|
Dreylad posted:Something like that. My girlfriend works in that big building attached to the Eaton centre and says the same thing as Rime: even when they turn on the AC in the morning the office doesn't cool down until 11 AM-12 PM. This is part of some green initiative or something. Yeah the same "green initiative" that meant the owners never turned the AC on in the back kitchen where I worked in the height of summer. Strangely enough their head office always seemed exempt from those environmental concerns.... Those deep friers went up to 450 degrees 
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 16:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 22:09 |
|
|
wait are these all glass walls even cheaper to install, or is it just a "Yonge Street Lifestyle" thing as the Toronto thread would say? Just developers wanting to make a building look swish to dupe fools or does it actually cut their bottom line (during construction)?
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 16:27
|
|
|
Housing market is doing really well in Vancouver, Toronto and Calgary. From Ben Rabidoux's twitter: https://twitter.com/BenRabidoux     
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 16:31
|
|
|
peter banana posted:wait are these all glass walls even cheaper to install, or is it just a "Yonge Street Lifestyle" thing as the Toronto thread would say? Just developers wanting to make a building look swish to dupe fools or does it actually cut their bottom line (during construction)? It makes a building look fancy and expensive, all the better to mask all of the other cheap shoddy construction. Then they scrimp on the installation of said windows and save twice. Buying a condo is just madness. There is zero effective regulation of the building industry, and if you get hosed over, good luck suing that numbered corporation registered in St. Bart's. You can join the lawsuit conga line behind all of the subcontractors they purposely didn't pay.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 16:35
|
|
|
peter banana posted:wait are these all glass walls even cheaper to install, or is it just a "Yonge Street Lifestyle" thing as the Toronto thread would say? Just developers wanting to make a building look swish to dupe fools or does it actually cut their bottom line (during construction)? It can really depend on the design of the building. Glass is more expensive than wall, but when you do a vast area of all-glass that labour can be lower than a million little separate window openings. In fact back when I was working in architecture my boss bet the developer that he wouldn't save any money by slashing a multi-story glass wall in favour of a bunch of smaller windows. In the end my boss was right after the developer totaled up the costs of framing in the walls, doing all the moisture wraps around each individual frame and so on. But it's mostly because it's trendy. Condo sales and condo design are insanely trend based and glass curtain walls are just a thing people expect or the condo doesn't look "modern". You look at a new condo tower in Vancouver, you look at a new condo tower in Toronto, you look at a new condo tower in Dallas, all 3 will be mostly the same. Same architecture, similar layouts, similar kitchens, similar silly fads and "feature of the year" sort of crap. I roam around condos for a living and within each general "class" of condo they're all the same each year. Every condo desperately wants to be the popular girl in highschool and is deeply concerned with fitting in and looking the part. And of course with condos the developer just has to throw up a building that stays together long enough for the condos to sell, then it's not his problem. That roof-top pool needing serious work in 10 years? Not his problem. The level 3 of the parkade cracking a little? Not his problem. Upkeep of the expensive green wall? Not his problem. Replacement of the entire glass curtain wall in 10 years because this isn't Vancouver and freeze-thaw will destroy that poo poo in a quarter of the time? Not his problem. Make it pretty, doll it up, and run after they sell. There's a high-end condo here in Victoria that had a water-feature over the parkade entrance. It started leaking badly before occupancy so they had to actually fix it and it was quite a scandal and the developer got all huffy and lawsuity since fixing it was going to destroy their bottom line. The same developer built another big condo that's name and branding is entirely centered around its water feature, which after getting passed, drastically scaled down the water feature and now that the strata is running it, it's barely ever on and already broken. Another built a huge mosaic on the side, a massive 5 story version of the "the wave". They hosed up their math and the mosiac doesn't quite reach the edge of the wall so looks bad. Then they realized they used the wrong adhesive and sometimes tiles fall off so for like the last 6 years there's a huge net covering the entire side of the building and absolutely no sign it will ever get fixed because why would anyone on the strata pay for that useless poo poo? There's a big reason you don't see any of this poo poo in new purpose built rentals, the owners want the building still habitable in 10 years. Baronjutter fucked around with this message at 16:44 on Jul 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 16:38
|
|
|
Franks Happy Place posted:It makes a building look fancy and expensive, all the better to mask all of the other cheap shoddy construction. Then they scrimp on the installation of said windows and save twice. Not disagreeing with you, but how is this practice different from any other building industry actor~? They're all shells which reincorporate after every project to escape liability as far as I know. Buying a single family home is just as risky.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 16:39
|
|
|
