007, 6:49 PM**

Are you referring to the leaky condo issues? That had to do with Federal regulations which, after the leaks began, the Feds acknowledged did not apply to BC's wet southwest climate.

Of course, like any other city, there are one-offs that suffer from poor workmanship and compound the problems.

djp · #14 Posted **Oct 1, 2007, 1:48 AM**

Quote:

Are you referring to the leaky condo issues? That had to do with Federal regulations which, after the leaks began, the Feds acknowledged did not apply to BC's wet southwest climate.

But this is an issue that I've never really understood, for the simple reason that southwestern B.C.'s climate is not really any wetter than most of central Canada, where federal regulations seem to work.

For instance, Victoria gets about 25" to 30" of rain per year, less than Toronto. So why do we have this problem? Is it because our rain is (*in a typical year anyway*) concentrated in the winter? Even still, the rainiest month in Victoria gets only 2 more inches of rain than the wettest month in Toronto.

So what's the deal with leaky condos throughout southern B.C., including relatively dry locations like Victoria? And does anyone know if they even have anything like this problem in Seattle/Portland?

Mike K. · #15 Posted **Oct 1, 2007, 2:12 AM**

I believe in Washington they have different building regs. It wasn't until recently that they could even begin building Vancouver-esque towers because of the energy regulations and certain materials such as ceiling-to-floor glass (heat loss, or energy transfer -- something to do with that). Anyone know more about this because I'm reaching way back into my noggin's recesses for this...

With respect to moisture, I think you nailed it when you suggested it has something to do with the concentration of rainfall and not the yearly accumulation. But to take that a step further, what we have here that TO doesn't have is a much cloudier climate in the Fall/Winter that makes evaporation and "breathing" more difficult. But even that aside, some of the precipitation TO gets is snow which I don't think poses as much strain on building envelopes. Or does it?

Canadian Mind · #16 Posted **Oct 1, 2007, 2:15 AM**

yea, it's not just the rain, it's the moisture content of the air too. It's not really the water from the rain tht got through the building, but the humidity that worked from the inside and the outside to fuck up the sealants used. once the seals broke, the rain got it, and we have ourselves leaky condo's.

Mike K. · #17 Posted **Oct 1, 2007, 2:17 AM**

I always thought TO had a higher humidity, especially in the summer, than we do because of the lake? Could be wrong, though.

Canadian Mind · #18 Posted **Oct 1, 2007, 2:24 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike K.

I always thought TO had a higher humidity, especially in the summer, than we do because of the lake? Could be wrong, though.

there is actually more moisture in the air in Toronto during the summer, but that is because there is a higher temperature. As such, with a raise in temperature, the dewpoint increases. dewpoint is the temperature at which any given volume of moisture per volume of air will turn to cloud as 100% humidity. For instance, 1000 cubic meters of air withholding 10 000 cubic meters of water has a dewpoint of 20 degrees, at which time part of that moisture will form cloud.

So while Toronto has more moisture in the air, our moisture is more "exposed" at our lower temperatures, which is what does the seals in.

Mike K. · #19 Posted **Oct 1, 2007, 2:35 AM**

There we go. Thanks for that.

SpongeG · #20 Posted **Oct 1, 2007, 3:11 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by vanhattan

WTF???

I have lived in many cities in North America, and never have I witnessed such poor construction standards as they have here in Vancouver!!! Why can't this city build something worth living in that wont fall apart moments after being built? How can companies and builders get away with making such poor product????!!! No wonder everyone views a 10 year old building here as ancient!
I live in a new building, maybe I should buy an assignment so that I move when it is 4 years old before the windows or other structural features fail......

Very sad indeed. I feel for the owners!

my friend who worked in retail most of his life was given a job on a construction site with absolutely no experience in the field - i forget his exact job but he was cutting some kind of metal

he didn't last long (a couple of weeks) as i think he was let go - well duh he had no experience

but maybe its tightened up now but basically any joe blow could get a job and be gone in a few days or weeks however long they could last

so you are getting a work force that has no clue what they are doing and really have no comittment to the field or job and companies wanting to keep their costs cheap