HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Atlantic Provinces > St. John's

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted Feb 26, 2013, 12:11 PM
statbass statbass is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: St. John's
Posts: 1,326
Quote:
Originally Posted by Copes View Post
It isn't pretty though. Let's be honest. It's a pretty standard suburban tower that you'd see off the highway in a lot of places, and isn't particularly striking. That's disappointing. In my opinion the excitement comes from what the development represents, not what it physically is. As far as I'm concerned, it's physically pretty ugly. Maybe I'm alone on that line of thought though.
It's definitely a standard run-of-the-mill design. But I think standard is fine, at least for the area in which it is going. It could be a lot worse and it fits in with the senior's condos that's presently there.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted Feb 26, 2013, 12:30 PM
jeddy1989's Avatar
jeddy1989 jeddy1989 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: St. John's, NL
Posts: 2,652
I feel like I need to make a clarification with these condos

This whole area is called Tiffany Estates including the old building which i believe is Tiffany Village and the new towers are called Tiffany Condos.

Remember that right now they are just trying to get the site rezoned to allow the height.. therefore this is NOT what it will look like when complete (just a render for scale)
have a look:



Figure B1



I don't think we should be showing this off to the whole country right now! it's still in the design stages...
__________________
-Where Once They Stood-
-We Stand-
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted Feb 26, 2013, 12:41 PM
SignalHillHiker's Avatar
SignalHillHiker SignalHillHiker is offline
I ♣ Baby Seals
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: See post below...
Posts: 24,226
I think it's O.K. to share - they can just see it here anyway. And I'm excited to see the final designs. I imagine they'll be quite similar to these renders - just, perhaps, more detailed?

I'm falling more and more in love with this proposal. The buildings will look so good at that location. I just can't wait - especially to take pictures that include downtown with those far off in the background.

The glass floors on top will complement MIX, Deacon, the LeMarchant Road Condos, the Marriott extension, potentially the Hilton, potentially the Atlantic Place parkade...

We're really starting to get our own look. These towers, despite being completely generic, are really going to contribute to that.
__________________
Note to self: "The plural of anecdote is not evidence."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted Feb 26, 2013, 12:45 PM
jeddy1989's Avatar
jeddy1989 jeddy1989 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: St. John's, NL
Posts: 2,652
I think it'll look good.. the first building looks good so no reason why the phase two would be ugly lol

This is more infill anyway so I didn't expect them to be midblowing or landmark buildings... they are pretty much what I expected (maybe a bit nicer... I'll bring your attention to my amazing render LOL

__________________
-Where Once They Stood-
-We Stand-
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted Feb 26, 2013, 1:14 PM
PoscStudent's Avatar
PoscStudent PoscStudent is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: St. John's
Posts: 3,617
The picture looks good, the new buildings seem to be a bit different but this gives a good idea.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted Feb 26, 2013, 1:39 PM
jeddy1989's Avatar
jeddy1989 jeddy1989 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: St. John's, NL
Posts: 2,652
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoscStudent View Post
The picture looks good, the new buildings seem to be a bit different but this gives a good idea.
This was my "paint" render from a few months ago, not too far off i guess
__________________
-Where Once They Stood-
-We Stand-
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted Feb 26, 2013, 2:36 PM
Architype's Avatar
Architype Architype is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Pacific Canada
Posts: 6,565
I wouldn't complain too much about the design of the Tiffany condos, they are designed by Stantec, have a look at their website:

http://www.stantec.com/default.htm

They seem to specialize in other areas though, such as airports, sports facilities, and environmental projects. They have an impressive list of projects, such as the BC Place Stadium renovations, also some not mentioned on the site at all. Last year they aquired the PHB group, so I guess it is done in conjunction with the local office. IMO, the proposed buildings would not have any problem getting approved in Vancouver or most other places with pretty high standards.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted Feb 26, 2013, 2:47 PM
Architype's Avatar
Architype Architype is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Pacific Canada
Posts: 6,565
And don't pay too much attention to the peanut gallery in the Canada section, they expect everything to be Calatrava or Gehry. Proposals in their own cities can also get some pretty harsh criticism too however. Stantec does some very solid design work, but it's not completely over the top.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted Feb 26, 2013, 3:03 PM
SignalHillHiker's Avatar
SignalHillHiker SignalHillHiker is offline
I ♣ Baby Seals
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: See post below...
Posts: 24,226
I'm genuinely not offended when we get negative critiques in the Canada section. Most are reasonable and many are, by any objective standard, deserved. For example, I'd be horrified if just about anyone in the Canada section liked that new Hilton proposal.

Sometimes there are issues of different standards/expectations at play. I think these Tiffany Towers are a good example of that. They're average buildings - not gorgeous, not hideous. They should evoke, at worst, a "Meh..." from mainland Canada. For us, because of their disproportionate significance locally, it's natural that we'd be all about it.
__________________
Note to self: "The plural of anecdote is not evidence."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted Feb 26, 2013, 3:10 PM
jeddy1989's Avatar
jeddy1989 jeddy1989 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: St. John's, NL
Posts: 2,652
what gets me is that that's not the design rendering lol it's still in the process of being designed
__________________
-Where Once They Stood-
-We Stand-
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted Feb 26, 2013, 3:22 PM
Architype's Avatar
Architype Architype is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Pacific Canada
Posts: 6,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeddy1989 View Post
what gets me is that that's not the design rendering lol it's still in the process of being designed
I think it's pretty close, if it changes it could be for the worse, hope not.
The materials may not all be shown properly yet though.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted Feb 26, 2013, 3:28 PM
Architype's Avatar
Architype Architype is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Pacific Canada
Posts: 6,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker View Post
For example, I'd be horrified if just about anyone in the Canada section liked that new Hilton proposal.