Just a reminder of something I posted up thread ages ago: while I was at REBGV, a colleague was at a conference with municipal officials, and both the Burnaby and North Vancouver chief inspectors told her that their legal departments had advised them to sign off on residential inspection reports without actually inspecting anything, because See No Evil was apparently their preferred legal defense in case the inspection missed something major.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 16:39
|
|
|
 lol fuk u ottawa 
namaste friends fucked around with this message at 17:05 on Jul 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 17:02
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:Not disagreeing with you, but how is this practice different from any other building industry actor~? They're all shells which reincorporate after every project to escape liability as far as I know. Buying a single family home is just as risky. I also wouldn't buy a new-build SFH, to be honest, at least not without a colonoscopy-level building inspection.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 17:07
|
|
|
Franks Happy Place posted:I also wouldn't buy a new-build SFH, to be honest, at least not without a colonoscopy-level building inspection. When I worked "in the industry" we never touched houses so I don't have any knowledge of that industry. Is it a regional thing or something? I know from talking to friends in Florida that basically all houses are built by massive ever reincarnating shell corporations that put up the shittiest buildings imaginable and move on. Yet here in Victoria, generally every house I've ever seen go up has been someone buying the land, hiring a reputable contractor, working with the contractor and their architect/designer, then building the house and living in it (for a year then selling it). I haven't heard of any major problems with newly built houses, at least not when compared to condo development. Then again I've never seen more than a single house built at a time, and usually always by the person who will be living in it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 17:38
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:When I worked "in the industry" we never touched houses so I don't have any knowledge of that industry. Is it a regional thing or something? I know from talking to friends in Florida that basically all houses are built by massive ever reincarnating shell corporations that put up the shittiest buildings imaginable and move on. Yet here in Victoria, generally every house I've ever seen go up has been someone buying the land, hiring a reputable contractor, working with the contractor and their architect/designer, then building the house and living in it (for a year then selling it). I haven't heard of any major problems with newly built houses, at least not when compared to condo development. Then again I've never seen more than a single house built at a time, and usually always by the person who will be living in it. Nearly all of the large-scale and much of the boutique SFH building done in Vancouver is along the lines of what you describe from Florida.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 17:39
|
|
|
 I read books on architecture for fun and I can see the poo poo that's wrong in this picture.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 18:09
|
|
|
That is amazingly ugly. It boggles my mind how in a place with such high land values such amateur and horrible designs keep getting built. It's not that hard to design a simple and nice looking house. You don't even need to be an architect, there's tons of "building designers" out there churning out fantastic designs. Yet I keep seeing horribly ugly buildings going up, even designed by a proper architect. It's not even just a matter of taste, the designs violate basic and fairly objective concepts of architecture and objectively gently caress up the style they are very badly trying to go for. It's not hard! But to be fair, after driving around Florida we have nothing on them in terms of cheap bad residential architecture. Half the houses look like something a child slapped together in The Sims and the other half are just the same 5-10 mass produced florida-style McMansions. A lot of the very worst houses I've ever seen were the ones that were owner-built. When a corporation builds some houses to sell they tend to produce at least passable looking houses because they actually want to sell them. When someone's just getting a house built for them selves, the house is fully at the whims of their own personal taste and vision. And after working in architecture Iv'e realized most people have absolutely no ability to visualize a design based on even elevations, let alone floor plans. An architect can come up with a bland but safe design, but suddenly the client comes in with a list of demands and things they want and everything goes to poo poo. I've seen some amazing poo poo out there, absolutely amazing. A house went up not far from me, owner-built, and it doesn't even have any architecture. I don't know how it's possible, but it's free of any and all architecture. It's shaped like a shoe-box but not straight, it skews a little because the lot isn't straight. Very few of the windows line up, it has huge front double-doors that look more at home at a warehouse. It has a pitched roof on top and above a deck but the pitch isn't consistent. The whole thing is just clad in pink 90's stucco even though it was built in the mid-2000's. It's ugly and asymmetrical but not because it's modern and doing it on purpose. It's like a computer auto-generated the interior floor plans for the lot size then wrapped it in stucco. There isn't a single detail on the building there for looks. The windows are almost all different styles and shapes as well.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 21:17
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:A house went up not far from me, owner-built, and it doesn't even have any architecture. Would you say that it has non-euclidean geometry...? 
