Edmonton Construction 9 (2008-08) - Page 339

Coldrsx · #**6761** Posted **Jul 9, 2009, 9:44 PM**

^never happen... no seriously.

ue · #**6762** Posted **Jul 9, 2009, 9:55 PM**

^^Going to have to agree with Cold on this one. Sry. I think this is an opportunity for us to turn a new leaf. While this probably won't happen exactly this way, I figure closing this will be a big snowball effect for our city...could go something like this

-decision made to close CCA
-close CCA
-spur density downtown/Oliver/UofA/Quarters
-CCA redeveloped with ranges from skyscrapers to houses
-city organically builds it's skyline up between the downtown and CCA - prime spot for a new entertainment district with an arena
-rexall redeveloped into a TOD, spurring fort road
-Fort Road redeveloped
-Stadium Stn seeing Fort Road decides to redevelop
-Density/gentrification builds up in spots like Queen Mary Park and Alberta Avenue
-Etc.

canucklehead2 · #**6763** Posted **Jul 9, 2009, 10:13 PM**

I'd like to believe both of you, but I have a feeling history is going to turn out very differently... Why? Because of the rationale used for mediocrity in the past (We need to take what we can get regardless of quality)... I believe some of you agreed with this when it came to South Edmonton Common, the Baccarat Casino, Oliver Square, Rail Town, etc. Coupled with a crap local/provincial/national/global economy that doesn't seem to be bouncing back any time soon, using these same excuses seems quite logical... Correct me if I'm wrong...

Of course what helps is the estimated time frame for redevelopment, and the fact that a compromise was reached... Maybe by 2020 or 2029, we'll have gotten our collective heads out our asses and finally move beyond a wildly unsustainable way of life to something more sensible and this "take what you can get attitude" will finally be buried in the past... But somehow I'm not so sure...

ue · #**6764** Posted **Jul 9, 2009, 10:21 PM**

^But we're in a different place than we were 10yrs ago when most of that stuff was being built or built. We care a lot more about our urbanity and urban development. We've gone for example in terms of architectural quality from Grand Central Manor to Alta Vista to ICON to Azur Lofts, with a few misses like Venetian and Panache.

We're thinking bigger, with innovative ideas. Stuff like Quarters, Strathearn rejuvination, urban low floor, or let alone LRT expansion were unheard of 10yrs ago.

bulliver · #**6765** Posted **Jul 9, 2009, 10:44 PM**

I would like to think the centrally located prime land at the CCA will be much too valuable to make a generic stripmall or big-box deadzone viable.

I would also like to think that city council and the EDC have something better than mush in their brains. The plans and discussion that have been floating around bear this out...

I don't think anyone here is kidding themselves. These changes will not occur overnight, and they will probably not even begin to be realized for many years, but without yesterdays decision, they would never happen.

Kevin_foster · #**6766** Posted **Jul 9, 2009, 10:47 PM**

I think as long as we have leaders like Mandel in office, things will continue to change for this city. The moment he started in office, things started changing... for me, at a pretty conservative speed if you ask me.

I'm just nervous on who this city will elect next :S. If the Edmonton Journal commenters are any indication of where this city is going on a government level, I'm scared sh!tless

(and I'm not 100% behind everything mandel does...I still think he needs to be more aggressive in what he does - but compared to the others... he's still the best imo)

bulliver · #**6767** Posted **Jul 9, 2009, 10:54 PM**

^ Jeez, anyone would be better than Tony 'negative nancy' Caterina. I agree that he doesn't seem to like anything but XYD. Now that that's going....

deedub35 · #**6768** Posted **Jul 9, 2009, 10:58 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by edmontonenthusiast

We're not Hong Kong - we don't need supertalls yet. A few really high ones like 170m or 200m is okay, but I'd rather have 10 100m buildings built (in some areas our limit is like 80m so we'd still be benefitting from airport closure) than 2 really tall'ers.

Yes we do. We've been told for so long that we can't build high because of the airport overlay. Now that the airport overlay will be gone for 101 street west and you want to build MORE 100 m buildings! WTF? Screw that. Reach for the sky is what I say.

CanadianCentaur · #**6769** Posted **Jul 9, 2009, 11:10 PM**

Uh...I'm not sure if it's practical for Edmonton to have many highrises above the 150 m limit we currently have, especially with the way the economy's going and the vacancy rate maybe. Condos, hotels? If the economy gets worse, neither might be practical if they were quite tall. But don't get me wrong - I definitely would LOVE to see something higher than Manulife Place go up in my lifetime. Only thing is, apart from maybe the Urbia, I'm worried I might be an old, old man or even dead by the time something like that does happen.

