What do you think of this project?

  • Total voters
    59
Edmonton doesn't really have a "density" provision under zoning or at least it doesn't consistently practice one. Edmonton is essentially a new City that tends to reinvent itself every so often (both good and bad). The good lies in the fact that it can experiment with outcomes and by dint of that fact lead the way. There are many examples of that. It is the main reason that I like Edmonton -- it dances to its own tune and doesn't try to copy other Cities whether for good or for bad.
 
That's like saying that you enjoy this because it breaks the mold.

2001-pontiac-aztek-01.jpg
 
archited said:
Edmonton doesn't really have a "density" provision under zoning or at least it doesn't consistently practice one. Edmonton is essentially a new City that tends to reinvent itself every so often (both good and bad). The good lies in the fact that it can experiment with outcomes and by dint of that fact lead the way. There are many examples of that. It is the main reason that I like Edmonton -- it dances to its own tune and doesn't try to copy other Cities whether for good or for bad.
Click to expand...
Thank you for the information, it is very helpful for me to understand this better. However, while I often find the independent and self reliant spirit admirable, there are also times when one doesn't need to reinvent the wheel and can look elsewhere at what is being done. After all, other cities face similar issues too.

One of the things that struck me in Vancouver, was on a commercial street I saw an small old bank branch integrated into a new development. I wish I took a picture. Here that would probably be torn down. Things like this help preserve the historical character of a city particularly the core, without which it can just become soulless and generic.
 
David A said:
The perfect place for a tower is on the parking lot north of the Affordable Storage building (after the storage business leaves), not in place of it.

Speaking of Vancouver, when I was there several weeks ago, I was impressed by how they are incorporating older buildings into newer developments.

Even though the land there is extremely valuable, they don't just tear them down like the default is here. So another way I suppose we may be 30 years behind the times.

Some of the thinking around development here is still so 1970s.
Click to expand...

Ditto for Montreal, Toronto. I was in both cities for a few days in September, saw many beautiful old buildings mixed in with new ones it was great. Made me even more sad about how we've treated ours over the years
 
EdmTrekker said:
Have you christened a new district and named the baby “Bank”? And where is this? I am aware some people like to call the core the financial district but the word “bank” ?? Nope.
Click to expand...

I took it as the Ice District being named Bank District since that seems to be the most common major tenants so far.
 
TAS said:
I took it as the Ice District being named Bank District since that seems to be the most common major tenants so far.
Click to expand...

I saw this in a movie once. Where a district was built with the goal of adding a bank every 6 months, and if it didn’t fill its quota of one bank every 6 months? It would explode.

I think it was called: “The Plutocracy that couldn’t slow down.”
 
David A said:
Thank you for the information, it is very helpful for me to understand this better. However, while I often find the independent and self reliant spirit admirable, there are also times when one doesn't need to reinvent the wheel and can look elsewhere at what is being done. After all, other cities face similar issues too.

One of the things that struck me in Vancouver, was on a commercial street I saw an small old bank branch integrated into a new development. I wish I took a picture. Here that would probably be torn down. Things like this help preserve the historical character of a city particularly the core, without which it can just become soulless and generic.
Click to expand...
Don't be so fast to assume that we would tear it down in this City nowadays. There are plenty of recent examples that I can name: Maclaren, Kelly-Ramsey, Brighton Block, Tipton Investment Building, Crawford Block, Substation 600...
 
cmd uw said:
Don't be so fast to assume that we would tear it down in this City nowadays. There are plenty of recent examples that I can name: Maclaren, Kelly-Ramsey, Brighton Block, Tipton Investment Building, Crawford Block, Substation 600...
Click to expand...
I am assuming it based on the most recent situation at 104 St and 103 Ave. Also, next to the lovely Kelly Ramsey building is a pile of rubble and that one was a tear down, not just once, but twice.

However I would agree Whyte Ave at least does have a history of preserving interesting and historical buildings, which is one of the reasons it is more appealing than downtown. We do still seem determined to sterilize our downtown.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top