Rating of the development

  • 1 Really Good

    Votes: 13 25.5%

  • 2 Not Bad

    Votes: 11 21.6%

  • 3 So So

    Votes: 15 29.4%

  • 4 Not Good

    Votes: 9 17.6%

  • 5 Terrible

    Votes: 3 5.9%
  • Total voters
    51
Disraeli said:
I agree it needs to go back to the drawing board. The renders as they are now makes me think of a glorified office plaza. A concept similar to the Chinatown proposal that we saw a couple of years ago is a better route as far as design. Keep it simple
Click to expand...
Yea, that's what I was thinking. Something along the lines of the Chinatown project would be great. Narrow pedestrian-oriented streets that are well lit. The current design is most likely to result in another sterile area once the opening hype dies down.
 
I totally agree about the human scale. high rise buildings are great for being adjacent to human scaled areas, but shouldn't be the main part of the destination area - just my two cents. The areas that people actually like to hangout at (4th street SW, 17th ave, Kensington, Bridgeland, Inglewood, East Village, Marda Loop and Stephen Ave) all have one thing in common...they buildings and businesses are human scaled. East Village and Beltline have highrises, but the two most popular areas of East Village are the riverfront , and the library....also human scaled, same for the Beltline, the towers are nearby but aren't the directly part of the hotspots.
 
MichaelS said:
Thread bump. I wonder if this will lead to design #3 on this project. Been 10 years since the last one was unveiled I think.
Click to expand...
Wonder if the prospect of the green line moving, ever so slowly, closer to being a thing has given this some life. Although the green line has been a long time coming I don't think the old design integrated a LRT stop.
 
I just realized that the last couple of pages are transit/Green Line related and this thread is for the Eau Claire redevelopment. The discussion lately has been less about the Green Line at Eau Claire and more about the Green Line in general. Perhaps an admin could move the affected posts to the correct thread?
 
I attended the open house for this project a few weeks back where they were talking about the land use changes being proposed. The impression I was left with was that these changes are being made to make it much easier for Harvard to include a much greater commercial office space as part of any redevelopment. Some of the folks on hand essentially confirmed my impression with the caveat that what ultimately ends up getting proposed relies on the developer. Given all the chatter at City Hall about diversifying downtown and creating a 24/7 neighbourhood it's disappointing to see that steps are being taken to facilitate building more office towers. It's like the Triovest/Stephen Ave thing all over again... policy and vision says one thing, planning and developers are moving towards something else entirely.
 
Why not keep the Market as a retail podium and build residential/hotel/gym (to replace the Y) right on top of it?
 
YYCguy said:
Why not keep the Market as a retail podium and build residential/hotel/gym (to replace the Y) right on top of it?
Click to expand...
By doing this, the developer would not be maximizing ROI. Remember, the original proposal was for 5 towers (residential + commercial) plus retail & entertainment components in the space where the market and parking lot currently are. That is a lot of density.
 
I'm at a lost with developers in the city. I expected them ditching office space for more residential. I never expected more office space. It doesn't sound like they are that interested in building anytime soon which is unfortunate.
 
maestro said:
I'm at a lost with developers in the city. I expected them ditching office space for more residential. I never expected more office space. It doesn't sound like they are that interested in building anytime soon which is unfortunate.
Click to expand...
The neighboring Riverfront development still has plenty of unsold condos, some or which have been empty for many years. In the short-term, retail and entertainment is likely the only profitable use for the site. That isn't easy as the site requires high FAR in order to cover its property taxes, meaning that a developer would likely need to build expensive foundations for future towers, only to be occupied by retail and entertainment for the short to medium term. There is a reason this redevelopment has struggled in spite of its potential. The developer is likely seeking office tenants as they would provide the long-term rental commitment to fund the upfront foundation costs. Perhaps a solution would be to split the site up into smaller parcels by extending the street grid.
 
DougB said:
The developer is likely seeking office tenants as they would provide the long-term rental commitment to fund the upfront foundation costs. Perhaps a solution would be to split the site up into smaller parcels by extending the street grid.
Click to expand...
Judging by the Stephen Ave development there is a large tenant out there looking. Maybe there's something to be worked out with CMLC helping out with the public realm in Eau Claire to break it up into phases and push this project along so it can be incorporated in the Green Line? A guy can dream.
 
The office market has been hovering around 30% vacancy for roughly 5 years now too.

I just don't buy it that someone will pay well above market lease rates to have a new tower. constructed or (re: continuous space) of a necessity to have every department under the same roof. It wasn't necessary during the oil boom .Companies were just so flush with cash that hoarding space was a means to spend it.

Perhaps I'm too optimistic on a looming investor condo boom.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top