King-Victoria Transit Hub

[urbd]

Now THAT I could believe happening.

I agree, it is what someone involved in the project told me is going to happen.

[Spokes]

It'll be interesting to see what effect this has on the final design of the hub when it's all said and done.  I'm thinking less grand than I originally envisioned

The public sector actually has a history of 'grand' projects.  The private sector on the other hand, not so much.

Calgary library is a really good recent example.

Respectfully, I hope you are wrong

Calgary Library =    Man that thing's awesome!

I hope I'm wrong too.

[clasher]

I think Spokes is right. If the Region does the build out the entire first level, imagine how hard that will be to future-proof the structure for something going on top. My guess is this just killed any hope for any kind of Towers. Any developer or architect will just say “uhhhh, you want me to build my tower on top if what you built 10 years ago? Ummm hi no”

It happens often enough though. I’ve worked with people that have been on jobs installing columns in existing buildings so they can add floors. Seems like it would be easy enough to overbuild a transit terminal to support an additional tower on top of it.

[bgb_ca]

I'm sure it's easier to add supports for one now then to retrofit it afterwards without them. If they do it right, it can be easily done.

[KevinL]

It shouldn't be too tough to keep the transit elements to a relatively limited footprint on the site, and make the rest accessible to later construction. If they're creative about entry access they can shift this as construction happens (and as mentioned above, even move the bus loop around as needed).

[tomh009]

I think Spokes is right. If the Region does the build out the entire first level, imagine how hard that will be to future-proof the structure for something going on top. My guess is this just killed any hope for any kind of Towers. Any developer or architect will just say “uhhhh, you want me to build my tower on top if what you built 10 years ago? Ummm hi no”

They could certainly over-engineer it so that you could build on top of it. The top five floors of Arrow Lofts are built on top of the pre-existing 100yo factory building, which was never planned to accommodate those floors. But the concrete columns it was built with turned out to be rather capable.

But, more likely, the transit portion could be relatively narrow, as there isn't really the need for a ton of interior space, and it could then be integrated into the future project once that gets off the ground.

[ijmorlan]

I'm sure it's easier to add supports for one now then to retrofit it afterwards without them. If they do it right, it can be easily done.

So many armchair engineers and architects, wow!

Uh, if they can build a skyscraper, then they can build the skyscraper but stop once the podium is built.

Now, doing so would constrain the ultimate design of the tower in ways that might not be obvious to us civvies, but it’s not at all unreasonable to suggest building a low building in such a way that it can take the weight of a much bigger building built on top later. And it is obviously easier to build it that way than to retrofit massive columns (not to mention foundations for said columns) through an operating transit terminal.

[jamincan]

I'm sure it's easier to add supports for one now then to retrofit it afterwards without them. If they do it right, it can be easily done.

So many armchair engineers and architects, wow!

You don't need to be an engineer to know countless examples where towers have been built around preexisting structures. I know that people get hip replacements; I don't know that *you* could get one, but it's not unreasonable for me to assume that you could even without being an orthopedic surgeon.

Also, none of us have a list of our qualifications next to our usernames, nor are we discussing things in a capacity where they are relevant or necessary. This is a discussion forum and we're all equal participants in that.

Edit: to put it another way. If someone said something you disagree with, communicate that and why. Dismissing what they have said because they lack qualifications does not advance the discussion, does not further understanding for participants and completely misses the point of a public discussion forum.

[timc]

I'm sure it's easier to add supports for one now then to retrofit it afterwards without them. If they do it right, it can be easily done.

I'm no engineer or architect, but how do you properly size the supports without knowing what is going to be built?

[tomh009]

I'm sure it's easier to add supports for one now then to retrofit it afterwards without them. If they do it right, it can be easily done.

I'm no engineer or architect, but how do you properly size the supports without knowing what is going to be built?

Basically, you would make assumptions about how much additional weight you need to support. Those assumptions would then end up setting a limit on what can be built as a second phase.

[robdrimmie]

So many people here have never touched actual design or engineering I see.

All good intentions and “it looks so easy!”, but the real world doesn’t work like that.

You literally *just* speculated on timelines in the ION thread. Why is it okay for you to do that but when other people indulge in the exact same excercise about a different topic suddenly you're horribly offended by their ignorance and complaining about arm chair this-es and thats? You love speculating just as much as us, so cut it out already.

[urbd]

thinking more about it, I envision they'll do something like this (i hope!) as the first phase, a high quality station in a small footprint that leaves room for the rest of the development:







http://www.arepgroup.com/projects/3-51/c...etagne_sud

[jamincan]

That is stunning.

[ijmorlan]

So many people here have never touched actual design or engineering I see.

All good intentions and “it looks so easy!”, but the real world doesn’t work like that.

I’d say you know less about what I’ve touched than I know about design and engineering.

If you think there is something wrong with what I wrote, please explain. Are you claiming that one cannot design a building such that it is capable of taking the load of a much larger building built on top later? Or do you claim that it is no harder to install new larger foundations and columns within an existing building than it is in a blank-slate building? What exactly is your criticism, other than that people are bouncing ideas around?

Personally I think the discussion has been pretty respectful of the lack of information available to a casual conversation like this — I’m not the only person who has suggested ideas, but tempered them with some consideration of the potential problems and difficulties. And in this particular case, I don’t think anybody has even disagreed with any professional work product.

[panamaniac]

That is stunning.

It is.  I wonder what it cost?  It's gorgeous, but doesn't look (to me) like a $40m + building.