What do you think of this project?

  • Total voters
    65
I don't know, I'll stick up for the towers design, they look fine and I want to see what it looks like when it's done and isn't half finished. I like the podium in the render, I like that chevron window thing they've got going, and I imagine the amenities would be nice inside. The design is bland but I much prefer it to some of the alternatives around town...

Screenshot_20231102_181956_Maps.jpg
Screenshot_20231102_182214_Maps.jpg
 
westcoastjos said:
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.
Click to expand...

I agree with this 100%. Our building boom time was in the 70s, the Brutalist era, and historically it reflected in our skyline a lot. We've got three high rise examples of the post modern era of the 80s (Manulife Place, Commerce Place and Scotia Place), and then absolutely nothing until Epcor Tower came around 20 years later. I know the reality of our market makes it difficult to achieve "world class" developments and design, I just don't like seeing that used as an excuse. Especially when you see Encore and Ultima literally one block east and it makes you go "hmmm", is it our market or is it what the developer is willing to put forth?
 
I'm only going to say this once - people can have opinions about the style of buildings - for and against. If you don't agree with them, that is fine, but please stop with the personal attacks. I'm not sure how we made the jump to affordability and housing from people criticizing what the building looks like. Regardless, if people continue attacking each other, we can start handing out forced vacations from the site.
 
I'm not sure how anything I said could be construed as a personal attack, I didn't once insult or attack anyone personally. I can see how some of what I said may be provocative however. I will tone it down though if it's bothering folks, and I do apologize if anyone was offended. The logic here is that if we are extremely picky about the aesthetics of buildings, only allowing the most high quality of build materials and cutting edge designs, it's going to lead to less development overall since costs for building will inevitably increase. Likewise if we send developers back to the drawing board every time we have a slight issue with a building's design that will dismay some developers and may lead to cancellations which we can't afford right now in a housing crisis. I'm not sure about Langham but we're all aware of developers (Regency in particular) buying up lots, demoing existing structures and excavating only to abandon lots and pits they've already sunk millions into at a changing of the winds.
 
Honestly, being real, I believe that two of the reasons the architectural complexity of our projects (overall) are lower than Calgary, for example, is that

a) They're hitting the housing bubble and are able to make towers with more expensive materials, but also:
b) We don't have out own architecture school/program creating a local ecosystem for architects who might want to work here.

If we wanna see better style we need a school at the U of A pronto imo.
 
westcoastjos said:
I'm only going to say this once - people can have opinions about the style of buildings - for and against. If you don't agree with them, that is fine, but please stop with the personal attacks. I'm not sure how we made the jump to affordability and housing from people criticizing what the building looks like. Regardless, if people continue attacking each other, we can start handing out forced vacations from the site.
Click to expand...
I'll concur with @erudyk_29
I don't really understand where you are seeing personal attacks here, mate.
 
Platinum107 said:
b) We don't have out own architecture school/program creating a local ecosystem for architects who might want to work here.

If we wanna see better style we need a school at the U of A pronto imo.
Click to expand...
It's interesting to me that despite the U of A's grand plans to increase enrolment by like 40% or whatever within a few years, that they still have no apparent interest in building an architecture program. Why?
 
I didn't call specific people out. I've already deleted several posts where the personal attacks were made. If I see any other posts of that nature, it will be 7-day bans instead of the posts simply being deleted. If your post(s) are still up, it wasn't one of the offending posts.
 
Last edited:
Gronk! said:
I know we're veering way off-topic here, but any chance we can replace the Grierson prison and the Stan Daniels Healing Centre with a U of A School of Architecture?

View attachment 517500
Click to expand...
Are there plans of them moving from this building or is this your hope?

On the Falcon's, adding more people to that area of downtown is always a plus. So far I'm not sure what to say about the look of the building but I'll wait until it's topped out and revealed as the final product.
 
^^ I tried and failed. I tried to interest the Feds in moving the whole raft of RCMP barracks' functions into an upgraded (presently abandoned) Remand Centre and I did get a positive response from the Feds (they were at least interested in pursuing the idea), and I did interest Lorraine Bodnarek (Pendennis Hotel) in pursuing the scheme as well. Where it fell apart was at the Provincial Level where there was no interest in selling the Remand Building for a repurposed use. I had thought at the time (pre-pandemic) that it would have led to multiple "wins" -- the Provs would have divested themselves of an "albatross"; the Feds would have gained a newer remodeled building more specifically designed for daytime detention with lots of programmable space for personal remediation; the significant architecture of the RCMP barracks and adjacent buildings would have landed in the hands of a caring developer with additional space for intensified development (it could have been turned into a cool shopping district filled with artisanal entrepreneurial types); and it would have given a huge boost to the Quarters District in terms of image and urban acceptance. Lorraine even tried to get CoE types that she had worked with re Pendennis on board with the thinking being that since they (CoE) had plowed so much money into the 96th street upgrade, surely this would be a logical extension of their investment interest. Deaf (and Dumb) ears at the Prov level; mildly deaf ears at the City level ("call me when you have worked things out with the Provs"). Some of these uber-logical ideas need to engage a "pitchfork-crowd" of support behind them before the needle moves -- any ideas on that @Gronk. There is a greater comfort in maintaining the status-quo than stretching and energizing the grey-matter to things that might well work to societal benefit.
 
Last edited:
bodsbods9090 said:
Are there plans of them moving from this building or is this your hope?

On the Falcon's, adding more people to that area of downtown is always a plus. So far I'm not sure what to say about the look of the building but I'll wait until it's topped out and revealed as the final product.
Click to expand...
I think as someone mentioned earlier, the glazed balconies are a big part of the building’s aesthetic. So I’ll wait till those are installed before judging.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top