What do you think of this project?

  • Total voters
    54
For comparison with Stantec. Alldritts floor plate looks to have increased by about 20 - 30% (unfortunately) but I dig the new classical massing as well. I can't wait for more details.

Diagrams - SkyscraperPage.com

SkyscraperPage's diagram system presents the world's tallest buildings to scale, all lined up in a row. Discover the world's skyscrapers right here.Skyscraper enthusiast website featuring buildings database, discussion forum and skyscraper diagrams.
skyscraperpage.com skyscraperpage.com
 
Kaizen said:
For comparison with Stantec. Alldritts floor plate looks to have increased by about 20 - 30% (unfortunately) but I dig the new classical massing as well. I can't wait for more details.

Diagrams - SkyscraperPage.com

SkyscraperPage's diagram system presents the world's tallest buildings to scale, all lined up in a row. Discover the world's skyscrapers right here.Skyscraper enthusiast website featuring buildings database, discussion forum and skyscraper diagrams.
skyscraperpage.com skyscraperpage.com
Click to expand...
I really do like the original renders but the increased massing will obviously give way more prominence to the skyline. Stantec, from the south looks almost like a pencil sticking up but massive in every other angle. Alldritt would look like a beast from the south, east and partially the west angle. I think it's the way to go. Like I mentioned before, they have to be really careful with the design of this one. There's nothing to mask it if it's a turd of a design. I'm excited for this too more than any other project. Aldritt is one public meeting I wouldn't miss.

Stantec had the chance to make their tower, a signature landmark of the city if you will. They didn't do it. Turned out OK but had to cut corners from the original renders. Aldritt has a chance to make this tower a showpiece. I'm hoping they will.
 
Last edited:
cpnfantstk said:
Like I mentioned before, they have to be really careful with the design of this one. There's nothing to mask it if it's a turd of a design. I'm excited for this too more than any other project. Aldritt is one public meeting I wouldn't miss.
Click to expand...
Can you imagine if the entire north elevation was a blank white stucco wall? ? ? ?

:confused::confused::confused:

I shouldn't jinx it.
 
@.crystalised. the massing model is not meant to be descriptive of the architecture to any great extent. But, to your point, in the massing model you are looking at the south face of the building and there is no way that that view will not reflect the river valley potential with windows upon windows. As I recall, one of the points negotiated with the City had a requirement to keep the street level vista as open as possible. The bulk of the building was increased under the notion of combating wind forces but design structure does not mean that the base of the building has to be solid -- there are many structural solutions that allow for exceptional openness. When the first design renderings come out, they will bear little resemblance to the massing model (except perhaps related to the outline of the building). Most -- if not all -- of the observable structural rigidity will occur on the interior core of the building; of that I am certain. I think the mass mavens were simply trying to show the hotel portion (lower floors) as distinct in usage from the upper floors. Personally, I would like to see a vertical split (since the building is going to be so broad in its east/west axis) with a higher hotel spear on one side perhaps climbing up to a third of the overall height (say 30 floors) and condos opposite that, the 40-plus remainder saved for rental units. It is going to be interesting to follow this one; please "no jinxing!" ;)
 
Last edited:
archited said:
@.crystalised. the massing model is not meant to be descriptive of the architecture to any great extent. But, to your point, in the massing model you are looking at the south face of the building and there is no way that that view will not reflect the river valley potential with windows upon windows. As I recall, one of the points negotiated with the City had a requirement to keep the street level vista as open as possible. The bulk of the building was increased under the notion of combating wind forces but design structure does not mean that the base of the building has to be solid -- there are many structural solutions that allow for exceptional openness. When the first design renderings come out, they will bear little resemblance to the massing model (except perhaps related to the outline of the building). Most -- if not all -- of the observable structural rigidity will occur on the interior core of the building; of that I am certain. I think the mass mavens where simply trying to show the hotel portion (lower floors) as distinct in usage from the upper floors. Personally, I would like to see a vertical split (since the building is going to be so broad in its east/west axis) with a higher hotel spear on one side perhaps climbing up to a third of the overall height (say 30 floors) and condos opposite that, the 40-plus remainder saved for rental units. It is going to be interesting to follow this one; please "no jinxing!" ;)
Click to expand...
Indeed, I'm excited, and can't wait for renders. Your vertical split idea is sexy and interesting!
 
@rtscott I completely agree with you -- Brad Kennedy's design was much more engaging than the one we have now -- not to say that the current representation is "bad"; it is not -- it just doesn't challenge the imagination as much and it is certainly not "iconic". Edmonton needs an iconic structure that defines the City as progressive and forward thinking. This design could be a "filler" highrise appearing in any City in North America.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top