Central (1618 Quebec St.) | 18 & 19 st | Completed

[rsxstock]

do they have a firm completion date for this?

[red-paladin]

I thought the columns were going to be clad in metal?

[spm2013]

Originally Posted by rsxstock

do they have a firm completion date for this?

Seems like March 2014.

[Optimal_YVR]

Originally Posted by spm2013

Seems like March 2014.

I heard August 2014, I didn't think they were that much ahead of schedule

[spm2013]

Just going by some dates after a Google search, could be wrong

[city-dweller]

Here are the Central photos I took yesterday. The shots of more than one project are on the main thread.


Central 1 20140116 by city-dweller Vancouver, on Flickr


Central 2 20140116 by city-dweller Vancouver, on Flickr


Central pillars 20140116 by city-dweller Vancouver, on Flickr

[officedweller]

From Vancityhotshots Jan 28, 2014 - top floor has windows:


http://www.flickr.com/photos/blazinr...n/photostream/

[Jebby]

IMG_6462 by Yellow Fever @ SkyscraperCity, on Flickr


IMG_6463 by Yellow Fever @ SkyscraperCity, on Flickr

IMG_6490 by Yellow Fever @ SkyscraperCity, on Flickr


IMG_6491 by Yellow Fever @ SkyscraperCity, on Flickr


IMG_6543 by Yellow Fever @ SkyscraperCity, on Flickr


IMG_6464 by Yellow Fever @ SkyscraperCity, on Flickr


IMG_6465 by Yellow Fever @ SkyscraperCity, on Flickr

[NewWester]

I know this isn't very substantiative, but I kind of just love everything about this building.

[BodomReaper]

Understandably the bridge element gets most of the attention, but the Quebec facade of the (lower) residential slab is really nicely done - it avoids the monotony that often accompanies structures of this mass, without breaking it into little chunks.

[dleung]

I hate everything about this building

1. It's a poor-man's version of this one in Toronto:

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7334/1...59003bbc3b.jpg

The sad thing is that the units at Central are probably more expensive.

2. Ok, assuming that steel is so astronomically expensive on the west coast that a one-storey-thick slab of solid concrete is cheaper than a steel truss structure... why did they build it so wide (in plan) that it projects beyond the footprint of the apartments above it? The outermost columns look like they're outside the footprint of the structure above the slab. It could have been narrower (in plan) and functioned the same structurally. It could also have tapered towards the edge.

3. They ruined the bridge by watering it down with Vancouver-style setbacks, but DIDN'T do the same to the supporting towers, where it could actually have been useful for creating a reveal under the bridge so that you don't see the nasty intersection where the transfer slab hits the glazing.

4. The two rows of exposed columns supporting the bridge are spaced at half the width of the total span... which means they could have went with ONE row of exposed columns spanning to columns INSIDE the 2 buildings.

5. The original renders had OCAD-style sloping columns, which make sense in terms of using triangulation to laterally brace the thing. The vertical columns that they ended up with are way too tall and narrow to have any use for lateral support, which means they probably compensated by having more columns than what is necessary to support the weight of the building.

I can't think of a more counterintuitive way to achieve this massing, than what is shown.

[Architype]

The Toronto building does not seem greatly superior to Central, except that it may have more uniformity. The use of brick on Central helps give the abrupt and unorthodox design some contextual conventionality.

I think the space under the bridge might have been too constrictive for OCAD style columns.

[NewWester]

Originally Posted by dleung

2. Ok, assuming that steel is so astronomically expensive on the west coast that a one-storey-thick slab of solid concrete is cheaper than a steel truss structure... why did they build it so wide (in plan) that it projects beyond the footprint of the apartments above it? The outermost columns look like they're outside the footprint of the structure above the slab. It could have been narrower (in plan) and functioned the same structurally. It could also have tapered towards the edge.

3. They ruined the bridge by watering it down with Vancouver-style setbacks, but DIDN'T do the same to the supporting towers, where it could actually have been useful for creating a reveal under the bridge so that you don't see the nasty intersection where the transfer slab hits the glazing.

4. The two rows of exposed columns supporting the bridge are spaced at half the width of the total span... which means they could have went with ONE row of exposed columns spanning to columns INSIDE the 2 buildings.

5. The original renders had OCAD-style sloping columns, which make sense in terms of using triangulation to laterally brace the thing. The vertical columns that they ended up with are way too tall and narrow to have any use for lateral support, which means they probably compensated by having more columns than what is necessary to support the weight of the building.

I can't think of a more counterintuitive way to achieve this massing, than what is shown.

Personally I like how counterintuitive and blocky Central is. I think it adds to the drama.

Now, I'm no big city engineer, but I feel like many of the "counterintuitive" elements you are not keen on are probably there for a reason (since big city engineers were involved in designing Central). Central is built on False Creek landfill in an earthquake zone, and I think that may have impacted some of the structural decisions and the use of reinforced concrete instead of structural steel (as concrete is much stronger). Also I think the your reasoning fails to account for the fact that the buildings on either side of the bridge are SUPPORTING the bridge and acting as columns in addition to the columns under the bridge. If columns inside the buildings were sufficient, I rather suspect the builders wouldn't have added exposed columns. It also seems to me that the columns are there primarily to act as vertical supports since the supporting buildings on either end of the bridge likely provide lateral support. And (again not an engineer!) from what I remember of basic physics and geometry, the vertical columns provide more vertical support than an angled column. I really think these chunkier construction choices are probably out of necessity and the differences to the Toronto project might have to do with the fact the buildings are in very different places with different structural requirements.

