[crisp]

I think Capital Blvd, with its revitalization not so long ago has been ready for this increased demand for quite some time. The park, Park tower, Capital apartments, Norquest, and now lowered interest rates, finally got more developers interested.

Also.... sandwiched between Carona station and a new Valley line station, it's an unbeatable TOD area.

 

[JNO1]

I was part of the Capital Boulevard Steering Committee, 20 years ago, and between the residential projects like this one (+ the old Riley's building, +the Parks + the "more to come") and the amazing looking Norquest expansion, this is what the Committee was hoping for. Took 2 decades to start to see this vision come to fruition, but so satisfying, at least for me. Keep it coming!!

 

[Kosy123]

Seeing all this and the Warehouse Park, I now fully understand why there were some suggestions proposing 108 St be a shared pedestrian similar to 104 and Rice Howard Way.

 

[ricky-bo]

This project got non-support at Edmonton Design Committee.

 

[Barnaby]

The EDC has my non-support.

 

[Canadian 001]

Dang, Does that kill the project?

 

[IanO]

Dang, Does that kill the project?

Not usually, no. Back to refine and address issues raised and move forward or chug along without their support and hope for the best.

 

[northlands]

This project got non-support at Edmonton Design Committee.

Seemed like their concerns were largely about having the rear of the building integrate better with Warehouse Park--which honestly is a fair criticism I think--this is not the typical site where the rear of the building faces an alley way and is designed with primarily service access in mind. Specifically, I don't think there should be any rear surface parking on this one, and the rear entrance should be much more bright and inviting (but within reason and still secure), rather than the typical blank steel door.

The City is spending $45,000,000 on this park, I don't think it's too much to ask that developers building adjacent to it have some architectural care for how their buildings integrate into the space.

 

[IanO]

That has been a focus for them for those abutting the park.

 

[Didama]

and thank goodness for that

 

[dkazzed]

I also think that's fair. The early Parks render seem less back alley with the back. BLVD has three options with the loading zone: Move it to the side, move it to the parkade, or accept that people will be loading through the main entrances like a lot of other apartments and condos.

 

[David A]

Seemed like their concerns were largely about having the rear of the building integrate better with Warehouse Park--which honestly is a fair criticism I think--this is not the typical site where the rear of the building faces an alley way and is designed with primarily service access in mind. Specifically, I don't think there should be any rear surface parking on this one, and the rear entrance should be much more bright and inviting (but within reason and still secure), rather than the typical blank steel door.

The City is spending $45,000,000 on this park, I don't think it's too much to ask that developers building adjacent to it have some architectural care for how their buildings integrate into the space.

This all makes good sense and seems to be the whole point of this process, to give feedback to help improve the look, feel and function of buildings in the area. It is good when the process works.