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 21:20
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:A house went up not far from me, owner-built, and it doesn't even have any architecture. I don't know how it's possible, but it's free of any and all architecture. It's shaped like a shoe-box but not straight, it skews a little because the lot isn't straight. Very few of the windows line up, it has huge front double-doors that look more at home at a warehouse. It has a pitched roof on top and above a deck but the pitch isn't consistent. The whole thing is just clad in pink 90's stucco even though it was built in the mid-2000's. It's ugly and asymmetrical but not because it's modern and doing it on purpose. It's like a computer auto-generated the interior floor plans for the lot size then wrapped it in stucco. There isn't a single detail on the building there for looks. The windows are almost all different styles and shapes as well. That sounds pretty awesome, can you take a picture?
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 21:21
|
|
|
For arguments sake, lets assume that everyone that was working in construction circa 2000 was properly trained and competent at their job. The number of construction workers has increased by ~63% since then. I am sure that the trade schools that had been neglected, and were atrophying in the 90's, were able to keep pace with that sort of growth in the industry. Luckily everything built in Vancouver over the last couple of years was from the same design, a Vancouver Special II if you will, so they will be easy to avoid or know you need to probably raze it to the ground.  Rime posted:
I drove by that place the other day, and it actually made me do a double take. My favourite is a new build on Broadway that they built a basement window underneath the front door to the house. They noticed eventually and built a wooden staircase off of it like you would see on your back door patio, which still blocks the window, but some light will get in. This is a >million dollar house. Probably a fire violation as well, as it would not let you escape from that window.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 21:53
|
|
|
So more dead renters. Who cares?
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 22:05
|
|
|
Is the whole "don't bother inspecting, we might be sued by powerful developers" just a Vancouver thing? I know in Victoria, from personal experience anyways, the inspectors are actually quite strict and decent at their jobs. I've been to both single family homes and massive condos getting shut down or forced to make changes after a bad inspection. Maybe I'm naive but I've always had fairly decent faith in the quality of construction here post-leaky condo era. I've absolutely inspected buildings during and after construction that make me wonder why anyone would buy into them though, but most have seemed solid and properly designed even if ugly. Some of the inspectors are absolutely brutal mindless robots. My teacher back in "building drawer school" was working on a house on a lot that had a slightly angled corner. They had poured the foundation and were just getting ready to do the framing when the inspector came, as expected after foundation work. The plans had been approved and my teacher who designed the house is very familiar with all the insane and inconsistant codes and bylaws of the various fiefdoms that make up Greater-Victoria. But this inspector noticed something VERY important and shut everything down. The way Saanich measures front yard set-back is from each individual face of the front of the lot. Other places just average it out, but not Saanich. He was absolutely livid that the plan were approved and acted as if the home owner and designer were nazi war criminals trying to destroy everything noble and good Saanich stood for. They got a rant about how "people like them" were destroying the rural charm and how this house was way too close to the road and thus too urban. Technically he was correct, the corner of the foundation was about 1' over the setback if measured from the angled corner of the lot. So, how did they fix it? By letter of the bylaws saanich measures this setback to the foundation. So all they did was jack-hammer out the corner of the foundation, poured a bevel, then built the house as planned with a little 1x1' overhang triangle in the corner which they hid with landscaping. A job well done, Saanich was protected from urbanization.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 22:39
|
|
|
^ Oh man, that is priceless. I love a good 'letter of the law response' to a bureaucratic rear end in a top hat.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 22:45
|
|
|
ocrumsprug posted:Probably a fire violation as well, as it would not let you escape from that window. The common one I've seen on new builds is to put the "rental" suite 100% underground, which requires wells for any light to reach the windows. Of course, home owner is scared of the theft risk this presents and installs thick metal bars across the top of the light well, embedded in the concrete, thus making the window a deathtrap. I've reported three to CoV as code violations after viewing, not sure if they ever bothered to follow up with fines and enforcement. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 22:55
|
|
|
Rime posted:The common one I've seen on new builds is to put the "rental" suite 100% underground, which requires wells for any light to reach the windows. Of course, home owner is scared of the theft risk this presents and installs thick metal bars across the top of the light well, embedded in the concrete, thus making the window a deathtrap. As someone working in fire safety this is horrifying. I've seen (and had) projects shut down for way more minor stuff than that. Usually the FD does not gently caress around and comes down hard on anything life-safety related.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 22:59
|
|
|
Rime posted:
So there's no required setback or maximum coverage ratio? Seems like that would be something I would lobby for if I owned a house in the area.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 23:32
|
|
|
Rime posted:
That's for chumps; this is how its done: 
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 23:53
|
|
|
I wouldn't live in that if you paid me. Looks like it's just about to tip over.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 00:25
|
|
|
FYI that's a single family home. Also apparently he owns another massive tower-home that's older but he lives in it more often because he decided he liked his old one better. The whole bottom section is a massive multi-level parkade for his luxury car collection. One of his luxury car collections.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 00:48
|
|
|
This is literally what architects think http://www.archdaily.com/480990/zaha-hadid-on-worker-deaths-in-qatar-it-s-not-my-duty-as-an-architect/ It's not their fault!!!!!
