Edmonton Construction 9 (2008-08)

[Hardhatdan]

Yay a concept where Epcor had a through street and didn't cut a full 4 blocks off via private access way.

[kcantor]

Originally Posted by Hardhatdan

Yay a concept where Epcor had a through street and didn't cut a full 4 blocks off via private access way.

it was an internal dead-end cul de sac only as the site does not extend to 104 ave. there was no "through street" possible and even if the adjacent site could have been acquired (we tried) the preliminary sun shadow and wind studies proved those spaces to be much less hospitable in real life than you perceive them to be in plan and problematic for fire trucks and emergency services as well.

[Cow-garian]

Originally Posted by danby

its looking huge from this angle!

Thats what she said...

[Hardhatdan]

Originally Posted by cdnklc

it was an internal dead-end cul de sac only as the site does not extend to 104 ave. there was no "through street" possible and even if the adjacent site could have been acquired (we tried) the preliminary sun shadow and wind studies proved those spaces to be much less hospitable in real life than you perceive them to be in plan and problematic for fire trucks and emergency services as well.

Unless the site plan drawing is very unclear 100st extends into a round-about then splits with one leg terminating at that adjacent property. This appears to be a through street between 2 portions of the podium.
Looking at the 3D model on the stationlands site and the new site plan, does that area east of CN and south of the podium not have a very prominent entrance way, one that could be completely blocked off if the owners of the adjacent property to 104ave wanted to develop?
As for shadow and wind studies, what they indicate that as designed the space between podiums might not be hospitable, but those concerns can be addressed through creativity and engineering. It really comes down to will and resources. Is there enough will to either use the additional ressources necessary to make it happen or accept some loss of revenue due to a smaller podium and the loss of controlling pedestrian circulation for the entire length.
Those decisions were obviously made. I still disagree with them despite some obvious hurdles, but it's not my time and money.

[CMD UW]

Originally Posted by RTA

That doesn't make them a good idea or the best use of the land. At the very least we should be pushing for more mixed use developments, not more single-use developments that can only be connected by car.

Greenfield business / office parks will continue to exist, and this is a fact we can't deny. However, they should be located in areas or along corridors that are well served by transit (preferable a higher form such as BRT or LRT) and designed to promote a compact development form and high level of walkability.

A business park doesn't need to be 'mixed use' in order to achieve a sustainable built form or high level of transit accessibility.

[CMD UW]

Originally Posted by Keats82

^ But my point is that this building has more architectual detailing and such that makes it stand out more. Yes its fugly, but it's not a big box.

Some of the best designs are nothing more than simple glass square boxes.

Wing dings and other add-ons usually wreck a building.

[CMD UW]

Originally Posted by Wrecker

It isn't the Henday that is the problem, its the fact that there are such piss-poor roads into downtown nobody (not enough) wants to live or work there. A city of 1 million people needs a modern efficient roadway network....thats reality! Yes, a great LRT is also needed, but to ignore the roadway network is nuts, and is the TRUE cause of our sprawl.

Vancouver doesn't have 6-lane expressways into their downtown and it seems to be doing fine...a flawed reason you have my friend.

[itom 987]

Originally Posted by CMD UW

Wing dings and other add-ons usually wreck a building.

Then most buildings built from the roman times to 1940 are wrecked; right?

If done right, decorative add-ons can make a boring box look beautiful.

[Kevin_foster]

Originally Posted by CMD UW

Wing dings and other add-ons usually wreck a building.

^

Wing Dings and doo-dads can ruin a building sure, but I figure if they consider the entire envelope of a building, serving some sort of function and compliment it... I'm all for it. Look at the Lloyds building in London, or Pompideau in Paris; it's to serve for both function (increase room on the inside of the building) and art (complement, what I think is to be somewhat of a tribute to industry and the industrial revolution.

There are obvious exceptions, such as the ribbon around the AGA, which serves only as a form of art; but in local context... or if you consider neo-classical architecture; which the entire focus of a building lies in the details.

Pleh, I could theorize for hours. Let's just say from this point forward in human existence, no more moulding.

