Rogers Arena Complex | 104m, 100m, 97m | U/C & Proposed - Page 4

mr.x · #61 Posted **Nov 30, 2007, 9:24 PM**

that looks amazing, thanks.

hollywoodnorth · #62 Posted **Nov 30, 2007, 11:32 PM**

awesome!

raggedy13 · #63 Posted **Nov 30, 2007, 11:55 PM**

Those renderings are great. I really like the 'V' thing going on at the top and especially towards the base. Personally I kind of like the antennae. It may not be tall but its a quality project for sure.

cityguy · #64 Posted **Nov 30, 2007, 11:57 PM**

Big improvement over the original rendering.

Hot Rod · #65 Posted **Dec 1, 2007, 12:08 AM**

Looks good, just wish it were 15 stories taller!

cityguy · #66 Posted **Dec 1, 2007, 12:41 AM**

Speaking of height 73m seems very short for a 22 storey office building.84m would be more of a norm.

Canadian Mind · #67 Posted **Dec 1, 2007, 1:03 AM**

3.5 meters per floor.

probrably not going for AAA office space, just trying to cram as much office in as possible.

cityguy · #68 Posted **Dec 1, 2007, 12:35 PM**

Most office towers are around 3.8{12.5ft] or more,so watch your head.

Canadian Mind · #69 Posted **Dec 1, 2007, 1:53 PM**

heh, thanks for the ti... *Clunk*

:p

jlousa · #70 Posted **Dec 1, 2007, 9:47 PM**

They are going with radiant in floor heating/cooling remember, not need for the large false ceiling to run the hvac hence the ability to use shorter floors. (ie more floors for the same height)

giallo · #71 Posted **Dec 2, 2007, 6:26 AM**

Looks like some of the shorter office towers going up here.
I'll save my opinion for the final product. It's all about the materials used.

vanman · #72 Posted **Dec 2, 2007, 12:08 PM**

Anyone know what will happen with the space in the building below the viaduct? Will there just be more office space or retail at grade?

EastVanMark · #73 Posted **Dec 2, 2007, 10:09 PM**

Rendering looks great. The only possible downside would be the loss of prominence of the arena itself. Most (especially tourists) view the arena from the downtown core. I hope the design allows for the arena to remain prominent. I also assume that the "lobby" area of the tower will also at least partly be used as an addition of concourse space for the arena itself. This could go a long way to improving GM Place's reputation as not having the greatest concourse space. Hopefully the Boston Gardenesque staircase leading to the lower bowl situation will be addressed as a result of this project.

achu · #74 Posted **Dec 4, 2007, 12:21 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by vanman

Anyone know what will happen with the space in the building below the viaduct? Will there just be more office space or retail at grade?

Heard it'll be used to store the ice shavings from the rink and provide cooling to the building. Probably also to store trailers and trucks that roll in. So yeah probably doesn't sound good in terms of a pedestrian friendly streetscape.

vanman · #75 Posted **Dec 4, 2007, 1:21 AM**

Oh yeah, now I remember hearing that. From the renderings it looks like the glass facade of the building will extend below the viaducts so at least it won't have blank concrete walls at street level.

officedweller · #76 Posted **Jan 16, 2008, 2:59 AM**

UDP MInutes on the GM Place office tower:

http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/plannin...nutes/dec5.htm

Quote:

Mr. Segal noted that the mechanical penthouse will go to the view cone height....
The bottom five floors of the tower will be connected to GM Place for circulation and access to the retail and restaurants....
The Panel supported the spires at the top of the tower and did not have a problem with them intruding into the view corridor. ...

mr.x · #77 Posted **Jan 16, 2008, 3:03 AM**

^ really, if they had a problem with these spires, i would've given up of this city:

InlandEmpire · #78 Posted **Jan 18, 2008, 4:30 AM**

Looks like a picture of Hotel 1 going up in downtown Seattle made it's way here!

mr.x · #79 Posted **Jan 18, 2008, 5:00 AM**

^ that image link was previously a rendering for GM Tower. the site must've changed it.

Mininari · #80 Posted **Jan 21, 2008, 4:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by cityguy

Speaking of height 73m seems very short for a 22 storey office building.84m would be more of a norm.

I picked this out of the UDP minutes:

Whether the tower’s overall height, including upper mechanical volume, is appropriate in respect to the By-law height of 91 m. (300 ft.), to which may be added the typical rooftop mechanical. So, 91m plus the rooftop mechanical penthouse...(?)

Looks like 91m, not 73m...
Still a stub, but at least its the tallest stub they can build there!

Yay, go stubby!