Edmonton Construction Part 14 (October 2023) - Page 43

Ducey · #**841** Posted **Oct 31, 2024, 5:07 PM**

I wonder if that means Qualico is seeing strong leasing demand for the first building?

Not sure, but I work in Epcor Tower next door and can see a lot (like 90%) of the units are empty. Its early yet, but maybe living right next to the shelters has dissuaded renters from signing up. Its pretty grim a block North.

Too bad as its quite a nice set up. My sense are the units are small (maybe expensive?) but there a lot of nice amenities still under development including a tunnel underground to City hall/ LRT, a large courtyard, dog park, access to Epcor by pedway, various other social spaces. If there was a bit more development north of the Ice district (where Boyle Street Coop used to be) that would help too

CMD UW · #**842** Posted **Nov 1, 2024, 12:57 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ducey

I wonder if that means Qualico is seeing strong leasing demand for the first building?

Not sure, but I work in Epcor Tower next door and can see a lot (like 90%) of the units are empty. Its early yet, but maybe living right next to the shelters has dissuaded renters from signing up. Its pretty grim a block North.

Too bad as its quite a nice set up. My sense are the units are small (maybe expensive?) but there a lot of nice amenities still under development including a tunnel underground to City hall/ LRT, a large courtyard, dog park, access to Epcor by pedway, various other social spaces. If there was a bit more development north of the Ice district (where Boyle Street Coop used to be) that would help too

I was speaking with Qualico and they've leased about 55 units or so, which is good uptick considering they started leasing about a month ago.

Keep an eye on that second tower indeed

CMD UW · #**843** Posted **Nov 1, 2024, 1:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by feepa

I still feel like the above project is more suitable for outside of the core. This plot of land could be more than this couldn't it? It's adjacent to the warehouse park...

I think many are throwing shade on this project for no good reason and here's why:

1. The 'Warehouse District' was always envisioned to be developed using a low/mid-rise built form. The UW zone only permits a maximum height of 50m which is +/-15 storeys. So many of the high rise proposals that have been approved/developed were 'technically' out of character from how the City wanted the area to redevelop.

2. A 6-storey built form is not out of character for the area. In fact I think you'll see more proposals in the 6 and 10-storey range in this district in the near future (Let's see what Autograph is likely proposing for their Shift site - I'll bet $ that it's not a high-rise).

3. Much of this projects success will be predicated on materiality. From what I can depict from the renderings I think they are proposing a nice material palette with a decent amount of red brick, which aligns with the primary design intent of the Warehouse District. Read the UW zone and you'll see what I mean.

4. Human-scale. I know we all get hard ons for tall buildings, but a great city isn't built around 'tall buildings'. What I like about this project is the fact that it is more human-scaled versus a typical high-rise. If this were the podium of a tower I don't think anyone would be complaining. BFD that there isn't a tower.

5. Downtown population growth. We keep talking about needing to bring more people into the downtown core area and this does it. And because of its scale they will be able to turn this around and get it occupied much, much quicker versus a high-rise project. And that is a very good thing.

Slide · #**844** Posted **Nov 1, 2024, 5:03 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CMD UW

I think many are throwing shade on this project for no good reason and here's why:

1. The 'Warehouse District' was always envisioned to be developed using a low/mid-rise built form. The UW zone only permits a maximum height of 50m which is +/-15 storeys. So many of the high rise proposals that have been approved/developed were 'technically' out of character from how the City wanted the area to redevelop.

2. A 6-storey built form is not out of character for the area. In fact I think you'll see more proposals in the 6 and 10-storey range in this district in the near future (Let's see what Autograph is likely proposing for their Shift site - I'll bet $ that it's not a high-rise).

3. Much of this projects success will be predicated on materiality. From what I can depict from the renderings I think they are proposing a nice material palette with a decent amount of red brick, which aligns with the primary design intent of the Warehouse District. Read the UW zone and you'll see what I mean.

4. Human-scale. I know we all get hard ons for tall buildings, but a great city isn't built around 'tall buildings'. What I like about this project is the fact that it is more human-scaled versus a typical high-rise. If this were the podium of a tower I don't think anyone would be complaining. BFD that there isn't a tower.

