What do you think of this project?

  • Total voters
    46
The hotel part could be "101-102 we have a room for you"; the office could be "101-102 we allow lawyers, too"; the retail could be 101-102 pay at the counter when you're through"; the residences could be "101-102 whew what a view"; the restaurant could be "101-102 dinner for two" and the pub could be "could I have another beer please?"
 
@Daveography Nice to meet you, too! :)

I think that the tower is pretty good, and I kinda like the jutting box on top, too.But in the end it's DER's choice if they want to make some of the recommended adjustments.

Also, my first EDC meeting was pretty good. I think that I might also come to the next one, as there is a formal presentation for the new Fort Edmonton Park entrance, and I volunteer at the park, so...
 
Here's the details I collected from the meeting last night:
  • 50 stories
  • 175m (max)
  • FAR 16
  • 371 units
  • 168 hotel rooms
  • Main floor retail
  • 6 levels underground parking
  • 460 vehicle stalls
  • 86 bike stalls
  • Streetscaping will be a continuation of the design typology of the Valley Line along 102 Ave and the Rice Howard Way redesign coming soon
  • 3-story podium, upper two levels cantilevered over the sidewalk with pot downlighting
  • Podium clad in glass and marble-like materials
  • Podium will mainly be hotel amenities; no active uses on the podium roof
  • Likely pedway into Enbridge, possible pedway to ECC East
  • Floors 4-19 will be combined residential and hotel with bulkier floorplates
  • Floors 20-44 will be residential in a thinner floorplate (like JW Marriott tower)
  • Floors 46-47 will be residential amenity (in that cantilevered box in the render I posted)
  • Additional hotel amenity at penthouse level
  • Angular north-south elevations (See below)
  • Protruding balconies


tower-on-bmo-site.jpg

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/bmo-site-high-rise-tower-downtown-edmonton-1.4865893
 
Last edited:
Likes:
  • Tall with a reasonable floorplate that isn't bulky
  • Good focus on pedestrian realm, podium is not bad
  • Mixed use is good
  • I like what they were going for with the angular profile

Dislikes:
  • Poor execution of angular profile
  • Protruding balconies really don't look good in this context, and don't play as well with the angles
  • That dead line between the hotel and residential portions
  • Protruding boxes - not a fan of this trend
  • Combined hotel and residential on the lower floors and splitting up the amenities is really bizarre and seems needlessly complex
Der did not provide a materials board, which is kind of unbelievable as this is at least his fourth project to go to EDC. He also seemed very uncertain about his own podium treatment in relation to the surrounding context (namely on 101 St and Enbridge Centre), which was...concerning. I like the guy enough, but he really comes across as bush league with stuff like that.
 
Last edited:
Powerful design -- nice vertical delineation between hotel and condos and prominent return of the splicing vertical line as it heads to the top of the tower. Playful use of jutting boxes at podium and at upper levels. This is by far DER's best effort and a promising move away from Mondrianism. This is MUCH better than I had anticipated -- kudos to developer and architects! Finally a tall building with interest on all facades, different one from the other.
 
Oh Jim

C.1. 101 Tower / BMO Site (Rezoning)
Jimmy Amichandwala - Der Architects

MOVED: M. Figueira
Motion of non-support

SECONDED: A. Zepp

It is the opinion of the Committee that this project has not been developed to a level of
detailed refinement expected of a development permit submission. Of note:
● The submission is lacking important information - namely, there is no material
sample board or site context plan provided (ie. showing the setbacks of the proposed
tower from adjacent buildings).
● With respect to materials, the submission lacks information regarding the specific
materiality of key facade elements including the podium and tower, soffits and
balconies, and roof decks. More information is required, confirming the use of glass
panels in the building relative to the new energy code requirements.
● More consideration is needed related to building entrances, and in particular,
accommodating hotel vehicular drop-off and loading (eg. lack of drop-off area, porte
cochere, etc)
● More consideration is needed of how the building responds to and integrates with
proposed designs for Rice Howard Way and 102 Avenue ( in particular the LRT / bike
lane), and if changes to the building form and footprint are needed to address these
anticipated streetscapes.

CARRIED
FOR THE MOTION: R. Labonte, M. Figueira, W. Sims, T. Antoniuk, S. Kaznacheeva,
A. Zepp, D. Brown, B. Nolan, J. Mills
Click to expand...

https://www.edmonton.ca/city_government/documents/PDF/EdmontonDesignCommittee_Oct16_2018_Minutes.pdf
 
Attended their second go at EDC last night. Nothing new presented, except for a bunch of excuses why they didn't do a materials board, why they couldn't provide details about the podium, etc.

There's no place to put in a hotel drop-off zone, which you can imagine how well that will go over on Rice Howard Way, which already gets plugged up with cars lining up at the Central Station access like the whole area is a kiss-and-ride.

No hotelier is lined up, which is why they don't want to provide specifics on the podium, as they want to be changeable depending on who might sign on.

Honestly less impressed with this proposal than I was before. I really get the sense that Regency is fumbling through this one. Who gets this far into a proposal to build a hotel without having a hotelier lined up?
 
Daveography said:
Attended their second go at EDC last night. Nothing new presented, except for a bunch of excuses why they didn't do a materials board, why they couldn't provide details about the podium, etc.

There's no place to put in a hotel drop-off zone, which you can imagine how well that will go over on Rice Howard Way, which already gets plugged up with cars lining up at the Central Station access like the whole area is a kiss-and-ride.

No hotelier is lined up, which is why they don't want to provide specifics on the podium, as they want to be changeable depending on who might sign on.

Honestly less impressed with this proposal than I was before. I really get the sense that Regency is fumbling through this one. Who gets this far into a proposal to build a hotel without having a hotelier lined up?
Click to expand...

Yikes... that doesn't bode well for a development or progression. Regency needs some urgency!
 
@Daveography, I can't imagine that the site is suited to a conventional porte cochere (think the new hotel scheduled for 104th street which doesn't have one either). I think that I have opined before that they ought to close 100A street to vehicular traffic anyway. That way they could develop a "drop off" on 102Ave. at the street terminus that would suffice for the hotel. I understand that this proposal was thrown together quickly, recalling that Regency hadn't planned to proceed to demolition so quickly. And the need for a management contract with an hotelier needs to come before Development Permits isn't always true either -- I just got a project permitted (a building permit no less) that has an hotel component -- my client doesn't even want to entertain discussions with anyone until the project is well under construction.
 
@archited They did inquire about 102 Ave with the city, but with the LRT coming that was a no-go.

I think if you're holding back on making design decisions that could affect a) EDC approval, b) your DP, and c) your upcoming BP application, you should probably at least be in talks with someone.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top