What do you think of this project?

  • Total voters
    59
AnthonyB said:
As long as they redesign the current design to something more modern, I'll be happy. Because right now, podium aside, this is one of the ugliest buildings proposed. The initial proposals were way better.
Click to expand...
I thought the third proposal was good that went to EDC I believe. The second proposal that still seems to be floating around in most circles isn't as good. The third was never widely distributed, but it is on here several pages back.

Edit: Here is the latest iteration: https://skyrisecities.com/forum/thr...-properties-dialog.24170/page-13#post-1240806

I was kind of hoping they simply refine it a bit more, but it looked a lot better than the cheese grater design.
 
Here's another render. Tower B in the center? Cross my fingers. Credit to B.ike @ C2E for posting there in an unrelated thread.
http://icedistrict.com/news-media/media-centre/albums/residential/

9UlnQhL.jpg
 
That was when tower B was 54 stories -- it has now shrunk to 43 (supposedly on soil report conditions, although I have a hard time believing that). I suspect that it will be less impressive than the first Phase 2 tower -- that is the one that I am looking forward to.
 
archited said:
That was when tower B was 54 stories -- it has now shrunk to 43 (supposedly on soil report conditions, although I have a hard time believing that). I suspect that it will be less impressive than the first Phase 2 tower -- that is the one that I am looking forward to.
Click to expand...
Thanks for clearing that up. I'm with you on the soil conditions. Isn't that the first thing they look at before anything else? Before renders, building to grade etc. BTW.. What is the first tower of Phase 2 suppose to look like and it's proposed height?
 
@cpnfantstk -- you are absolutely right -- knowing the overall scale of the development when it was first proposed, soil samples would have been taken across the whole area -- Edmonton Tower, Marriott, Office tower and tower B -- I am certain of that because the parking was designed for the entire area.
 
archited said:
@cpnfantstk -- you are absolutely right -- knowing the overall scale of the development when it was first proposed, soil samples would have been taken across the whole area -- Edmonton Tower, Marriott, Office tower and tower B -- I am certain of that because the parking was designed for the entire area.
Click to expand...
I'm thinking the reduced height is to keep costs down but who knows. Thanks @archited
 
westcoastjos said:
I thought the third proposal was good that went to EDC I believe. The second proposal that still seems to be floating around in most circles isn't as good. The third was never widely distributed, but it is on here several pages back.

Edit: Here is the latest iteration: https://skyrisecities.com/forum/thr...-properties-dialog.24170/page-13#post-1240806

I was kind of hoping they simply refine it a bit more, but it looked a lot better than the cheese grater design.
Click to expand...

I like that third proposal a lot more than the boxy (cheese grater) photos circulating around.

I think this photo was one of the original designs, which in my opinion is the nicest one.
Tower B.png
 

Attachments

  • Tower B.png
    Tower B.png
    1.2 MB · Views: 609
archited said:
That was when tower B was 54 stories -- it has now shrunk to 43 (supposedly on soil report conditions, although I have a hard time believing that). I suspect that it will be less impressive than the first Phase 2 tower -- that is the one that I am looking forward to.
Click to expand...
@archited The one I linked back to (the third and latest iteration), which was your post btw, is 43 stories by my quick count. :)

https://skyrisecities.com/forum/thr...-properties-dialog.24170/page-13#post-1240806

@AnthonyB Agreed. The first one was a looker, but I think that one has been off the table for quite some time as the cheese grater one came out, and then the third glazed balcony iteration thereafter.
 
I always check skyscraperpage.com as well and something got me a little nervous, they changed the status of Ice district tower B from under construction to on-hold, any ideas?
 
@Jarodsc17 SSP has always had specific rules for building statuses that even many of those managing its database did not agree with (e.g., excavation is not considered "under construction" in the SSP database). "On-hold" in that context can make perfect sense given that there is currently no construction activity on the site.

I know the admins, and I know for a fact that they don't have have any information that we don't already have.

Bottom line is we know they're been refining the design and we know that they just submitted a revised DP. There's no reason to think it won't get picked up again as soon as that DP is approved.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top