Stevey_G
Active Member
I think it's definitely progress. The Parks will bring much needed density, retail, and commercial space to an otherwise dead and vacant area.
- Thread starter Daveography
- Start date
Are they just building the tower and retail podium of this section of the project? I can't see how they can start the midrise portion until they also start on the SW corner, but could be wrong.
Greenspace
Senior Member
ECA - Breaking Ground Winter 2022
Our Winter 2022 Edition of ECA Breaking Ground is now available for viewing online.
IanO
Superstar
Presumptuous and insulting to those this displaced.
Again, this is a high-quality development, but at what cost and given the ~200 years of land/FAR/Density, why here?
As someone who knew quite a few folks who lived and worked (from home) along 108st, that's not only ignorant, but blatantly insulting.
Again, this is a high-quality development, but at what cost and given the ~200 years of land/FAR/Density, why here?
dunno
Active Member
Not to mention 108th Street is mostly a dud in terms of urban experience. There's parking lots and the most boring 1-storey office structures and not much else. But, in typical Edmonton fashion, demolition-via-neglect was the way forward and it allowed the one building with any historical interest, affordable housing, local uniqueness, and "character" to be demolished. They could've literally built this up the block or across the street and I wouldn't have been mad at all.
IanO
Superstar
Bingo dunno.
TAS
Senior Member
I actually much prefer to walk down 108 street (or ride my bike) compared to 109, 107, 106 and 105 streets (between 104 to 99 ave). It's a more pleasant experience with some interesting buildings, a couple of cafes and mixed use buildings (south of Jasper), places like The Parlour and El Furniture Warehouse and a couple cool brick buildings. Traffic speeds are slower than the streets mentioned above so as a pedestrian you don't get that invasive traffic noise, either.
More people living on it will obviously help - it was good to see the conversion of the Capital office building to residential a few years ago along with the new build they added. Norquest and several government buildings and of course MacEwan University certainly add some decent foot traffic and then there's the plaza leading to the leg grounds. You can also access lrt on 108 Street (Corona station). It's got potential to be very good.
And if you don't take my word for it, how about the producers of The Last of Us who chose three Edmonton streets for filming - Rice Howard Way, 104 Street and 108 Street- Id say that gives 108 some cred.
Last edited:
dunno
Active Member
Considering the fact that the Last of Us mostly used generic "anywhere" scenes and either CGI-d the hell out of it or used extensive props to make a place look post-apocalyptic, I don't think they are indicative of what streets are thriving and which are not. They chose RHW and 104th because they have more than 1 old building on it, because apparently that's all you need to make a place look Bostonian.
I'll admit the streetscape makes 108th more pleasant than the competition, but note that I never said its neighbours weren't also duds. Most streets in Downtown Edmonton are. You're missing the point by nitpicking things that are irrelevant to my argument.
I'll admit the streetscape makes 108th more pleasant than the competition, but note that I never said its neighbours weren't also duds. Most streets in Downtown Edmonton are. You're missing the point by nitpicking things that are irrelevant to my argument.
TAS
Senior Member
I was only commenting on your statement about 108 Street being mostly a dud, not on your comment about the value of those buildings that were torn down or the people who lived on this street that was mostly a dud.
dunno
Active Member
Ok, well, it is mostly a dud. Note: mostly. Streetscape makes it more pleasant in some ways, but streets are more than sidewalks and roads, and if the urban fabric abutting it sucks and does nothing for interesting/vibrant urban spaces, then the street is still mostly a dud. Again, mostly. It's a great example of providing public investment when there's little else. 96th Street in the Quarters is another example of this.
Clearshades
Senior Member
Only time can remedy that.
Didama
Active Member
The building was left to fall into disrepair by previous owners, over many decades. Never heard a peep of complaint from anyone on here until it became clear this thing was on the chopping block. If we're going to be all high and mighty and clutching our pearls when developers come in, buy a derelict property and then propose a high quality development... perhaps it might come off as more genuine if the same people raise the pitchforks against the companies that let properties like the Mirador fall into disrepair in the first place. There is nothing insulting or presumptuous about this development. Pangman is not to blame for people being misplaced.
IanO
Superstar
I'm not placing blame on Pangman or its development partners, but rather the collective 'WE' to let this get to a point where it was inevitable and a material loss to the Downtown and community at large.
Didama
Active Member
Steve G said "I think it's definitely progress. The Parks will bring much needed density, retail, and commercial space to an otherwise dead and vacant area." to which you replied it was a "presumptuous and insulting statement."
Not gonna lie, your arguments often confuse me. This area would have been vacant and dead anyways because the previous owners of the El Mirador let it fall into disrepair to a place where it would have had to be torn down anyways. The statement that The Parks will bring density, retail etc is absolutely correct and in no way insulting.
Not gonna lie, your arguments often confuse me. This area would have been vacant and dead anyways because the previous owners of the El Mirador let it fall into disrepair to a place where it would have had to be torn down anyways. The statement that The Parks will bring density, retail etc is absolutely correct and in no way insulting.