[Edmcowboy11]

Well I hope in the long run this will help add more life to the area.

 

[bodsbods9090]

Was hoping Grandin 2 / Ice Tower was gonna break ground next....hopefully they will be the next, next project to break ground....

As most of those in the know here have said, we won't see any hi-rise construction for a while here, due to numerous factors.

I hope it changes soon!

 

[Edmcowboy11]

Highrises are nice sure, but I think I'd like to see a few empty or vacant lots filled throughout the core before any new proposals are made.

 

[Kosy123]

Yup, at this point more people living or doing stuff in the core > literally anything else.

 

[archited]

I am not in favor of high-rises for the sake of height or skyline development. I just see high-rises as being more diverse architecturally than the next iteration of walk-up apartments (walkups with elevators -- oxymoron aside). I am beginning to see a lot of 6-storey developments with very minor differentiation between projects -- that is not a good thing.

 

[SMayo]

I am not in favor of high-rises for the sake of height or skyline development. I just see high-rises as being more diverse architecturally than the next iteration of walk-up apartments (walkups with elevators -- oxymoron aside). I am beginning to see a lot of 6-storey developments with very minor differentiation between projects -- that is not a good thing.

Why not?

 

[David A]

I am not in favor of high-rises for the sake of height or skyline development. I just see high-rises as being more diverse architecturally than the next iteration of walk-up apartments (walkups with elevators -- oxymoron aside). I am beginning to see a lot of 6-storey developments with very minor differentiation between projects -- that is not a good thing.

I agree it is nicer to mix it up with different developments. High rises are best suited for prime locations with views, closely located to amenities, in very desireable or central locations

I like the 6 storey walk ups, but I do not want them to just become the newer version of our old 3 storey walk ups, too many everywhere and they all kind of look very similar. So, build them, but not cookie cutter.

 

[StoneCutter099]

NorQuest has no residence. This is going to be a welcome, and active offering for the Downtown Campus for that organization. I've said it before, (not here, but... trust me - I have) that the answer to downtown revitalization isn't $750k+ condos in the sky. It's creating a complete community that has everything someone can need to live and thrive in the core. Retail, employment, entertainment, food, etc. We're getting closer, but it needs to be within reach of all income levels. The luxury condos in the sky approach only appeal to a tiny percentage of the population. I think a phenomenal place to start is recognizing that between, UofA, NorQuest, MacEwan, NAIT, and Concordia (plus a few private schools like Robertson, WBF, MC College, Campbell, etc...), there's the equivalent of a decent-sized city of students looking for places to live near their schools. Right now that doesn't exist (with a few exceptions). So many students live far from the core, but near the LRT lines so they can pipe themselves into their schools. I think students can be ONE of the keys to success for downtown core revitalization. I've heard about it since I moved to Edmonton in 1992 to go to NAIT. Very few city councils have done much about the issue, except Mandel's work with the Ice District - and that almost fell apart and took (of all people) Gary Bettman to get it back on the rails!

I say giddyup.

 

[David A]

NorQuest has no residence. This is going to be a welcome, and active offering for the Downtown Campus for that organization. I've said it before, (not here, but... trust me - I have) that the answer to downtown revitalization isn't $750k+ condos in the sky. It's creating a complete community that has everything someone can need to live and thrive in the core. Retail, employment, entertainment, food, etc. We're getting closer, but it needs to be within reach of all income levels. The luxury condos in the sky approach only appeal to a tiny percentage of the population. I think a phenomenal place to start is recognizing that between, UofA, NorQuest, MacEwan, NAIT, and Concordia (plus a few private schools like Robertson, WBF, MC College, Campbell, etc...), there's the equivalent of a decent-sized city of students looking for places to live near their schools. Right now that doesn't exist (with a few exceptions). So many students live far from the core, but near the LRT lines so they can pipe themselves into their schools. I think students can be ONE of the keys to success for downtown core revitalization. I've heard about it since I moved to Edmonton in 1992 to go to NAIT. Very few city councils have done much about the issue, except Mandel's work with the Ice District - and that almost fell apart and took (of all people) Gary Bettman to get it back on the rails!

