Hamilton 354 King Street West | 82.71m | 25s | Vrancor Development | srm Architects

Continuing work on floor 4 today:
1000003918.jpg
 
2 floor lobby/ground floor? So far it's already looking different than the render. Will be interesting to see what this actually ends up looking like.
 
Hawrylyshyn said:
2 floor lobby/ground floor? So far it's already looking different than the render. Will be interesting to see what this actually ends up looking like.
Click to expand...
Yea I don't know what's going on with this one. It also looks like the little patio thing switched from the condo building to the hotel. The latest front render of this building looks like this:
1000004153.jpg
 
That's the old render - the new one was told they had to do changes including a podium that referenced stone finishes to better tie it in with the Scottish rite building across the street - so I am interested to see what they came up with..

unless that stone strip at the top is their idea of "tying in with it" which looks weird and out of place in the overall design.. I hate when finishes look "Disneyland" like they've just been slapped on but have no visual structural tie-in.

Also WHAT is that glass made out of? There's no way that would be one massive solid piece, but I don't see any seams..
 
Let's bring some of the original renders and the notes for what they needed to fix to see how they progress:

354-king-png.358991


Mm0FDZ6.png


Note "A" is what I am most interested in - I hope they didn't cheap out with that stamped concrete stone look.
 
BCTed said:
Hampton Inns don't tend to have underground parking...
Click to expand...
Neither do Shopper's Drug Mart, and yet the one at Upper Middle and Brant does.

Surface parking in a downtown is just such an inefficient use of space. I'd be inclined to suggest it should be made illegal on private property within the downtown.

Many cities have already done exactly that. And if Hampton Inn doesn't want to build it's parking underground then it shouldn't operate in the densest area in the city honestly.
 
I would imagine because surface parking is cheaper than above ground and especially underground levels.
 
Yes, but that's not really relevant. A single storey building is cheaper than a multi storey one, yet we still build them. The issue is more that surface parking on high-value land is a waste, how many more rooms or homes could have been included instead of parking? Or commercial uses, or green space to reduce runoff (not grass which this building also has a weirdly large amount of), etc. It's the type of site plan I expect to see up on the mountain, not in the heart of downtown at a future LRT stop.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top