154 Main St East | 81.75 m | 26 fl | Complete

[LRTfan]

the pile driver thing was pile driving away today.

[TheRitsman]

Originally Posted by King&James

Maybe those crane parts at 368 King are for this site . Vrancor does not even list that site amongst it's development pipeline via website.

I would suspect so, this development has nothing underground going of the designs, so they're likely to start with the crane within a few weeks. May as well store it nearby.

At one floor per week, this may very well be done or topping off before the end of the summer. Exciting.

[Chronamut]

I am interested to see if this development does indeed end up looking like the renders, or if changes will be made along the way. Also how it will look without the bottom and middle part lit up like a christmas tree.

[lachlanholmes]

Pictures from December 13th, sorry for the delay:









source: my personal twitter

[the905sDW]

Definitely wish there was more of an apex to the roof line, not a big flat box. Staggered height even for the mech ph would be even be a nice addition. Hamilton isn't LA requiring a bunch of flat roofs for helipads, we should embrace the peaked roof! Its the perfect place to showcase a cool lighting feature, which Hamilton really needs.

[Hawrylyshyn]

I haven't been in town for a while - anyone able to share if there's been any progress at this site?

[thomax]

2/4/2019 by Joe, on Flickr

[StEC]

Thy are moving quit fast on this site, from proposal to approval to demolition to construction! If only all the projects moved at this pace this developer means business!!!

I walk past here quite frequently so I will take photos as construction progresses.

[SteelTown]

Darko doesn't mess around, I think he bought a crane instead of renting them.

It's like he half-way completes one project and already he's thinking about the next project. Which I think we all appreciate haha.

[anactualalien]

[realcity]

good stuff. this will look great in that area.

[StEC]

I took this shot yesterday. That generator was running and was either pumping something in or out?

[johnnyhamont]

Amateur question: looks to me like the hole for the foundation has bottomed out at 2-3 stories? That strikes me as being pretty shallow for a 25 storey building. Am I judging the depth wrong or the foundation-to-height ratio or what?

[StEC]

Originally Posted by johnnyhamont

Amateur question: looks to me like the hole for the foundation has bottomed out at 2-3 stories? That strikes me as being pretty shallow for a 25 storey building. Am I judging the depth wrong or the foundation-to-height ratio or what?

Honestly I think it's only 1 single basement level. It's not deep at all. It does strike me as odd....

[Innsertnamehere]

foundations don't actually need to be that deep for structural reasons - typically it's more to accommodate underground parking. In this case, as the parking is above ground, 1 level is all that is needed.

[TheRitsman]

Originally Posted by johnnyhamont

Amateur question: looks to me like the hole for the foundation has bottomed out at 2-3 stories? That strikes me as being pretty shallow for a 25 storey building. Am I judging the depth wrong or the foundation-to-height ratio or what?

From my understanding of engineering, the piles driven into the bedrock are what give the building stability, not the basement. Generally they put parking and other things underground to save space and since they are digging anyway.

[Chronamut]

Originally Posted by TheRitsman

From my understanding of engineering, the piles driven into the bedrock are what give the building stability, not the basement. Generally they put parking and other things underground to save space and since they are digging anyway.

It's the size of the footings that matter not so much the depth of them. If you look at some of the skyscrapers in toronto that are in like the 50-60 stories their foundations are often only about 2 stories deep.

[johnnyhamont]

Originally Posted by TheRitsman

From my understanding of engineering, the piles driven into the bedrock are what give the building stability, not the basement. Generally they put parking and other things underground to save space and since they are digging anyway.

Interesting, thanks. Why might a developer like Vranich be so consistently averse to underground parking? I would think a developer would find it advantageous to maximize the amount of parking that is underground but Vranich's track record in Hamilton is consistently above-ground only and I can't imagine what advantage he sees in that.

[TheRitsman]

Originally Posted by johnnyhamont

Interesting, thanks. Why might a developer like Vranich be so consistently averse to underground parking? I would think a developer would find it advantageous to maximize the amount of parking that is underground but Vranich's track record in Hamilton is consistently above-ground only and I can't imagine what advantage he sees in that.

Cost I think. Building underground is extremely costly. Since land prices in Hamilton are high, and cost toe sell or rent is lower I'm guessing he's able to maximize profit this way.

[lachlanholmes]

Originally Posted by johnnyhamont

Interesting, thanks. Why might a developer like Vranich be so consistently averse to underground parking? I would think a developer would find it advantageous to maximize the amount of parking that is underground but Vranich's track record in Hamilton is consistently above-ground only and I can't imagine what advantage he sees in that.

It's entirely cost. There is no other benefit to building aboveground versus underground. It is simply much cheaper to build aboveground.

Also, considering his projects often contain a fair amount of municipal or public parking spots, the cost savings are multiplied even further.