[rsxstock]

Originally Posted by dleung

I hate everything about this building

1. It's a poor-man's version of this one in Toronto:

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7334/1...59003bbc3b.jpg

The sad thing is that the units at Central are probably more expensive.

2. Ok, assuming that steel is so astronomically expensive on the west coast that a one-storey-thick slab of solid concrete is cheaper than a steel truss structure... why did they build it so wide (in plan) that it projects beyond the footprint of the apartments above it? The outermost columns look like they're outside the footprint of the structure above the slab. It could have been narrower (in plan) and functioned the same structurally. It could also have tapered towards the edge.

3. They ruined the bridge by watering it down with Vancouver-style setbacks, but DIDN'T do the same to the supporting towers, where it could actually have been useful for creating a reveal under the bridge so that you don't see the nasty intersection where the transfer slab hits the glazing.

4. The two rows of exposed columns supporting the bridge are spaced at half the width of the total span... which means they could have went with ONE row of exposed columns spanning to columns INSIDE the 2 buildings.

5. The original renders had OCAD-style sloping columns, which make sense in terms of using triangulation to laterally brace the thing. The vertical columns that they ended up with are way too tall and narrow to have any use for lateral support, which means they probably compensated by having more columns than what is necessary to support the weight of the building.

I can't think of a more counterintuitive way to achieve this massing, than what is shown.

that steel bridge looks too industrial. i much prefer everything about the central than that building

[officedweller]

Cnetral's bridge is 8 storeys.
The one in TO is only 3 storeys.

Balconies on Central (of some kind) would be mandated by zoning bylaws.

No comment on the bands of sea-foam spandrel on the TO version?

[dleung]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Cnetral's bridge is 8 storeys.
The one in TO is only 3 storeys.

Balconies on Central (of some kind) would be mandated by zoning bylaws.

No comment on the bands of sea-foam spandrel on the TO version?

Have you seen how they've arranged the baby-blue spandrel on Central? Calling out the green bands on Pier 27 would be like Rob Ford calling anyone fat.

I didn't even mention the balconies, but there's lots of ways to do it much cleaner without watering down the massing.

One would think a 8-storey-thick "beam" would have more opportunities to transfer loads, and easier to span big distances, than a 3-storey one.

Originally Posted by NewWester

Personally I like how counterintuitive and blocky Central is. I think it adds to the drama.

Now, I'm no big city engineer, but I feel like many of the "counterintuitive" elements you are not keen on are probably there for a reason (since big city engineers were involved in designing Central). Central is built on False Creek landfill in an earthquake zone, and I think that may have impacted some of the structural decisions and the use of reinforced concrete instead of structural steel (as concrete is much stronger). Also I think the your reasoning fails to account for the fact that the buildings on either side of the bridge are SUPPORTING the bridge and acting as columns in addition to the columns under the bridge. If columns inside the buildings were sufficient, I rather suspect the builders wouldn't have added exposed columns. It also seems to me that the columns are there primarily to act as vertical supports since the supporting buildings on either end of the bridge likely provide lateral support. And (again not an engineer!) from what I remember of basic physics and geometry, the vertical columns provide more vertical support than an angled column. I really think these chunkier construction choices are probably out of necessity and the differences to the Toronto project might have to do with the fact the buildings are in very different places with different structural requirements.

Well I am a big city engineer, and I can tell you that it is probably the "process" that prevented a more elegant and efficient (structural AND cost-wise) solution from happening. We know the architect envisioned it OCAD-style from early renders. Somewhere down the line, the developer probably got sticker shock from steel prices and told the architect to go with concrete columns, which can't be sloped at such high spans. Structural probably told them that they needed more columns for lateral stability, now that the columns aren't using triangulation to brace themselves. By the time they realized it was probably cheaper to go with the original design, they're too far along with the drawings and don't have time for revisions. This happens ALL the time.

The only way one can appreciate Central IMO, is from a dystopian point of view, like the floating "new"-but-classical-styled buildings of London in the new Total Recall.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by dleung

Have you seen how they've arranged the baby-blue spandrel on Central? Calling out the green bands on Pier 27 would be like Rob Ford calling anyone fat.

...

One would think a 8-storey-thick "beam" would have more opportunities to transfer loads, and easier to span big distances, than a 3-storey one.

The forumers at Urban Toronto were compaining about those bands.

Wouldn't a bigger "beam" also mean it's more top heavy?

[hollywoodnorth]

looks to me like the Office Component (Main Street Side) will open in the Spring as that's when Canada Customs is to take possession .... that said I would think the Condos will not be ready till Fall at the earliest. anyone?

[rsxstock]

Originally Posted by hollywoodnorth

looks to me like the Office Component (Main Street Side) will open in the Spring as that's when Canada Customs is to take possession .... that said I would think the Condos will not be ready till Fall at the earliest. anyone?

last update from them at end of jan is expected completion in june and all windows fully installed with drywall up to floor 16 and flooring underway.

[sacrifice333]

Originally Posted by hollywoodnorth

looks to me like the Office Component (Main Street Side) will open in the Spring as that's when Canada Customs is to take possession .... that said I would think the Condos will not be ready till Fall at the earliest. anyone?

New office space for CC or are they moving out of existing offices?