What do you think of this project?

  • Total voters
    54
Jan. 20 - site as it is today.

P1200268.jpg
 

Attachments

  • P1200268.jpg
    P1200268.jpg
    1.3 MB · Views: 672
Daveography said:
Still skeptical of the viability of this tower, but I can't help but love the terraces and the fact that views of the valley from Jasper Avenue would be retained for the vast majority.
Click to expand...

I'm skeptical about everything regarding this project.

First is that 280m is the maximum possible height that the tower can be, and the potential developers are quoted earlier in this thread saying "Whether we build up to 80 storeys or smaller, we don’t know yet." Maybe 12? Why would the maximum possible height be the most economically desirable for the builders? Yet the building is usually labelled by its maximum possible height.

Second is statements like, "Edmonton city planners came out Thursday in support of a new 80-storey tower on the edge of the river bank, arguing it’s a unique opportunity to create a beautiful public space on a marginal site." Hopefully city planners will have the specifications of the "beautiful public space" written in the contract. Otherwise, I think planners will excitedly imagine what the site *could* be if developers shared all of their goals, only to be disappointed when builders fulfil their public obligations to the minimum extent or less, and do everything else to maximize profits. I wouldn't trust that it will meaningfully maintain views of the river valley, until final building plans are set in stone.

I think that wishful thinking steers what people imagine this will be, while cold hard economics steers what it will be. I hope I'm being overly pessimistic.
 
@bonk DC2s are usually VERY specific about the design and public realm, particularly those that have gone through EDC, which this one has.

As I understand it, the substantial height is required to offset the costs of developing on a challenging site like this, which in addition to the unstable slope likely has old coal mines hidden somewhere underneath. It may get cut back, but I'm guessing it will remain at least 200m.
 
Daveography said:
@bonk DC2s are usually VERY specific about the design and public realm, particularly those that have gone through EDC, which this one has.

As I understand it, the substantial height is required to offset the costs of developing on a challenging site like this, which in addition to the unstable slope likely has old coal mines hidden somewhere underneath. It may get cut back, but I'm guessing it will remain at least 200m.
Click to expand...
Then it's not likely that the city will give good deals and concessions to the developers, in exchange for promises that the latter may back out of later?

If there's effectively a minimum height at which the building is worth it, I suppose they'd want to take advantage of river valley views and build higher. Still, with any building there's some point where it's uneconomical to build higher.

The fate of this thing might be a good thing to bet on. I'm less pessimistic now, but I'd still bet it won't be built over 200m.
 
Paula Simons: Real risks, costs make Quarters castle in the air questionable deal
The executive committee of city council will meet behind closed doors this Tuesday to discuss the sale of the property to Alldritt. You wouldn’t guess that from the super-secretive executive committee agenda, which simply refers to ” Sale of Land – Further Negotiations” and cites provincial Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy rules to keep all reports on the matter private. The matter will come back to council for a public hearing Feb. 6.

So sure. It’s a cool tower. But we protect our parkland in this city for good reason. Selling off a parcel of the downtown river valley, a piece with a stunning view, sets an uncomfortable precedent.

Yes, the Alldritt group is holding the land the city has been trying to expropriate as a bargaining chip. But if the city says Yes to Alldritt now, because the developer has council over a barrel, what do they say to the next applicant with a shiny dream project who wants to buy an attractive park parcel? Of course, we can monetize our parks to spur development. But there are consequences to that choice.
Click to expand...

http://edmontonjournal.com/opinion/...-quarters-castle-in-the-air-questionable-deal
 
Contentious sale of Edmonton parkland debate postponed for two weeks
A contentious land deal involving a steep section of river valley parkland was pushed back by two weeks Tuesday to allow more information on the deal to be made public.

The sale involves a section of valley bank just below Jasper Avenue, west of 96 Street. Alldritt Land Corp. wants to build an 80-storey residential tower there, and would shift the building footprint off the land it already owns onto parkland to avoid blocking key river valley views.
Click to expand...

http://edmontonjournal.com/news/loc...onton-parkland-debate-postponed-for-two-weeks

Edmonton residents fear tower could open door to river valley development
Some Edmonton residents say allowing developers to build an 80-storey skyscraper on river valley land could open the door to more development in one of the city’s greatest natural assets.
...
“It doesn’t just impact the nearby communities — it impacts Edmontonians who are driving through Jasper Ave and for others who visit that part of the river valley, ” said resident Alice Major, who attended the meeting with other concerned residents.

“If they start selling park land as private land, where does it stop?”
Click to expand...

http://www.metronews.ca/news/edmont...ents-fear-tower-river-valley-development.html
 
Always those people.

Considering the area and the land, to make it something more enjoyable for everyone I think its a genius idea.

Its not like they are selling the flats at the bottom, but doing an exchange instead so a private company can put big dollars into a tricky project.
 
Ha. "If they start selling park land" - I would hardly equate the piece of land that they would sell Aldritt to the park land in the River Valley.
 
Yeah I get their concern, but "slippery slope" is still a logical fallacy even when a literal slope is involved. It's not like the city wouldn't be getting something in exchange for it; it's important to look at the benefits of that tradeoff.

Now, if it actually was selling public land in the valley proper, I would be up in arms too. But that's not the case here; it's a tiny parklet that is virtually unused, and a crazy steep slope that is completely useless to everyone as it is.

This is still such a curious development. Alldritt is going full steam ahead like they're fully serious, but the economy, market, and their capacity to pull off such a large scale development are still big question marks.
 
@Daveography "The building just doesn't fit in with the tarmac charm of the Quarters!! I have never myself actually even attempted to stand in the area because I never exit my vehicle but these straw people I'm arguing on behalf of are going to be very upset that there's a building where there once were weeds and garbage!"

It's honestly baffling to me. You literally can't even access the river valley or see the views in that area right now because it's so unkempt. It's barely Parkland. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if the only context these whiners have is the Edmonton Journal article they read and have never actually seen the site in person.
 
Daveography said:
This is still such a curious development. Alldritt is going full steam ahead like they're fully serious, but the economy, market, and their capacity to pull off such a large scale development are still big question marks.
Click to expand...
Indeed. This is the key part that people should be focused on. Not so much that the city is selling 'park land'. I'm definitely skeptical of Alldritt being able to pull this off. Then again, who knows what kind of capital they have from developing multi-family homes. I think they've been at that for a while. Moving from that to a 80 storey building seems like a stretch though. Maybe start with a 20 storey somewhere.

This screams Edmontonian, Corners, and whatever else BCM had its fingers in. Infinity is on that list too, I believe and its only 5 stories I think.
 
@westcoastjos those multi-family sites are actually quite impressive for cost vs. profit. I have designed a number of them (civil aspect, not layout - that's architects) Taking such a small parcel of land. developing costs are relatively low and then individual units selling for even 200k a piece adds up fast. Perhaps I should break my cost estimates down to a per unit basis out of curiosity.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top