Canada's Tallest Skyscrapers (150M+) - Page 8

koops65 · #**141** Posted **Jul 21, 2016, 2:57 AM**

Proposals only need some kind of source to be added. If the proposal is on the SSP database, that's good enough for me... an editor wont include it if it isn't a real proposal anyways. As I said, Emerald will be included in the next update. Hopefully the names and heights of Brentwood are clarified in the near future...

urbancanadian · #**142** Posted **Jul 21, 2016, 7:53 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by koops65

Thanks... these changes will be reflected in the next update. Also, the editors of the Vancouver and Edmonton sections of the database need to be made aware of these changes as well. Regarding Shangri-La, I thought this had already been debated, and the roof height is also the official height, because it's the window washing machine on top that brings the height to 201 metres, which is not architectural...

Ah ok. No problem. Shangri-la is from before I started recording the exact specs for buildings so I'm not going to debate it unless I have the facts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

Yeah, Shangri-la is well documented with great sources in the database. The heights for the Brentwood towers have flip flopped over the years. Can you provide a elevation or something official to confirm? Same goes with Station Square.

**Edit. I can't find anything on 660 Quayside except for that the site was purchased about a month ago.

Actually the heights for Brentwood have been the same since they first became official, through the development application. It's easy to get confused though unless you're paying really close attention. Initially, Shape (the developer) proposed heights up to 70 floors during the master planning process. But since the language was never clear (intentionally), the media would report varying numbers which added to the confusion.

I don't remember the exact numbers but the master plan calls for something like "up to 70 stories" for the first two towers, "45-55 stories" for the third and fourth towers, "30-40 stories" for the next two and so on. It seems that given the prices they could charge, buildings with floor counts into the mid 50s were found to deliver the highest profit margins, so you end up with twin 56-storey towers, and twin 53-storey towers with the first four buildings. The master plan was purposely vague to give the impression of a wide range of heights (more interesting skyline), but instead give the developer leeway to maximize profits.

The same thing happens with virtually every major development in Burnaby. For example, just down the street, the Gilmore Station development was initially calling for 70+ storey towers. Now the master planning process is calling for heights of 45-65 storeys (20 floors of leeway) in the first phase. The most recent render had the first building at 61 floors. And Burnaby makes very little information public.

-------------------------
Anyway, sorry for the long post. The information is a nightmare to sift through for the suburban municipalities (Burnaby doesn't provide elevations or renders or anything), but I'll try to find the appropriate links when I get a chance. I always make sure I have the exact information before I add it to my "database". I know you guys don't know me so you have no reason to trust me yet (I know how things can get competitive around here

), but I won't post unless I'm sure. Nevertheless, I'll try to find the links for you!

urbancanadian · #**143** Posted **Jul 21, 2016, 7:59 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by koops65

Proposals only need some kind of source to be added. If the proposal is on the SSP database, that's good enough for me... an editor wont include it if it isn't a real proposal anyways. As I said, Emerald will be included in the next update. Hopefully the names and heights of Brentwood are clarified in the near future...

The official name for the first Brentwood tower is "Brentwood ONE". All letters - no numbers; capital B, then rentwood, then ONE in all caps.

The official name for the second Brentwood tower is "Brentwood TWO".

The official name for the third Brentwood tower is "Brentwood THREE".

The Amazing Brentwood is just the (awful) marketing name for the complex.

Metro-One · #**144** Posted **Jul 21, 2016, 1:03 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by urbancanadian

Hey Koops, great list. Thanks for putting this all together! Just thought I'd clarify some of the numbers for Metro Vancouver.

"Brentwood ONE", and "Brentwood TWO" are both identical in height at 186.5m. The diagrams are incorrect.
"Brentwood THREE" is 182.0m. (Also, the names in quotations are the official names for each tower in the development. IOW, no "amazing" or roman numerals.)
"4630 Kingsway" in Burnaby is 172.0m and 52 floors. This is the final Station Square tower.
- You can replace "Station Square V" with this tower.
- You can also remove "Station Square IV" since it's height is 140.5m.
"660 Quayside Drive - Tower 2" in New Westminster is 156.0m. (new entry)
It's not a big deal to me if you change it, but while Living Shangri-La's height is correct (to the roof), it's height (top of fins) is 201m.
- Since the fins are archetectural, should they not be counted? From what I can tell, spires are counted. Just wondering - thanks again!

Nice update.

For what it is worth I can confirm (from watching the Vancouver threads closely) that the Amazing Brentwood and Station Square numbers are correct.

What is the New West tower?? Never heard of that.

WhipperSnapper · #**145** Posted **Jul 21, 2016, 2:37 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by urbancanadian

The official name for the first Brentwood tower is "Brentwood ONE". All letters - no numbers; capital B, then rentwood, then ONE in all caps.

The official name for the second Brentwood tower is "Brentwood TWO".

The official name for the third Brentwood tower is "Brentwood THREE".

The Amazing Brentwood is just the (awful) marketing name for the complex.