I say giddyup.

Yes, the key to a more vibrant downtown is not a few well off residents, but more residents of all income levels. Some cities, namely big financial centers, seem impressive to visitors with their all nice condo buildings and luxury good stores in nearby in their downtown areas. While we have a little bit this, that is really not the economic make up of Edmonton and our city government has little interest in aggressively pursuing many more corporate offices and employers needed to make this work.

However, fortunately we do have a number of educational institutions located downtown or nearby or easily accessible by LRT from downtown. I don't think Bettman or municipal politicians should get much credit for more housing for students downtown, except indirectly in that they have helped us see living downtown can be desirable and past civic leaders also did encourage and attract educational institutions downtown.

 

[TAS]

NorQuest has no residence. This is going to be a welcome, and active offering for the Downtown Campus for that organization. I've said it before, (not here, but... trust me - I have) that the answer to downtown revitalization isn't $750k+ condos in the sky. It's creating a complete community that has everything someone can need to live and thrive in the core. Retail, employment, entertainment, food, etc. We're getting closer, but it needs to be within reach of all income levels. The luxury condos in the sky approach only appeal to a tiny percentage of the population. I think a phenomenal place to start is recognizing that between, UofA, NorQuest, MacEwan, NAIT, and Concordia (plus a few private schools like Robertson, WBF, MC College, Campbell, etc...), there's the equivalent of a decent-sized city of students looking for places to live near their schools. Right now that doesn't exist (with a few exceptions). So many students live far from the core, but near the LRT lines so they can pipe themselves into their schools. I think students can be ONE of the keys to success for downtown core revitalization. I've heard about it since I moved to Edmonton in 1992 to go to NAIT. Very few city councils have done much about the issue, except Mandel's work with the Ice District - and that almost fell apart and took (of all people) Gary Bettman to get it back on the rails!

I say giddyup.

Yup. Maybe creating a university type district of housing along 106-109 streets. Calgary even added a 250 unit seniors complex to their district so I like the scale of 6 storey buildings. Get Rohit in this area, too. Still a lot more potential along 105 Ave between 109-116 streets as well.

in reality dt now has more students than office workers, doesn't it?

 

[archited]

Alas, the good architecture that you reference pictorially @TAS is not what I am objecting to -- the non-thought-out crap that seems to appear with almost every new announcement of a 6-storey project. There are a few -- very few -- that get it right (e.g. Stadium Yards) but those are the exception not the rule. Westrich's effort proposed for 108th street and 102nd ave. (southwest corner) is an example of the bad -- the very bad. Even Piet Mondrian is most certainly spinning in his grave. Incidentally I am not talking about material usage I am referring to Design and the lack of effort therein.

 

[TAS]

Alas, the good architecture that you reference pictorially @TAS is not what I am objecting to -- the non-thought-out crap that seems to appear with almost every new announcement of a 6-storey project. There are a few -- very few -- that get it right (e.g. Stadium Yards) but those are the exception not the rule. Westrich's effort proposed for 108th street and 102nd ave. (southwest corner) is an example of the bad -- the very bad. Even Piet Mondrian is most certainly spinning in his grave. Incidentally I am not talking about material usage I am referring to Design and the lack of effort therein.

Agreed. The projects that happen downtown in particular need to be quality and well designed and architectually interesting.

 

[Greenspace]

Construction fence up.

 

[David A]

Agreed. The projects that happen downtown in particular need to be quality and well designed and architectually interesting.

I would like something a bit better, but I think this works for this location. It is central, but not a high profile location.

The real benefit of this I feel is that redeveloping this site may spur redevelopment of several other sites nearby that also need it.

 

[EdmTrekker]

I would like something a bit better, but I think this works for this location. It is central, but not a high profile location.

The real benefit of this I feel is that redeveloping this site may spur redevelopment of several other sites nearby that also need it.

Hopefully with much better design and higher end exterior finishes.