And speaking of the Urbia...we all know the proposal does exceed the current height restrictions. This has me wondering if BKA was banking on ECCA getting shut down and so forth.

ue · #**6770** Posted **Jul 9, 2009, 11:15 PM**

^Similar story with Pearl. And deedub, we've been told we can't build 100m in many areas - namely our precious Oliver. It's baby steps. We don't need 200m tall buildings in this city, we just want them. It's a difference my friend. I personally prefer human scale, you obviously don't.

Hopefully either next term Mandel will be re elected or we get an even better mayor. Fingers crossed.

newfangled · #**6771** Posted **Jul 10, 2009, 12:14 AM**

^ forget 150m or even 100m. Removing the 45m and 60m limits is what will have the biggest impact.

ue · #**6772** Posted **Jul 10, 2009, 12:17 AM**

^That's what I was thinking. Building 95m or 100m in places like Oliver that had those restrictions would be amazing.

Kevin_foster · #**6773** Posted **Jul 10, 2009, 3:07 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by newfangled

^ forget 150m or even 100m. Removing the 45m and 60m limits is what will have the biggest impact.

Bingo Bango

240glt · #**6774** Posted **Jul 10, 2009, 4:39 AM**

Wandering around the Arbutus/ 4th st W/ Broadway corridor today, It's pretty obvious that the buildings that have had the greatest impact down here are not skyscrapers... just well executed 4-6 story condos over retail that look contemporary.

I love Edmonton, but man, every time I come home.... *sigh*

Coldrsx · #**6775** Posted **Jul 10, 2009, 4:51 AM**

^yup... it grabs hold haha.

rapid_business · #**6776** Posted **Jul 10, 2009, 5:09 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin_foster

...I'm just nervous on who this city will elect next :S. If the Edmonton Journal commenters are any indication of where this city is going on a government level, I'm scared sh!tless

Don't let those vocal idiot scare you. I have to stop myself from reading that crap sometimes.... it boils my blood how retarded people can be at times.

CMD UW · #**6777** Posted **Jul 10, 2009, 5:49 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Airboy

I expect to here an announcement of a legal challenge in the next while.

This will not go away as fast as we all hope. I lived here to long to think anything different.

But I really want it to go away Pleaseeeeeee.

They 'may' try, however, you can bet that the City's solicitors were front and centre when advising Council on the legality of certain decisions / amendments. I am not too worried about this.

CMD UW · #**6778** Posted **Jul 10, 2009, 5:51 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by canucklehead2

I'd like to believe both of you, but I have a feeling history is going to turn out very differently... Why? Because of the rationale used for mediocrity in the past (We need to take what we can get regardless of quality)... I believe some of you agreed with this when it came to South Edmonton Common, the Baccarat Casino, Oliver Square, Rail Town, etc. Coupled with a crap local/provincial/national/global economy that doesn't seem to be bouncing back any time soon, using these same excuses seems quite logical... Correct me if I'm wrong...

Of course what helps is the estimated time frame for redevelopment, and the fact that a compromise was reached... Maybe by 2020 or 2029, we'll have gotten our collective heads out our asses and finally move beyond a wildly unsustainable way of life to something more sensible and this "take what you can get attitude" will finally be buried in the past... But somehow I'm not so sure...

You will be wrong on this one my friend....

ue · #**6779** Posted **Jul 10, 2009, 5:52 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 240glt

Wandering around the Arbutus/ 4th st W/ Broadway corridor today, It's pretty obvious that the buildings that have had the greatest impact down here are not skyscrapers... just well executed 4-6 story condos over retail that look contemporary.

I love Edmonton, but man, every time I come home.... *sigh*

I'm just curious ... what makes ya stay in Edmonton then if Vancouver is great as it is? What do we have over them do you think? I'm not disagreeing or agreeing with what your saying Im just wondering.

CMD UW · #**6780** Posted **Jul 10, 2009, 5:55 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by onishenko

Don't let those vocal idiot scare you. I have to stop myself from reading that crap sometimes.... it boils my blood how retarded people can be at times.

Go to any other online newspaper and you'll find the same people making the same comments. It is NOT an indicator of what the majority believe.