What do you think of this project?

  • Total voters
    35
Yeggy said:
Hey, Im just responding to a statement stating people go to Paris for the Louvre et la grande dame.

Its simply not true.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I’m a bit confused. As a French guy from Montreal who has also spent time in France, you seem to be in the minority on this. For most people, the main attractions are those two things. Food, street life, and that kind of atmosphere can be found in many other European cities . What people usually travel to see are the unique art pieces and historical artifacts.
 
I lived in Paris for six months+ and Europe for 4-plus years... the thing locals despise is presupposing what they think about people on the inbound -- pre-conceptions are hated the most!
 
Last edited:
David A said:
I agree we can debate the design quality of some of these buildings, there is room for improvement and they may turn out better or worse than proposed.

As for Europe, people don't go to Paris to see random nice apartment buildings, they go to see things like the Eiffel Tower or the Louvre, or to see Buckingham Palace in London.

However, lets not forget putting 6 or 7 storey buildings on long empty lots, or lots with much smaller buildings, is increasing density meaningfully and it is not like there are no other lots remaining downtown to build taller buildings in the future when the economic environment and market is ready again for that.
Click to expand...
Why the hell would you fly across the ocean to see the Louvre when we have our own here?

1773091397000.png
 
HelpEd said:
Yeah, I’m a bit confused. As a French guy from Montreal who has also spent time in France, you seem to be in the minority on this. For most people, the main attractions are those two things. Food, street life, and that kind of atmosphere can be found in many other European cities . What people usually travel to see are the unique art pieces and historical artifacts.
Click to expand...
Im simply saying not everyone who goes to Paris, goes up the tower.

People go to Paris for many reasons.

This shouldn't be inflammatory.
 
To be fair (and I say this as someone who hasn't been to Paris), I would most likely skip the Eiffel tower and the Louvre because I hate crowds. Been to NYC multiple times and only went on the Empire State building once (and regretted it for exactly that reason) and always took the Staten Island ferry to see the Statue of Liberty instead of doing the official tour. So I get it. But to each her own, I suppose. I also don't get why everyone got so huffy about it
 
When I think about Vancouver style urbanism -- high rises upon high rises because homeowners there actively block anything that threatens to destroy their precious single family neighbourhoods to the extent that they mostly elect conservative mayors and city council other than Gregor Robertson. And just to touch on this tourist trap thing, I only went to Capilano Suspension Bridge and Grouse Mountain once on a grade 7 field trip, never been to the harbour lookout tower, ok walking/cycling/rollerblading around Stanley Park is quintessential Vancouver but it's free. But now that I don't live there anymore, I might check out Capilano Suspension Bridge some time.

I'll happily take the win that Edmontonians are voting in human scale densification. If the resulting current economics means a 6 to 8 storey building makes sense and is shovel ready while a 40 storey building is at least 20 years away, let's fill in the empty parking lots and bring residents to the area ASAP. We bring in residents, who demand services, which will attract more residents, and that snowball effect will eventually bring in some towers. I like towers, but I'd love a vibrant downtown core even more.
 
roe_ said:
It's time to drop the 'second-city' complex. Comparing ourselves to Calgary is a sign of low self-esteem that ignores the actual momentum. People are voting with their feet: in 2025, Edmonton’s growth rate (3.1%) edged out Calgary’s (2.9%), and we had over 21,000 housing starts.

Calgary is great at marketing, but they’re currently hiding a 30%+ office vacancy rate. Edmonton has stabilized around 19% because we’ve stopped waiting for a corporate miracle and started doing the complex, multi-pronged work. The 'fix' for Downtown isn't a one-size-fits-all band-aid.

Calgary does well when it runs down the competition and pretends to be the only game in town. It isn't. Let’s focus on our own growth and let the results speak for themselves.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure what you mean by ‘Calgary is great at marketing’ and ‘hiding a 30% vacancy rate’. Who is hiding the 30% vacancy rate?

If anything, it’s the opposite, the 30% rate that keeps up on this forum is not representative of the actual situation.
Downtown Calgary’s rate is 27%, not that much higher than Edmonton‘s 19%. And the rate for class AA space is 11% which lower than in Edmonton.
The bulk of Calgary downtown vacancy rate is class C buildings (57 buildings at 37%) but as some have already pointed out, this is more of a blessing than an issue. Those getting converted to residential.
The vacancy rate is a red herring. There are still 161,000 people working downtown, which is actually more than it was 16 years ago, but the style of office space changed drastically over the years with higher density and more efficient workspaces taking over.
 
Fairly sure that 27% is actually still quite a bit higher than 19%. Perhaps good marketing can make it seem a lot better, however I would disagree that it is a red herring.

Of course office vacancy is not the only measure of success, although Edmonton's growth rate has been fairly strong recently too.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top