I like the revisions, looks more refined. I only wish they kept the “bumps” along the facade. The sides look a little too flat now, woukd have been cool if the glass jutted out a bit like the CIBC towers in Toronto for a bit of depth.
 
They already VE’d the main interesting feature which was the glass patterning. The inset balconies halfway up remind me of Stantec.

Also, choosing to have the observation deck facing East instead of West is odd. Is this geared for Stampede tourists?
 
They already VE’d the main interesting feature which was the glass patterning. The inset balconies halfway up remind me of Stantec.
I was thinking that also, but at least the tower is one straight plane and not an awkward step back halfway up the tower like Stantec.
 
They already VE’d the main interesting feature which was the glass patterning. The inset balconies halfway up remind me of Stantec.

Also, choosing to have the observation deck facing East instead of West is odd. Is this geared for Stampede tourists?
There's a balcony on both sides
 
Isn't it more about the flight path to access the runway? One of our plane experts would know, but I feel there's certain times of day where there's a whole stream of planes taking off over the Beltline heading west. They are way above 275m, but perhaps it's a safety bubble kind of thing.

One our plane experts probably got some real technical facts for us though!
 
Isn’t this basically 900 feet? 897 feet is pretty much the same
Yep, it's only about 15 feet difference from the original height. I'm guessing that someone way back when chose 900 feet as the height limit for that spot. They could have easily made it 950 feet or 1000 feet and it wouldn't have made any difference.
 
I like the new observation deck and small changes to the podium. Don't really care about the height change, it's still importantly going to be the tallest in AB. The balconies do remind me quite a bit of the Stantec tower, for better or for worse. I did more or less expect that unique "wavy" design with the glass to not stick around and the end result to look more basic but it is what it is, still a very solid design all around.
 
See ya, wouldn't wanna be ya...

According to Realtor.ca there are 20 units for sale at the moment. Honestly, I think it's a bit overblown. Yeah it sucks to lose a good chunk of your view, but anyone who bought into that side of the building had to know that party wasn't going to last forever with that empty lot. In the long run, this project should help the whole street presence and neighborhood, which will offset the value lost. The reality is that all the activity from Alpha House is a much bigger detriment than any view being lost.
Having this built will be a bonus for Vetro and Sasso. I’d rather look at this than the SE industrial parks.
 
The balconyslop is really really horrendous. It looks super unintentional and slapped on last second, and we lose most of the interest and patterning in the original design. I can respect even trying to differentiate each tower a bit, but they've taken so much character away, it looks randomized instead of elegant, it is significantly less visually coherent and distinct.

I almost wonder, what were they expecting? Where were the balconies, observatory, etc. supposed to go in the original design? Given that these things seem to be tacked on like afterthoughts now, why were they not identified and established originally?
This new draft is a building that does not respect the space it takes up, is failing at the task of being Calgary's two tallest buildings, it will be a stinking corpse before it is born, as Jane Jacobs would say.

I even do like some of the additions, I prefer the new crowns, I like the way the observatory deck is integrated into the new design. I think one more round of refinements that take these elements and integrate them more intentionally could get us closer to the product that we deserve. Here are a few things that need to change:

I don't mind the corner balconies in theory but they look a bit unintentional at the moment, especially given how they jut out of the profile at inconsistent heights across the buildings.
The floor heights too, seem arbitrary, take a look at the SE corner at the top of the W Tower. Just why?
The stronger emphasis on the curves as they approach the bottom only serves to highlight how disjointed these curves actually are, you can clearly see 5 joints where the curves are continuous but their gradients aren't.
The worst however, are the inset balconies, these are just horrendous. Why would we copy Stantec's ugliest feature? It's even off-centre like Stantec is. This is a phenomenally bad blunder that I pray is amended before this actually breaks ground.

1772320517980.png
1772320524646.png
1772320549199.png
1772320553406.png
 
Isn't it more about the flight path to access the runway? One of our plane experts would know, but I feel there's certain times of day where there's a whole stream of planes taking off over the Beltline heading west. They are way above 275m, but perhaps it's a safety bubble kind of thing.

One our plane experts probably got some real technical facts for us though!
It's about obstacle limitation surfaces - They are these big fanning areas that extend from runways into the surrounding airspace. If a building is inside the surface, it interferes with landing system signals. I believe that the rehab on 17R/35L extended the surface a bit more / creates a more restrictive glide slope.

This issue was actually known since the summer, I'm surprised it took this long to be addressed. I am no plane expert! But I do know people that work at NAV.

1772328310974.png
 

Back
Top