What do you think of this project?

  • Total voters
    48
I agree that this proposal is quite stupid. I am okay with it being a strip mall, but it just doesn’t make sense that they are trying to, quote “Bring a bit of Europe to Edmonton”. Like, ok, but I fail to see how a STRIP MALL is going to open eyes towards European Architecture in our city. I agree with Dave that sooooooo much more could be done with the concept of a strip mall in this case. I say NEH to this proposal :cool:
 
Last edited:
PERMIT_DATE August 14, 2018
JOB_CATEGORY Commercial Final
ADDRESS 12016 - 107 AVENUE NW
NEIGHBOURHOOD QUEEN MARY PARK
JOB_DESCRIPTION To demolish the mercantile section of an industrial building ("Manchester Square").
BUILDING_TYPE Storage Buildings, Warehouses (460)
WORK_TYPE (03) Exterior Alterations
CONSTRUCTION_VALUE 137,000
ZONING IM, IB
 
Looking at their website, they seemed to be a mixed bag as far as developments go. Cast, Holland, Centre 114/115 look decent, while the others look like crap. Columbia could have been good.
 
archited said:
I guess that it will stand out as a bit of isolated whimsy.
Click to expand...
Indeed. Just seems odd that they have some solid offerings and some not so solid ones. Makes me think they have some solid talent working for them and some not so solid. I guess every firm/company has that though. Some stuff Dialog does is amazing, while the most recent Tower B render was atrocious. It begs the question of how these people stick around though? I mean, in the case of tower B, that should have been the final revision, but I suspect we will see another one. I wonder if this gets cleaned up at all design wise before it gets built? Then again, I'm sure some people will love the design and think it is 'cute'.
 
Is it better than what is there already? I would say yes. Is it an improvement? I would say yes. Is it architecturally groundbreaking? No. Does that matter? Not really if I'm buying a taco. An ugly strip mall is being replaced by a less ugly and fun strip mall. All good!

Next!
 
positive1 said:
Is it better than what is there already? I would say yes. Is it an improvement? I would say yes. Is it architecturally groundbreaking? No. Does that matter? Not really if I'm buying a taco. An ugly strip mall is being replaced by a less ugly and fun strip mall. All good!

Next!
Click to expand...
That is how we end up like Red Deer, Grande Prairie, or Medicine Hat. As you said though, improvement is subjective as is whether it matters.

The differentiation should be that we are a larger city and aim to build something that would be built in other cities of similar size. I imagine EDC comments will reflect this though.
 
I think all the haters here are not considering how small of a scale this project really is. It's quite a minimal impact and it's still an improvement.
 
When you weigh this development against the city's own stated plans and goals, I think you'll see why it's heavily panned:

What does this development do to increase the number of residents living in the inner city, per The Way We Grow?
What does it do to increase transit usage and reduce car dependency, per The Way We Move?
What will it do for our environmental stewardship, per The Way We Green?
How will it increase the city's revenues and reduce costs, per The Way We Finance?
What does it do to raise the design bar per EDC bylaw, infill guidelines, and others?

Taken together, what benefit will this development provide the city, especially given its context and the true value of the land it sits on?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top