5. Downtown population growth. We keep talking about needing to bring more people into the downtown core area and this does it. And because of its scale they will be able to turn this around and get it occupied much, much quicker versus a high-rise project. And that is a very good thing.

These are my own reasons for throwing shade on the project:

1. Why build a huge park to boost land value and incentivize development and then in that exact same area limit height? Those seem like conflicting goals. Despite whatever arbitrary vision the city wished for the area, it has completely been destroyed with the precedent setting construction of the Parks tower.

2. That built form in the area was set by 50+ years of an airport runway overlay. Doesn't seem like a good reason to keep it going.

3. By that metric, the building designs of festival way in Sherwoord park are of worthy of downtown Edmonton. Which is fine if that's your opinion, but I dont think it's suitable for the downtown of any major Canadian city.

Let's not kid ourselves and suggest that the proposed design is far off of those Sherwood park buildings; in fact you could make a case that it's worse. Also the setback from the south facing units/balconies would break any streetwall effect on the road. Strange that it's permitted.

4. ?? Great cities have that scale and high class building design/old world design, and about a 1001 other things. The human-scale of Heritage Valley is really ticking the boxes of a great city. Building these subpar designs downtown isnt going to turn us into Barcelona. These are amongst the weakest arguments i hear on this website. "a great city isn't built around 'tall buildings'" is admittedly true, but if you're suggesting this proposal is fulfilling that intent just because it's 'human-scale'...

What I like about this project is the fact that it is more human-scaled versus a typical high-rise -

there is literally nothing more typical in Edmonton than this type of proposed building. Most of the proposals in this construction thread is this same building design churned out across the city. From the far-flung suburbs, to the areas around the university. It literally doesn't get more typical than this.

5. Scrap that, this argument is even weaker. "Better than a parking lot!". Really reaching for the stars here

ciudad_del_norte · #**845** Posted **Nov 1, 2024, 6:15 PM**

I'm with CMD on this one, and maybe actually have the opposite opinion of most. I'm excited to see a proposal like this one. Something of a decent urban scale that might actually get built.

Zoning and land development is a lot more complicated than limiting height, airport overlays etc. Allowing higher buildings in the standard zoning doesn't guarantee the height will be built, and can inflate the land values. The city is obviously open to higher developments here, and has entertained a number of rezonings over the years - most of which have not materialized into anything. Sure, the citycould upzone everything but then we have a bunch of property that people want high rise prices for when there isn't a market for that level of highrise development. And as a result nothing continues to happen. This development still does what we're looking for, which is bring density to the area and seems like exactly the sort of the thing that should be pretty easy to develop within regulations.

This is a skyscraper forum, so I can appreciate that's not particularily exciting on that front. But while it may not necesarily boost our skyline ego, I think this is exactly the type of project that will help make a difference downtown and would be happy to see more midrise in the area.

Great cities have a lot of things including a mix of scales and housing types. Besides certain some very few select areas of very select cities with economics that are very different than Edmonton, most of them are actually made up of a lot decent buildings, often of a scale comparable to this. They may be older and inspire more architectural interest for that reason, but are at their most basic - a version of a whatever was in style at the time, replicated all over and otherwise unremarkable medium density developments. They provide a base level of activity that supports both commercial and concentrated areas of even higher density and activity. They foster continuous street frontage. There is also an argument to be made that mid-rise developments actually often have a better relationship with the street because it is at human scale where you can see and interact with what is happening. This is part of the reason this scale is what many find so endearing in europe, the buildings feel like they are part of the street in a way that towers don't. Particularily within an area that can feel a bit barren, I'd argue that having a sense of people nearby vs tucked away in tower offset by a podium will actually have a better impact on how it feels on the ground.

Are people going to stop and take pictures of it? Probably not. Is entering downtown from 109 st on 102 st going to feel more urban and developed? Yes. Is it kind of "filler". Yeah probably. Not sure I think that is a bad thing. Not everything needs to be a signature tower. Not everything is going to be a signature tower.

