January 18, 2026:

IMG_7363.jpeg
IMG_7364.jpeg
IMG_7365.jpeg
IMG_7366.jpeg
IMG_7367.jpeg
IMG_7368.jpeg
IMG_7369.jpeg
IMG_7370.jpeg
IMG_7371.jpeg
IMG_7372.jpeg
IMG_7373.jpeg
IMG_7374.jpeg
 
ctf5650 said:
They have also made it clear multiple times that plans can and do change, and seem to be figuring it out as they go along, main examples being the addition of a 106th floor and, later, a full restaurant out of thin air.
Click to expand...

If there's a restaurant up there, maybe the roof is being redesigned with a rooftop patio and that'll be a future application.
 
mburrrrr said:
Maybe the current BMU design is the issue with a higher glass wall?
View attachment 710022

The bay is starting to freeze over. I assume the wind will die down tonight and @skycandy will be out tomorrow morning with one of his beautiful annual downtown shot from Polson Pier.View attachment 710023
Click to expand...

I would have been out if the weather cooperated (silly Alberta Clipper with its dull snowy sky scapes today). Thinking that Saturday morning may be more interesting with decent potential for Arctic sea smoke over any harbour exposed water, but bloody cold (generally need less than -20C (and that’s not the windchill) for Arctic sea smoke).

As for the mechanical discussion, I feel it won’t be an obvious carbuncle like most other buildings simply due to the relative scale. From @mburrrrr ’s drawing post, it looks to be just under 7 metres on a 352 metre slender building. Not ideal obviously but perhaps not a reason to toss this into the trash bin of woulda shoulda coulda buildings?! I included a cropped image of the drawing below, and also two glowing sunset shots from last evening.

IMG_3364.jpeg


DSC_4248.jpeg


DSC_4249.jpeg
 
skycandy said:
I would have been out if the weather cooperated (silly Alberta Clipper with its dull snowy sky scapes today). Thinking that Saturday morning may be more interesting with decent potential for Arctic sea smoke over any harbour exposed water, but bloody cold (generally need less than -20C (and that’s not the windchill) for Arctic sea smoke).

As for the mechanical discussion, I feel it won’t be an obvious carbuncle like most other buildings simply due to the relative scale. From @mburrrrr ’s drawing post, it looks to be just under 7 metres on a 352 metre slender building. Not ideal obviously but perhaps not a reason to toss this into the trash bin of woulda shoulda coulda buildings?! I included a cropped image of the drawing below, and also two glowing sunset shots from last evening.

View attachment 710247

View attachment 710248

View attachment 710249
Click to expand...
6.8 metres is a lot. it will look terrible guaranteed
 
I guess I'm the only one that isn't freaking out too much about it. I don't think it's ruined the design. But maybe I'm not sophisticated enough to appreciate the difference.

Also, is the final height 428 metres????? :eek:
 
Has anyone asked Pinnacle what they are planning to do here? Renders of their final version would put a lot to rest.
 
Huh. Above sea level is a funny way to measure a building's height.

These are the winners in that case:

Atacama Observatory 10m high, 5,650m above sea level.
Pikes Peak Summit House 10m high, 4,312m above sea level.
Abraj Al-Bait (Mecca) 600m high 901m above sea level.
Burj Khalifa (Dubai) 828m high, 838 m above sea level.
 
I think all of this worry is wasted energy. We should be prepared for this building to have the crown (and lighting) it deserves. It is definitely not in Pinnacle's best interest to "cheapen" the top on a project of this magnitude.. Look for something akin to the crown on San Francisco's SalesForce Tower with a matching crown on phase three. Variances and adjustments are also possible, even at structural top-out.
 
Ok, so please take the following for what it's worth and by all means critiques are welcome!

This is the rendering that is included in the cover page of the most recent revision of the Architectural Plans:
1769051143718.jpeg


Paying attention just to the top section of the tower as shown below we see that there are 11 levels of the white architectural elements. Please note also that the 2 levels where there are the full floor white architectural elements are at levels 6 and 7:
1769051342826.png


In the same batch of Architectural plans, in the infamous elevation drawings that shows the parapet as 421.83m and the TMD roof as 428.65m, we see that there are only 10 of the white architectural elements. Note that the full floor white architectural elements are at levels 6 and 7 which matches the rendering.
1769051513122.png


Now the caveat is that we do not know if the rendering was actually modified when the total floor count went from 105 to 106 and additionally, we do not know if the renderings were actually accurate to what is actually being built, but I got a bit tipsy this evening during dinner and I tend to over analyze things when I am this tipsy.

Thought I'd share for what it's worth!
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top