What do you think of this project?


  • Total voters
    62
This is why I hear "Deadmonton" quite often.
Honestly, I've never heard anyone say that because of how our skyline looks. On the flip side, that's pretty much how people define Edmonton from a street level perspe, which hopefully these buildings are going to contribute significantly in changing.
 
Imagine the density we could get around transit stations if we just legalize slums! ;)

I don't think its some horrible thing to want the city to use a modicum of its leverage to impose a higher standard of design and aesthetics on developers like Langham who'll always be looking to save a buck by shortchanging the city on curb appeal.
 
Imagine the density we could get around transit stations if we just legalize slums! ;)

I don't think its some horrible thing to want the city to use a modicum of its leverage to impose a higher standard of design and aesthetics on developers like Langham who'll always be looking to save a buck by shortchanging the city on curb appeal.

Classic example of the slippery slope fallacy
 
Classic example of a joke I thought. If all you say you care about is density around transit stations I'd say you're setting the bar too low in my opinion is all I meant by it.
 
It doesn't matter if it was a joke, you're still trying to justify your position using the slippery slope fallacy. Just because we allow a couple developments that are less than spectacular doesn't mean there is going to a spiral of increasingly awful looking buildings.
 
Imagine the density we could get around transit stations if we just legalize slums! ;)

I don't think its some horrible thing to want the city to use a modicum of its leverage to impose a higher standard of design and aesthetics on developers like Langham who'll always be looking to save a buck by shortchanging the city on curb appeal.

I personally don't mind the way this one is looking so far. Sure, it's a bit chunky and a bit stark, but the balcony railings havn't been installed yet, and that's going to be a big component of the exterior aestethics. So I think it's a little premature to be writing this one off
 
Last edited:
It doesn't matter if it was a joke, you're still trying to justify your position using the slippery slope fallacy. Just because we allow a couple developments that are less than spectacular doesn't mean there is going to a spiral of increasingly awful looking buildings.
You're right. Edmonton went down that path long ago... I jest, I jest. However, the period of stagnant development in the 80s and 90s didn't help the City look less tired, combined with our terrible track record of knocking down historical buildings. It left Edmonton with a lot of buildings from a single era of style.
 
Would I rather have a building with better aesthetics yes I won't deny that, I don't think theres any one here that would. But this is the option over a vacant parking lot at best I'll take it, and I say that as someone who can see the FOX, ICON, and FALCON towers from my condo. I want more density in the core as with more people comes more amenities. Which is better for the DT core in the in the long run, which should be the goal. There's also a lot more worrying buildings DT to deal with, the condo's that are already 50 years old with a $1200 condo fee's for example.
IMG_7978.jpeg
 
Last edited:
If Falcon was genuinely ugly that would be a different story, but it's not. It's just not particularly interesting, and the idea that everything has to be innovative, cutting edge and fit some high standard of architectural beauty is counter to solving the housing crisis and increasing affordability and consequently the attractiveness of living downtown and in denser areas. Likewise it would also be a different story if there wasn't a desperate need for more housing right now.
 

Back
Top