I also think that with all the density to the west, some of the best hope for improvement downtown is actually growth moving east from around 109 Street. There are a lot of services there for actual residents whereas the more commercial core (101 St ish) area is mostly set up for office workers and lunch. I think demand spilling over 109 street from Wihkwentowin will help pull some of that activity east. If we start to see more development (including mid rises) and activity bridges between Wihkwentowin and 104 street I think downtown would be a very different place. I'm happy to see some steps towards that and hope we see more of this. I think this is decent downtown urban infill for the size fo the site and the location. And hey, if that area starts to feel more like a place where people live then there probably will be more towers. There is still plenty of land to build them on.

GenWhy? · #**846** Posted **Nov 1, 2024, 6:46 PM**

Didn't The Shift recently go from a high-rise to a mid-rise as well?

I don't think concrete high-rises are in heavy demand in downtown Edmonton.

CMD UW · #**847** Posted **Nov 2, 2024, 5:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Didn't The Shift recently go from a high-rise to a mid-rise as well?

I don't think concrete high-rises are in heavy demand in downtown Edmonton.

The Shift will not be a high rise.

High rise economics are tough in this market mainly related to cost (construction and capital) and of course revenue. Our rents just aren't there yet to generate the yields to offset risk.

Coldrsx · #**848** Posted **Nov 2, 2024, 8:51 PM**

Hearing '10' storeys for Shift with some serious density.

itom 987 · #**849** Posted **Nov 3, 2024, 11:00 PM**

This project is 100% urban and activates the sidewalk on both sides, suburban projects don't do that. The height limit has been removed and we are seeing tall buildings get proposed, and built on a regular basis. The skyline has already changed dramatically and will continue to do so, as a result the image Edmonton projects to the world has changed for the better. Right now our priority should be fixing the city's torn urban fabric. It is time to get all those vacant lots developed. I like that the building covers a large footprint, we need projects like this now more than ever.

feepa · #**850** Posted **Nov 4, 2024, 3:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by itom 987

This project is 100% urban and activates the sidewalk on both sides, suburban projects don't do that.

bzzt wrong. This project would fit right into the suburbs. Sidewalk activation and all

GenWhy? · #**851** Posted **Nov 4, 2024, 6:25 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CMD UW

The Shift will not be a high rise.

High rise economics are tough in this market mainly related to cost (construction and capital) and of course revenue. Our rents just aren't there yet to generate the yields to offset risk.

That's what I mean. The Shift going from high-rise design to a smaller building is just responding the the local economics. Not everything needs to be an expensive concrete building. The rents I'm seeing for downtown apartments just didn't seem like there was that big of a market out there.

The two Mercury Block buildings are adding great character to 124 st area btw. Just lots of good infill all around lately.

GenWhy? · #**852** Posted **Nov 4, 2024, 6:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by feepa

bzzt wrong. This project would fit right into the suburbs. Sidewalk activation and all

I think that just means that the suburbs are doing better, IMO

ciudad_del_norte · #**853** Posted **Nov 5, 2024, 1:08 AM**

Context, and to some degree materials, will do a lot of work here. A decently designed midrise could fit into either/both

Make it a bit more set back, put it next to a large surface parking lot and add a school field across the street it's suburban.

Put it along the sidewalk along a busy bike route at the west end of downtown where it fills in a block face alongside buildings of its scale or larger and it's urban.

Coldrsx · #**854** Posted **Nov 6, 2024, 12:51 PM**

https://www.linkedin.com/company/maclab-development-group/posts/?feedView=all

CMD UW · #**855** Posted **Nov 6, 2024, 7:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

That's what I mean. The Shift going from high-rise design to a smaller building is just responding the the local economics. Not everything needs to be an expensive concrete building. The rents I'm seeing for downtown apartments just didn't seem like there was that big of a market out there.

The two Mercury Block buildings are adding great character to 124 st area btw. Just lots of good infill all around lately.

Shift will still be concrete, just not a high rise.

CMD UW · #**856** Posted **Nov 6, 2024, 7:52 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ciudad_del_norte

Context, and to some degree materials, will do a lot of work here. A decently designed midrise could fit into either/both

Make it a bit more set back, put it next to a large surface parking lot and add a school field across the street it's suburban.

Put it along the sidewalk along a busy bike route at the west end of downtown where it fills in a block face alongside buildings of its scale or larger and it's urban.

This is correct. The design can fit into many contexts.