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 04:26
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:This is literally what architects think http://www.archdaily.com/480990/zaha-hadid-on-worker-deaths-in-qatar-it-s-not-my-duty-as-an-architect/ "When The Guardian recently asked Zaha Hadid about the 500 Indians and 382 Nepalese migrant workers who have reportedly died in preparations for the 2022 World Cup..." How do almost 900 people die to make a bunch of stadiums?
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 11:53
|
|
|
nevermind
VERTiG0 fucked around with this message at 14:21 on Jul 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 13:43
|
|
|
Professor Shark posted:"When The Guardian recently asked Zaha Hadid about the 500 Indians and 382 Nepalese migrant workers who have reportedly died in preparations for the 2022 World Cup..." quote:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/01/qatar-world-cup-workers-deaths-migrant
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 15:40
|
|
|
Wait, how's the architect at fault? Did they somehow design a building that would be inherently dangerous to the people building it or something?
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 16:14
|
|
|
Yea I'm not following this train of thought either. It's a bit of a loaded question to ask the architect isn't it?
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 17:58
|
|
|
When you agree to work for a nation well known for slavery and rampant human rights abuses, and design for them the modern-day equivalent of the pyramids, I would argue that you willingly take on the ethical and moral burden of the deaths which will naturally occur as a result of your work.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 18:45
|
|
|
Maybe a lesser architect's design would have killed thousands instead of hundreds, did you think of that?
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 20:09
|
|
|
Rime posted:When you agree to work for a nation well known for slavery and rampant human rights abuses, and design for them the modern-day equivalent of the pyramids, I would argue that you willingly take on the ethical and moral burden of the deaths which will naturally occur as a result of your work. I'd still say it's more the fault of the poo poo country that got those people killed. I mean are we gonna start blaming the IOC for allowing the Olympics to be hosted in a lovely country? Cause they kinda do that all the time and nobody seems to really care. I guess I'd be on board with blaming them but I don't see that happening.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 20:51
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:I'd still say it's more the fault of the poo poo country that got those people killed. I mean are we gonna start blaming the IOC for allowing the Olympics to be hosted in a lovely country? Cause they kinda do that all the time and nobody seems to really care. I guess I'd be on board with blaming them but I don't see that happening. Hey man, Vancouver isnt that bad.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 21:09
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:I'd still say it's more the fault of the poo poo country that got those people killed. I mean are we gonna start blaming the IOC for allowing the Olympics to be hosted in a lovely country? Cause they kinda do that all the time and nobody seems to really care. I guess I'd be on board with blaming them but I don't see that happening. Yes, we should be holding these organizations responsible when they decide to host big events in corrupt shitholes that may or may not abuse human rights.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 21:16
|
|
|
^ What PT6A said. At this point the FIFA cimmisioners should be facing trial for crimes against humanity, if not genocide. That they are not, wull never, and will instead make millions in profit, is disgusting.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 21:21
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Yes, we should be holding these organizations responsible when they decide to host big events in corrupt shitholes that may or may not abuse human rights. agree
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 22:12
|
|
|
stadiums are designed and built by organizations in countries where hundreds of workers don't die. Workers dying and being enslaved is not typically a byproduct of stadium building. I find it hard to blame the architect as well.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 22:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 22:09 |
|
|
peter banana posted:stadiums are designed and built by organizations in countries where hundreds of workers don't die. Workers dying and being enslaved is not typically a byproduct of stadium building. I find it hard to blame the architect as well. I love how you gloss over the most important part: this stadium was being built in a well-known modern day slave state, not loving Narnia. It doesn't matter at all that stadiums are built without deaths in other countries. We aren't talking about other countries.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 22:39
|
|