Sometimes there are issues of different standards/expectations at play. I think these Tiffany Towers are a good example of that. They're average buildings - not gorgeous, not hideous. They should evoke, at worst, a "Meh..." from mainland Canada. For us, because of their disproportionate significance locally, it's natural that we'd be all about it.
Ah luvs the Hilton (v2.0), just the way ah luvs Velvet Elvis paintings.
I did the new diagram drawing for it, and it was such a mess that it was imposible to make it look like anything but a mess.


Ahem, I think the (Tiffany) designs shown are far above anything I've seen proposed in St John's in a long time, at least for residential on that scale. The thing is they don't look amateurish like many others do. I know it's subjective; I could explain more, but it might take a long time.

Last edited by Architype; Feb 26, 2013 at 3:38 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted Feb 26, 2013, 8:54 PM
Townie709's Avatar
Townie709 Townie709 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: St. John's, Newfoundland
Posts: 1,772
I'm surprised that Tiffany Condo's hasn't even as much as made a headline yet. I feel like emailing CBC and VOCM to tell them about it
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted Feb 27, 2013, 1:27 PM
jeddy1989's Avatar
jeddy1989 jeddy1989 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: St. John's, NL
Posts: 2,652
I agree... the 155 room hilton garden Inn that's 12 stories in a field next to the delta has gotten about 2000000000000000 times the attention lol and this is a proposal for 2 16 story condos (first of it's kind here) and ZERO attention (probably a good thing all the same lol) I remember when the other building started .. it was within regulations so there was barely a peep and Shannie mentioned how she couldn't believe that such a large building whisked through without much input.

Oh well lol .. great thing about this one is that it's neighbors are the rest of Tiffany Estates lol

Chances are that we wont see much on it.

Also hopefully this is the beginning of more exciting things coming soon such as the hotel on the Atlantic place Garage.
__________________
-Where Once They Stood-
-We Stand-
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted Feb 27, 2013, 1:30 PM
SignalHillHiker's Avatar
SignalHillHiker SignalHillHiker is offline
I ♣ Baby Seals
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: See post below...
Posts: 24,226
I'm fine with it not making headlines. I'm as offended by opposition to development outside the heritage area as I am to proposals that don't reflect our heritage within it.

I'd love to see nothing but towers at least this height from Empire Avenue to the Outer Ring Road.
__________________
Note to self: "The plural of anecdote is not evidence."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted Feb 27, 2013, 3:16 PM
statbass statbass is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: St. John's
Posts: 1,326
Quote:
Originally Posted by Architype View Post
Just wait, I'm sure there will be NIMBYs lurking. The buildings may even cast a shadow on a school, and maybe some other things in the area. However, they have done a good job at justifying the development at 16 stories as opposed to 10, especially in that they only occupy half as much land as the other proposal.
However, the LUAR did state the shadowing would not affect the school during lunchtime hours, so I think concerned parents would not have much of a case here. Although, some of these parents would probably complain if their child was getting too much UV exposure. It only goes to show you can't please everyone. I just hope NIMBYism will not be as prevalent with this development as it usually is with downtown developments.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted Feb 27, 2013, 3:20 PM
Architype's Avatar
Architype Architype is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Pacific Canada
Posts: 6,565
You're right, shadowing will only be most noticable to the immediate west/northwest in the morning and east/northeast in the afternoon, and depending on the time of the year. In winter areas to the north may be affected, but it's mostly vacant land. The school is however to the north, but won't get too much shadowing because the sun to the south will be high enough for most of the year, and the two buildings are spaced apart far enough to not form a continuous wall.

Last edited by Architype; Feb 27, 2013 at 3:32 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted Feb 27, 2013, 3:39 PM
Architype's Avatar
Architype Architype is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Pacific Canada
Posts: 6,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker View Post
BTW... can't get over the angle of Architype's shot above. You could not photograph that neighbourhood more attractively. It's perfect. I have to find it once construction starts.
Thanks, I think it was taken from somewhere around the Queens Battery, just below the hill. If you look carefully, you will see that the east end of Southcott Hall, barely visible near the stair railing, is lined up with Tiffany Village.

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #59  
Old Posted Feb 27, 2013, 4:43 PM
niccanning's Avatar
niccanning niccanning is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: New England
Posts: 238
What happened to the little buildings on the south side that were included in the original proposal? Seems like they have been replaced with a parting lot
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #60  
Old Posted Feb 27, 2013, 5:11 PM
Architype's Avatar
Architype Architype is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Pacific Canada
Posts: 6,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by niccanning View Post
What happened to the little buildings on the south side that were included in the original proposal? Seems like they have been replaced with a parting lot
I think the surface parking must be for staff, services, and visitors. They could stilll put townhouses there in the future I guess, and add some underground parking. Part of the reason for their elimination was to make the project more economical.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Atlantic Provinces > St. John's
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 5:16 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.