CALGARY | Eighth Avenue Place | 689 FT / 210 M | 51 FLOORS - Page 50

JayPro · #**981** Posted: **Mar 7, 2012, 8:07 PM**

Honestly, I really do not understand this borderline fetish that Calgary has with twin buildings. And BTW building one shorter than the other or juxtaposing the one perpendicular to its neighbor doesn't make it any less twin-like (nice try, though..not.

) ; so I'm kinda failing to see what any architect who seems bent on creating either/or would be trying to accomplish.
Calgary seems to be light years ahead of almost every other "big-skylined" city worldwide in this regard. IMO they should've kept this beauty a single structure and stop wasting prime real estate erecting duplicates. It generates the perception that architects up there have locked themselves inside the very same boxes that many of us here would like to see them think beyond.

MalcolmTucker · #**982** Posted: **Mar 7, 2012, 8:49 PM**

When most of the construction is by pension funds and the like, costs are a huge factor, so twins are the way to go. Just be glad we aren't getting 3s and 4s much anymore!

If we had more huge companies that had work forces at a relatively constant size I'd bet there would be more purpose built single towers, but for commodity towers Calgary is doing fairly well quality wise.

red-paladin · #**983** Posted: **Mar 8, 2012, 3:30 PM**

It's not like they are twinning an ugly building

From the street, with the smaller one facing the opposite direction it should look sufficiently different.

You Need A Thneed · #**984** Posted: **Mar 8, 2012, 8:35 PM**

People should also note that the second tower isn't quite just a shorter version turned 180 degrees. The roofline is actually different as well.

Calgarian · #**985** Posted: **Mar 8, 2012, 9:44 PM**

Twins are built here to mitigate the risks of building in a city that has been very prone to boom and bust cycles. Instead of having 1 tower with 2million sqft get stopped halfway through when the economy goes bad, they build 1.2million square feet, lease it and use the money to build the second 800 000 square feet.

I'm not a fan of the twin thing, but with this project, it does work well. It will still look kinda silly with Bankers Hall, EAP and Husky all being the most visible towers from the south, and all of them as twins. Oh well, it's going to get built, so time to just enjoy watching it go up.

Calgarian · #**986** Posted: **Mar 8, 2012, 9:45 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by You Need A Thneed

People should also note that the second tower isn't quite just a shorter version turned 180 degrees. The roofline is actually different as well.

It looks pretty much identical to the first tower, what's the difference?

whiteford · #**987** Posted: **Mar 8, 2012, 10:36 PM**

plus having all those twins has helped to build one hell of a dense skyline. two of everything has its way of doing that.

You Need A Thneed · #**988** Posted: **Mar 9, 2012, 5:48 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calgarian

It looks pretty much identical to the first tower, what's the difference?

Follow the line of the roof slope on the first tower. From the lowest part of the roof: Shallow up, steep up, then medium up, then shallow up. On the second tower, the last plane slopes down instead of going up some more.

Surrealplaces · #**989** Posted: **Mar 9, 2012, 5:16 PM**

Couldn't agree more.....Malcolm Tucker summed it up perfectly though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayPro

Honestly, I really do not understand this borderline fetish that Calgary has with twin buildings. And BTW building one shorter than the other or juxtaposing the one perpendicular to its neighbor doesn't make it any less twin-like (nice try, though..not.

) ; so I'm kinda failing to see what any architect who seems bent on creating either/or would be trying to accomplish.
Calgary seems to be light years ahead of almost every other "big-skylined" city worldwide in this regard. IMO they should've kept this beauty a single structure and stop wasting prime real estate erecting duplicates. It generates the perception that architects up there have locked themselves inside the very same boxes that many of us here would like to see them think beyond.

RWin · #**990** Posted: **Mar 17, 2012, 10:35 PM**

The crane is going up today.

DrNest · #**991** Posted: **Mar 18, 2012, 12:36 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by PA Pride

This building looks way nicer IRL than the renderings. I love it when that happens

I agree. I wasn't so sure about the renderings, but love the finished product.

whiteford · #**992** Posted: **Apr 1, 2012, 3:44 PM**

i couldn't agree more. this building is absolutely gorgeous. the renders never looked as nice. also the tower looks taller irl than the renders portrayed. imo this second tower is one of the very rare times where i feel it will actually complement the taller twin. i just wish it was going to be the taller twin.

trueviking · #**993** Posted: **Apr 3, 2012, 3:16 AM**

shouldn't all these single building threads be in the 'projects and construction' sub forum?

isn't that what its there for?

Ayreonaut · #**994** Posted: **Apr 3, 2012, 4:04 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by trueviking

shouldn't all these single building threads be in the 'projects and construction' sub forum?

isn't that what its there for?

This one's completed, so no.

trueviking · #**995** Posted: **Apr 4, 2012, 4:31 AM**

but the vast majority of the 50 pages here was a construction thread....just like the others in this sub-forum....i guess i dont understand why this section is used to discuss buildings like this....we have local sections and construction sections for that....in my opinion this section should be about more general conversation about architecture and buildings or else it could be filled up up with hundreds of threads about every non de script skyscraper in the world....like this one.

why would this building be here and not all the other skyscrapers in Calgary as an example?...what makes it warrant a place here but not the others?.....is it so we can all go 'ooh aah' or is there something specific we are supposed to discuss in this sub-forum.

plinko · #**996** Posted: **Apr 4, 2012, 9:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by trueviking

but the vast majority of the 50 pages here was a construction thread....just like the others in this sub-forum....i guess i dont understand why this section is used to discuss buildings like this....we have local sections and construction sections for that....in my opinion this section should be about more general conversation about architecture and buildings or else it could be filled up up with hundreds of threads about every non de script skyscraper in the world....like this one.

why would this building be here and not all the other skyscrapers in Calgary as an example?...what makes it warrant a place here but not the others?.....is it so we can all go 'ooh aah' or is there something specific we are supposed to discuss in this sub-forum.

Actually this is the place for a thread on any and every building (particularly towers). I tend to find them really interesting and they usually have information in them that you don't find elsewhere or wouldn't think to look for. Some get more replies than others (particularly the marquis architecture or supertall towers), but that doesn't make them any less useful.

Doug · #**997** Posted: **Apr 4, 2012, 9:53 PM**

Calgary's proliferation of twins is as much a product of the city's economic volatility as its economic exuberance. How many cities build 2M sq ft office towers? Phasing development over two towers de-risks investment but it also signals confidence that the demand will eventually materialize. In most cities the decision would not be to build a single 2M sq ft office tower vs. a 1.2M and a 0.8M sq ft tower. It would be to build a single 1.2M sq ft tower (or a 1M sq ft tower) or nothing.

JayCortese · #**998** Posted: **Jun 11, 2012, 11:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrNest

I agree. I wasn't so sure about the renderings, but love the finished product.

same here.

JayCortese · #**999** Posted: **Jun 11, 2012, 11:38 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayPro

Honestly, I really do not understand this borderline fetish that Calgary has with twin buildings. And BTW building one shorter than the other or juxtaposing the one perpendicular to its neighbor doesn't make it any less twin-like (nice try, though..not.

) ; so I'm kinda failing to see what any architect who seems bent on creating either/or would be trying to accomplish.
Calgary seems to be light years ahead of almost every other "big-skylined" city worldwide in this regard. IMO they should've kept this beauty a single structure and stop wasting prime real estate erecting duplicates. It generates the perception that architects up there have locked themselves inside the very same boxes that many of us here would like to see them think beyond.

Oh really!? Well where in the US do you come from? I bet the architecture there is just lots'a boxes!