June 2014

Issue link:

Contents of this Issue


Page 99 of 103

Glenmore Gardens – Tower 3 by Tiffany Sloan rendering courtesy iBi group Architects engineers G lenmore Gardens, a 10.7-acre property in the Calgary neigh- bourhood of Palliser/Pumphill, will finally see its third and final high- rise apartment building completed this November. The rental apartment buildings of Glenmore Gardens Towers 1 and 2 were completed in 1968. Looking to capital- ize on the desirable and scenic location, owner bcIMC planned the addition of a third tower, comprising 132 one- and t wo-bedroom suites, which will be ready for renters to move into this winter. Adding a third tower to the site was a tight fit, and required some creativity to avoid a sense of crowding. "We devel- oped the design to provide the residen- tial area surrounding [the tower] with open space as much as we could, as well as designing it to reduce overlook from the two existing towers between the suites and to maximize the views from all the suites within the tower," says Keith Sallaway, director of architecture for IBI Group Architects Engineers. The original two towers front the road, facing nor th, capit alizing on idyllic views of the Glenmore Reservoir and Heritage Park. In contrast, Tower 3 is situated on the south side of the property and makes the most of the views in that direction; units facing southwest look out toward the Rocky Mountains, while units facing to the southeast have a view out over the prairies. The two units per f loor that face north are carefully positioned to ensure a view out over the reservoir, between Towers 1 and 2. Although the new tower would be the same height as the other two, there was significant concern from the neigh- bourhood about the addition of a new high-rise – resulting in a lengthy public Location 2105 90th Avenue SW, Calgary, Alberta owner/deveLoper British Columbia Investment Management Corporation (bcIMC) deveLopment manager GWL Realty Advisors Inc. architect IBI Group Architects Engineers generaL contractor ITC Construction Group StructuraL conSuLtant MMP Structural Engineering Ltd. mechanicaL/eLectricaL conSuLtant TLJ Engineering Consultants Ltd. totaL area 139,000 square feet totaL project coSt $32 million approval process involving the City and the community. "Although it sits beside two other towers, it's in more of a sin- gle-family residential area, so we had to work with the community to provide as little impact as we could on the neigh- bourhood," explains Sallaway. "We set the building as far back as possible on the site and we tucked the visitor park- ing in behind the building so it's hidden from the public." The most recently completed of the trio of towers looks decidedly mod- ern in comparison with its 1960s-era counterparts. "The new tower wasn't designed to match the other two," says Sallaway. "In fact, it was deliberately designed to be different." In designing Tower 3, the brick fac- ing that was so popular in the 1960s has been replaced with stone and win- dow wall, complemented by composite wood panel accents. The building's shape is decidedly more modern, too, with an emphasis on efficient design. According to Sallaway, the high-rise was designed "to sustainable design parameters," though not to a particular certification standard. " We reduced the east and west widths of the building so we don't have high heat gain in the morning and after- noon," explains Sallaway. "We've also limited the vision glass in the window wall panels to 40 per cent of the exte- rior envelope to allow for an increase in the total building envelope R-value." The sustainable design sensibilities extended to the mechanical systems as well, says Ron Josephs, president of mechanical and electrical consultant TLJ Eng ineer ing Consult ant s Ltd. He describes the tower's mechani- cal system as relatively standard for a high-rise of this type – a penthouse mechanical room with a boiler sys- tem provides hot water heating, and a chiller system provides chilled water through fan coil units in each suite. "But in this building, there's a heat recovery system, so all the exhaust systems are inducted to the roof through a unit and then fresh air is supplied to the f loor areas based on that – so there's some energy transfer in the heat recovery ventilator on the roof, and that will reduce some operating costs," says Josephs. Meanwhile, Mathias Graf, project director with general contractor ITC Construction Group, points out that the owners of rental buildings take a differ- ent approach to marketing. Rather than developing a sales centre for potential buyers where they can choose their fin- ishings, Glenmore Gardens will have a show suite in the building for the build- ing manager to show potential tenants. That show suite, located on level one, needs to be built out of sequence so that it's ready and safe for public access by August – a full three months ahead of the rest of the building. On the flip side, the advantage is that the final hando- ver at occupancy will be significantly smoother than it would be if it were a condo building, as they will have just one owner to deal with rather than 132. The most challenging aspects of the building's close proximity to the neigh- bouring towers were actually experi- enced underground. "The operational sewer line servicing the two existing towers needed to be relocated to allow for the construction of the parkade," explains Graf. "Furthermore, [utility provider] Enmax had to redesign the existing electrical distribution system and relocate infrastructure that was built 40 years ago to provide perma- nent power for the new tower." Moreover, adds Minesh Modi, prin- cipal of structural consultant MMP Struct ural Engineering Ltd., "w ith the proximity of the existing founda- tion walls to our new basement, there was hardly any room to do any work." In fact, there is a mere eight inches between the towers' foundations. And while the Glenmore Reservoir made for scenic views above ground, it caused nothing but problems below grade. The high water table made for difficult soil conditions – highly satu- rated sands – and it was necessary to redesign and extend the shoring wall by four metres, plus re-sequence the foundation work, says Graf. Controlling the water was a con- stant effort, adds Modi, and although the groundwater issue had been antic- ipated, they had not expected it to be as much of an issue as it turned out to be. The key was using small diameter piles for the shoring and underpinning, says Modi. "And they had to do it more or less piecemeal – the water was con- stantly seeping through, so they had to continuously pump the water to keep it dry for us to pour the concrete." n Glenmore Gardens – Tower 3 100/ june 2014 p.100-101Glenmore.indd 100 14-06-03 10:34 AM

Articles in this issue

Archives of this issue

view archives of Award - June 2014