[roe_]

I agree that this development is not a good example of urbanism and the direction I think the city needs to go. That said, I think a lot of the attention and criticism that has been directed at this project is precisely because the developer has gone out of their way to do something different. If this was a run-of-the-mill strip mall it may have been criticized, but I doubt to the same extent. The development is not perfect and I would have preferred something less car focused, but I appreciate that they at least put effort and money into the project because a lot of developers don't even do that.

I cut no slack on the name, though. Manchester? WTF?

 

[archited]

^^^^ -- @Daveography comments
Manchest L7 --
Stinkweed Score = 15 for aesthetics -- some grand misguided effort here although the end result does have a couple of minor positives (lighting, quality of materials); 5 for functionality related to poor urban location choice, false front on what is essentially a warehouse, parking lot up-fronted-ness). This project is less than half-way to ethical landing of a European look-alike.

 

[Omega Prime]

One thing I like about Manchester as well is that - if it's successful - it has the potential to generate foot traffic along 107th and into the main intersection area with 124th. This intersection is becoming an important throughput for cars and pedestrians, and should serve to boost commercial activity in the area. With the opening of the Irrational Brewing / Substation concept, the re-opening of the Roxy Theatre and the continued presence of high-quality restaurants in the area, I think this is going to be a win for the west side of Edmonton's downtown.

 

[kcantor]

^^^^ -- @Daveography comments
Manchest L7 --
Stinkweed Score = 15 for aesthetics -- some grand misguided effort here although the end result does have a couple of minor positives (lighting, quality of materials); 5 for functionality related to poor urban location choice, false front on what is essentially a warehouse, parking lot up-fronted-ness). This project is less than half-way to ethical landing of a European look-alike.

this one has been fun to watch from the sidelines but it's gotten to point where i might as well add my two cents worth...

while i usually agree with Daveography, our opinions differ on this one.

to start with, manchester square is no south edmonton common and there is little to compare between the two in more than just the discrepancy in size. firstly, if you want to compare the architecture used for manchester square to a single multi-tenant cru building in south edmonton common so be it but comparing it to south edmonton common project to project just misses the point. secondly, and more importantly, not only is manchester square smaller, it is in-fill, not greenfield, development and perhaps more importantly it is in-fill that repurposed and existing building and from that perspective, there is no form of development that is more efficient or environmentally friendly. on top of that, it is to scale for its surroundings, relates better to the adjacent streets, and didn't require substantial upgrades to municipal services and utilities.

is the architectural style not to everyone's taste? apparently not. but neither is the library and neither is the annex to which one could also say they spur subjective and difficult conversations.

it's probably not something i would do - but i wouldn't have done the library and i wouldn't demolish the annex - but you have to give the developer full marks for having his own vision and for having the courage to implement it and the conviction to use quality materials and details in doing so. i hope it's successful for him, for his tenants and for the neighborhood.

 

[crisp]

@Daveography "while contributing nothing to housing in this part of the inner city" I would disagree with this as it could potentially have an indirect positive impact on housing within its proximity.

@kcantor "it is to scale for its surroundings" This short point is basically what I've been diligently trying to explain.

 

[Daveography]

@kcantor I feel you may have missed the point of my comparison, which is to describe different measures of "success", not necessarily the developments themselves.

I also vehemently disagree with the idea that "it is to scale for its surroundings, relates better to the adjacent streets" - if we only ever build for what currently exists, then we will never shift our development patterns to the ones that we both require and desire, nor to outcomes that are more in line with the city's goals than just the singular "re-use some of an existing structure," which - while a good goal - should not necessarily override all others.

And I absolutely am not criticizing the materials used here. But to me it's still doing the wrong thing, just doing it really well.

@crisp Maybe, but you know what would have been even better?

Including housing as part of the development.

 

[Daveography]

I think a lot of the attention and criticism that has been directed at this project is precisely because the developer has gone out of their way to do something different.

In terms of architecture, yes. Different in itself doesn't make it good.

In terms of completely blowing opportunities to improve the urban realm, you'll note I have been equally critical of this proposal close to my own neighbourhood, for many of the same reasons as I have this one.

 

[kcantor]

@kcantor I feel you may have missed the point of my comparison, which is to describe different measures of "success", not necessarily the developments themselves.

I also vehemently disagree with the idea that "it is to scale for its surroundings, relates better to the adjacent streets" - if we only ever build for what currently exists, then we will never shift our development patterns to the ones that we both require and desire, nor to outcomes that are more in line with the city's goals than just the singular "re-use some of an existing structure," which - while a good goal - should not necessarily override all others.

And I absolutely am not criticizing the materials used here. But to me it's still doing the wrong thing, just doing it really well.

@crisp Maybe, but you know what would have been even better?

Including housing as part of the development.

it's one thing not to build for what currently exists when what currently exists is going to potentially change in the future. this site, however, sits adjacent to a multi-use trail to the west and across the street from a graveyard to the east - neither of which are going to increase in density or height no matter how far in the future you want to look. the site is also restricted by a lane to the north and its development - which retained a good portion of an existing building - would not have supported much - if any - additional development with the parking restrictions that were still in place at the time it was designed and approved without making it a complete teardown and redevelopment instead of the repurposing of an existing structure.

north of the lane remains available for future development including the residential component you say is missing and it is arguably more attractive than this site for that as it's not fronting 107 avenue while being next to the amenities and services that will be available here. it could also be said the site to the north is more attractive and more likely to be redeveloped to a higher density sooner because it's not immediately north and in the shadow of the additional height that would have been required to put what you say is missing on this site.

