News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 10K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 41K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.7K     0 

I'm happy with more housing for 280 or so people along the Valley Line West.

The north and west parking lots of Meadowlark mall would make a lot of sense for higher density development like this.
 
Barnaby said:
I'm happy with more housing for 280 or so people along the Valley Line West.

The north and west parking lots of Meadowlark mall would make a lot of sense for higher density development like this.
Click to expand...

Meadowlark Mall is absolutely ripe for TOD, similar to what's being planned for Bonnie Doon Mall and Millwoods Town Center. They would be fools to ignore this.
I say this from the perspective of never having set foot inside Meadowlark Mall ever since WEM came into being.
 
Gronk! said:
Meadowlark Mall is absolutely ripe for TOD, similar to what's being planned for Bonnie Doon Mall and Millwoods Town Center. They would be fools to ignore this.
I say this from the perspective of never having set foot inside Meadowlark Mall ever since WEM came into being.
Click to expand...
I think it’ll be decades away.

Technically there’s already TOD (the seniors apartments) which took up the old parking lot.

But there’s so much land along SPR, 156, and 87ave that highly utilized parking lots for a now very stable medical centre/strip mall complex, isn’t a near term chance to be redeveloped. 104th ave brewery district tower lots likely happen before meadowlark. Maclabs 87/170th massive site too.
 
IMG_2305.png
 
Two redeeming factors of this development is it will be near the LRT stop adding a bit more density, and second, at least they are moving forward as compared to Regency sitting on their hands on one of the most significant derelict EMPTY LOTS in the Edmonton region.
 
There are no redeeming factors! zero, none, nada, nicht-nicht, nay-nay, nein-nein, no, no, NO! I am starting to feel like there is no valid commentary left in SRC -- Everything gets a pass. Crap on top of crap -- always with a lame excuse like "well its cheaper to build this than that"; "well at least it is replacing a parking lot"; "well at least it is adding density". The quality of Architecture in Edmonton has to start going up. There seem to be more developers interested in the Grand Rip-off than doing anything that has a sense of quality to it.
 
I don't like this building either.

More housing for people that need it is a huge redeeming quality for many of us. I share a lot of your feelings about subpar building techniques, but I'm admittedly quite apologetic to certain projects because I have friends who are struggling to find affordable housing. I don't want them to stress about their rent payments, and increasing the supply is the number one way to ensure Edmonton remains affordable for all.

Most of us want better architecture. Less wood framed mid-rises, or atleast tasteful versions of them. I don't think I'm going to find many objecting to the projects built by Autograph, Beljan, MacLab, Five Oaks, One Properties. We all wish that list was bigger.

Sometimes it just seems like anything which doesn't meet your standard is not worth seeing the light of day.
 
@Barnaby it would be one thing if the crap that was passing for livable architecture actually had lower rents making them more affordable, but in my experience they don't -- advantage goes to the developer who charges market rate for substandard effort. I know we live in a capitalist society so there is that (and I wouldn't have it any other way). But Architects are supposed to be trained to find the best solutions and the list of developers that you provide moves powerfully in the direction of hiring good and responsible architects, many others not so much!. It would be great if we could add to that list by a factor of at least three-fold in a City as big and as full of opportunity as Edmonton. I would add Qualico, the Hat guys, and Katz to that list... and institutionally, NorQuest, MacU, UofA, NAIT, and King's University. And in the realm of affordable housing Leston is showing the way (so far).
 
MacLac said:
View attachment 624900
Click to expand...
Along with the building design, it's disappointing to see the interior space used for more parking. Some green/community gathering space would have been nice.

I recently came across the previous Aresenal Football Club stadium in London that was converted into housing (new stadium is only a few blocks away). The interior is all community gardens and other gathering space.

Screenshot_20250105_153350_YouTube.jpg
 
TAS said:
Along with the building design, it's disappointing to see the interior space used for more parking. Some green/community gathering space would have been nice.
Click to expand...
I fully agree. It pains me to see another apartment building with surface parking. Hard fail, hard pass.
 
People complain about the inability to live in an apartment and have kids, but look at the product that is being built. Replacing the parking lot with a green space where residents could keep an eye on their kids would be great.

More apartments across the street from school parks and playgrounds are also needed, but I agree completely regarding the need for community spaces.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top