cowGaryBerta
New Member
Here are the info session deets:
RNDSQR Block | 44.8m | 12s | RNDSQR | 5468796 Architecture
- Thread starter Surrealplaces
- Start date
haltcatchfire
Senior Member
If I were to attend this at Spolumbos, I’d buy a sausage and lay it on the table and every time a NIMBY got up to speak I’d stand it up.
Always_Biking
Senior Member
At 12 storeys the Inglewood community Nimbys will be out in full force. Let's hope the city has some common sense and gives this the go ahead.
For all the issues the city is facing funding for those new greenfield communities, this is a chance for them to show they are serious about trying to tackle the issue by promoting inner city development.
For all the issues the city is facing funding for those new greenfield communities, this is a chance for them to show they are serious about trying to tackle the issue by promoting inner city development.
Mountain Man
Senior Member
Please please please...
ruth.buzzi
New Member
This is just a bait and switch which is really the downside. 5468796 lacks the ability to properly detail and design a building like this, while RNDSQR won't be able to construct it. This is only being presented to get approval of the 12 storeys.
UrbanWarrior
Senior Member
Mountain Man
Senior Member
What are you basing this on? 546 has done some great projects...
LloydBraun
Active Member
Beauty! We need more heritage retrofits like this in the warehouse district!
ruth.buzzi
New Member
When you really look into it, most of what is on 546's website are renderings and haven't been built. One of the other projects they are currently working on with RNDSQR in Calgary is way behind schedule (it was supposed to open in July IIRC) and way over budget from what I have heard. RNDSQR also hasn't completed anything bigger than a 4-plex before. I'm basing my opinion on this information. I don't see either of them being able to complete such a complex project.
Also, the concept for this building is a direct copy of Norman Foster but with wood, which just can't work in our climate as it would not meet the new energy code (all glass buildings don't make the cut anymore and the thermal bridging would be too great.)
Urb
Active Member
I'm a big fan of this proposal and the fact that RNDSQR is not afraid to take risks when it comes to design. They certainly are not taking the easy, cheap and cheerful (see Torode buildings) approach. This has to affect their bottom line. Hopefully the market sees the value in this and we see other developers demand a higher level of design.
With that said, I agree with most of your points. To make that curtain wall design work, they will likely need to value engineer other aspects of the project.
Mountain Man
Senior Member
Glass buildings perform just fine actually, just need to have the rest of the systems be really efficient. People have been predicting the death of glass cladding since the energy code first came out years ago and nothing has changed. This building also appears to be double skinned which will help the energy model significantly.
546 is a Boutique Architect, a lot of what they do is conceptual, but developers rarely go for it because it costs a lot to build and uses techniques that aren't typical so there is risk. Rndsqr is not a typical developer and do a lot of stuff with 546 and Moda already, so I see no reason to doubt this. The final product will look quite different (even if the design is the same) due to the requirements of mechanical, structural and the building / energy codes, this is a concept render to get things moving from the look of it, sort of a best case scenario.
Silence&Motion
Senior Member
RNDSQR has built a lot of good faith in this city, which is why people are so excited about this project. That said, the possibility of a bait and switch is always a concern any time developers ask for exemptions or rezoning. This was also the concern in Chinatown: that the promotional renderings were misleading and the end result was going to look a lot more sterile like the Guardian towers.
For those who know more about the legal side of this than I, is there any solutions to the bait and switch problem? Is it possible to grant exemptions under the condition that the developers build what they claim they're going to build?
For those who know more about the legal side of this than I, is there any solutions to the bait and switch problem? Is it possible to grant exemptions under the condition that the developers build what they claim they're going to build?
Mountain Man
Senior Member
Have we had any real bait and switch projects here? the second tower of the Bow is the only thing that comes to mind...
Calgcouver
Active Member
Make Land Use concurrent with DP. If we are allowing additional density and height based on design merit, the only way to make sure you get something close to what is rendered id concurrent LUC and DP. That is why you will see so many projects just go for land use, they are getting additional height/density and selling the site to someone else, and it happens all the time in Calgary.
That being said, RNDSQR doesn't seem to be that kind of company and i very much hope they can pull this off. It's definitely ambitious of them, and I know having done lots of wood-frame multi-family projects and making the switch to concrete construction can be a learning curve, but with the right people I think they can execute on this project.
Stephen Ave
Active Member
It has to be a somewhere between type solution. The developer has to gamble a fair bit of money to do concurrent LOC and DP, and this would be a problem for a lot of developers, but I hear what you are saying.
Possibly developers can be allowed to do a land use based on a concept, but the concept design has to be pretty close to what the DP is, or it gets rejected. for example, has to be the same number of floors and height as the concept. Exterior materials have to be the same or close. If it's brick in the concept, it stays brick on the DP, etc... I think that's a fair compromise.