 

[crisp]

I don't know @Daveography I honestly would agree with you in practically all other situations and am pro urbanism. But this specific project just isn't all that bad in that location and it really will both serve and add value to the community. I'm also obviously looking at it more short term than you are, in that "what could have been" would never happen for a very long time because the demand for it is just not there and so I'm happier than you are to just see this dilapidated site developed. And quite frankly, with no parking 107 Ave, retail would never work here without on-site parking. The only thing that would work on this site with more density is purely residential; look no further than on the other side of the graveyard to see how well retail within a more urban design is doing at the Vibe project.

And if more urban development does pop up, it would only occur north of this site, where I don't honestly think will happen for a very long time. And if it actually does happen, you can sure as hell thank Manchester for increasing the demand within the community.

 

[Omega Prime]

It's important to remember that what is there is there now, and dwelling on what could have been is a futile effort. It's here and it's here to stay for a while. Instead, lets see the community impact this has, and hopefully developers improve on the architecture/design/function as needed based on consumer use.

 

[dunno]

@Edmcowboy11 There are many definitions of "success" that can be measured. South Edmonton Common is a retail and commercial success, but is an abject failure of good urban design and planning, and those failures have consequences (e.g., to traffic, sustainability, tax revenue, etc.).

Manchester Square, I have no doubt, will also be a retail and commercial success. But it is also a failure of good urban design and planning, as it is still a single-use strip mall that people will overwhelmingly drive to use, while contributing nothing to housing in this part of the inner city, which also reduces the taxation potential of the land for city coffers.

It is also arguably a failure of good architecture, but that's a more subjective and difficult conversation to have.

say it louder next time

 

[archited]

If Edmonton wants to swing in the direction of "goofy architecture"... then have at it and good luck! Disneyland here we come!

 

[dunno]

I don't know @Daveography I honestly would agree with you in practically all other situations and am pro urbanism. But this specific project just isn't all that bad in that location and it really will both serve and add value to the community. I'm also obviously looking at it more short term than you are, in that "what could have been" would never happen for a very long time because the demand for it is just not there and so I'm happier than you are to just see this dilapidated site developed. And quite frankly, with no parking 107 Ave, retail would never work here without on-site parking. The only thing that would work on this site with more density is purely residential; look no further than on the other side of the graveyard to see how well retail within a more urban design is doing at the Vibe project.

And if more urban development does pop up, it would only occur north of this site, where I don't honestly think will happen for a very long time. And if it actually does happen, you can sure as hell thank Manchester for increasing the demand within the community.

in terms of it not being “all that bad in that location“ i think we need to move away from having such low standards, particularly in edmonton’s central city. 107 ave is in an older, walkable, downtown-adjacent neighbourhood and acts as a main street. if somehow the stretch east of the cemetery can have streetfront amenities survive (i know there are also some strip malls here), i don’t see why the lot with manchester square couldn’t.

i also think we need to look beyond parking woes. like, there’s no on-street parking on that part of 107 ave, so what? i’m pretty sure if you removed on-street parking on whyte and jasper, they would still find success. obviously 107 is not on that level yet, but if we simply continue placating to automobile drivers, nothing will change. we need to shift away from such car-centric thinking as it is unsustainable and creates terrible communities. because this mindset has been so ingrained for multiple generations now, it seems as if it is inevitable, as if there’s no alternative, and this is just how things are. it reminds me of le corbusier’s plan voisin, which called for the city of paris to be levelled for freeways and towers-in-the-park and extremely segregated land use, as, even though corb found it sad, nobody was going to walk or take the train anymore. but we dont have to continue building this way and it’ll never change if we’re always worried about ”oh no where will the people park”. also, really, there’s ample parking within a few blocks and they could have also designed this development with either underground parking or a parking lot behind the buildings which are facing the street.

 

[Edmcowboy11]

@Edmcowboy11 There are many definitions of "success" that can be measured. South Edmonton Common is a retail and commercial success, but is an abject failure of good urban design and planning, and those failures have consequences (e.g., to traffic, sustainability, tax revenue, etc.).

Manchester Square, I have no doubt, will also be a retail and commercial success. But it is also a failure of good urban design and planning, as it is still a single-use strip mall that people will overwhelmingly drive to use, while contributing nothing to housing in this part of the inner city, which also reduces the taxation potential of the land for city coffers.

It is also arguably a failure of good architecture, but that's a more subjective and difficult conversation to have.

On your first point, yeah there are a multitude of issues in SEC which I tend to agree on your example.
Same thing for the most part with your direct discussion about Manchester Square and its uncreative use of space and its poor urban design.

Question though. Who's fault is it, the developer that proposed and built it, or the city for approving the project? Could more have been done with this development, probably, so who should have forced the developer to build to adhere to a higher standard of development. I'm very much an advocate for multi-use developments that best utilize space. I do remember often that at the end of the day, if a project was approved, obviously somebody from the city was ok with project. Anyways, thats my usual two cents on this. ✌

 

[dunno]

@Edmcowboy11 why does there have to be a single party at fault? both the city and the developer dropped the ball on this one.