You're lucky. I'm not one to be offended by that. They are just names for marketing purposes and Shape properties happens to use several different versions including Amazing Brentwood ONE, BRENTWOOD ONE, Brentwood ONE and, Brentwood One. Let's not get too carried away. Also, Found some reports from the city of Burnaby. Changes have been already made.

urbancanadian · #**146** Posted **Jul 22, 2016, 3:24 AM**

I didn't mean any offense. Just clarifying things. I have no interest in city vs. city competitions or any of that; they're the reason I avoid this section altogether. Just trying to be helpful, and provide accurate information. My OCD kicked in when I saw some of the numbers so I thought I'd let you guys know about the errors. If you've already confirmed the numbers I've given you then I won't bother searching around for the links. Cheers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Nice update.

For what it is worth I can confirm (from watching the Vancouver threads closely) that the Amazing Brentwood and Station Square numbers are correct.

What is the New West tower?? Never heard of that.

Thanks. The New West tower is just the tallest of the three waterfront towers proposed by Larco, who recently sold the site to Bosa. Things could change now of course, but New Westminster City Council is supportive of the current scheme, and Bosa is keen to move forward quickly.

Tower 1 - 37 fl. | 128m
Tower 2 - 45 fl. | 156m
Tower 3 - 28 fl. | 103m

Infrequent Poster · #**147** Posted **Jul 22, 2016, 4:04 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

You're lucky. I'm not one to be offended by that. They are just names for marketing purposes and Shape properties happens to use several different versions including Amazing Brentwood ONE, BRENTWOOD ONE, Brentwood ONE and, Brentwood One. Let's not get too carried away. Also, Found some reports from the city of Burnaby. Changes have been already made.

What in urbancanadian's post could you possibly find to be offended by? Clear and concise information?

For a mod, it seems like a strange thing to say. In my opinion.

koops65 · #**148** Posted **Jul 22, 2016, 4:48 AM**

The tone and language and attitude, by some, may not be appropriate, but stuff like that I just skim over and ignore.
And, for the millionth time, WS is NOT a mod... he is an Editor.

caltrane74 · #**149** Posted **Jul 22, 2016, 10:33 AM**

Dredd was such a good movie, now WS is gonna wreck it for me. Lol!

WhipperSnapper · #**150** Posted **Jul 22, 2016, 1:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Infrequent Poster

What in urbancanadian's post could you possibly find to be offended by? Clear and concise information?

For a mod, it seems like a strange thing to say. In my opinion.

Jeebus. What is with forumers these days. I was actually joking about this, "Brentwood tower is "Brentwood ONE". All letters - no numbers; capital B, then rentwood, then ONE in all caps.". This isn't a verbal conservation. This is clear and concise at a second grade reading level. Clear and concise should be backed by referenced sources too.

koops65 · #**151** Posted **Sep 4, 2016, 7:39 PM**

The list on Page 1 has been updated. Lots of changes, new towers added and older towers deleted, and existing towers with height changes, both up and down...

urbancanadian · #**152** Posted **Oct 3, 2016, 6:51 AM**

Just noticed that this hadn't been posted yet... The first tower in The City of Lougheed development in Burnaby has an official height - 520 feet or 158.5 metres. Here is the link to the planning document:

https://burnaby.civicweb.net/filepro...?preview=16780
(page 8)

There's actually the possibility that the height only includes the portion of the tower above the top of the podium (23.7m), which would be bizarre but sometimes it seems like anything is possible with the City of Burnaby. I'll update this if it turns out to be true.

Thanks again for your work on this list!

urbancanadian · #**153** Posted **Oct 4, 2016, 8:28 AM**

I have an update to the project in New Westminster. The new proposal has two towers instead of three. The shorter of the pair just misses the cut by 1 metre, however the tallest is now 180 metres.

Here's a link to the proposal: http://www.newwestcity.ca/council_mi...PC-15.2016.pdf
Page 17 has the relevant numbers, including a comparison with the previous proposal which I had mentioned a few months ago.

koops65 · #**154** Posted **Oct 4, 2016, 2:42 PM**

Thanks! A new update is coming soon...

LeftCoaster · #**155** Posted **Oct 4, 2016, 5:30 PM**

180M in New West? Never thought I'd see the day.

The way the suburbs are going in Van, the city itself is going to have to fight hard to have more than a couple of buildings in the top 10 in height in the metro.

WhipperSnapper · #**156** Posted **Oct 4, 2016, 5:53 PM**

Wonder when we'll see the first 200 metre tower.

LeftCoaster · #**157** Posted **Oct 4, 2016, 7:04 PM**

In new west of the burbs in general?

WhipperSnapper · #**158** Posted **Oct 4, 2016, 9:15 PM**

In general.

LeftCoaster · #**159** Posted **Oct 4, 2016, 10:20 PM**

Well aside from Shangri-La's little nub that puts it rater ridiculously above 200M you're right there seems to be an aversion to passing that mark so far in Van.

So far it looks like the later phases of Lougheed will be around 70 storeys so almost assuredly will pass the 200M mark. I would expect something in Metrotown to pass that mark soon as well, might even be the final KPF designed phases of Station Square. Finally Iv'e heard from a few reliable sources out west that the tallest tower in Onni's Gilmore Station development is aiming to be the tallest tower in BC, so passing Shangri-La.

I doubt anything is going that high downtown in the near future, the city of Vancouver is just so against height that good money on any building to break through 200 again will be in Burnaby.

craner · #**160** Posted **Oct 5, 2016, 4:31 AM**

Too bad Vancouver couldn't combine everything into one massive skyline.