[itom 987]

The skills needed for designing and building decorative add-ons are rusty which is why some buildings that have decorative add-ons look bad.

[CMD UW]

Originally Posted by Hardhatdan

Unless the site plan drawing is very unclear 100st extends into a round-about then splits with one leg terminating at that adjacent property. This appears to be a through street between 2 portions of the podium.
Looking at the 3D model on the stationlands site and the new site plan, does that area east of CN and south of the podium not have a very prominent entrance way, one that could be completely blocked off if the owners of the adjacent property to 104ave wanted to develop?
As for shadow and wind studies, what they indicate that as designed the space between podiums might not be hospitable, but those concerns can be addressed through creativity and engineering. It really comes down to will and resources. Is there enough will to either use the additional ressources necessary to make it happen or accept some loss of revenue due to a smaller podium and the loss of controlling pedestrian circulation for the entire length.
Those decisions were obviously made. I still disagree with them despite some obvious hurdles, but it's not my time and money.

I totally agree with you HHD. My biggest reservation with the entire Stationlands concept is the monolithic podium that sprawls 4 blocks and essentially creates a 'wall' that separates the downtown and McCauley / Chinatown. If the podium was broken up it would help relieve its overall massing and extend the street 'grid' to the north.

[CMD UW]

Originally Posted by itom 987

Then most buildings built from the roman times to 1940 are wrecked; right?

If done right, decorative add-ons can make a boring box look beautiful.

No, that's not what I'm saying. In a post modern sense, the wing dings if not well executed, can typically ruin the building.

[Daveography]

Originally Posted by CMD UW

I totally agree with you HHD. My biggest reservation with the entire Stationlands concept is the monolithic podium that sprawls 4 blocks and essentially creates a 'wall' that separates the downtown and McCauley / Chinatown. If the podium was broken up it would help relieve its overall massing and extend the street 'grid' to the north.

While it might have been nice if it could have been broken up, it should be noted that Stationlands is not creating any "wall;" this "wall" you speak of has already existed for a very long time.

[Kevin_foster]

^ It's a good thing the people of Berlin didn't think that way!

[Keats82]

Originally Posted by cdnklc

thank you 240glt - we're also much happier with the "current reincarnation". what's been resurrected and talked about in this discussion was never an actual design, not even when it was done. it was a purely conceptual and preliminary massing model done as part of our "pre-purchase due diligence" in acquiring the site.

Oh, I have been raving with joy about the new Epcor tower to all my friends, and I hope I did not offend you. I do understand the drawing posted was a concept and my comment and mention of the picture and the current tower was only mean't to illustrate a thought I've been having for a while.

Originally Posted by CMD UW

Some of the best designs are nothing more than simple glass square boxes.

Wing dings and other add-ons usually wreck a building.

Yes, I agree with you 100% there, but all I'm trying to say is that Edmonton has a LOT of boxes with minimal flourishes or experimentation with the rectangle form, and the result is rather drab compared to some of the buildings in Calgary..

Calgary and a lot of cities seem to have more variations in altering the "big box" then compared to Edmonton, and simple architectual details that seem to have them to stand out more. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but that is how I felt when recently visiting Calgary.

I list these Edmonton buildings as an example:
-Telus Towers
-TD Tower (better after the reno)
-Bell Tower
-the two towers at City Centre Mall
-the grey ATB towers
-the CN Tower
-the tower near the Art Gallery, I think its foundation is diagonal to the street.
-ING
-The old annex of the hotel macdonald that is now a college
-the concrete energy plaza tower on 109th
-that gold monstrosity near 106th Street or so that looks good (imo, laced with sarcasm) 3 days out of the year, depending on the sunset..

All of these buildings are basically rectangles, each with details that set them apart from each other. But with so many of these buildings , I find Edmontons skyline can be boring or uninspired at times.

I hope my thought process is not coming off as negative, I am just trying to communicate my desire to see some developments that are willing to play or carve from the recangular form to breath more life into the skyline:
-spires
-multiple angles or points (manulife does this to some degree...still a big box )
-tiers that get progressively slimmer as they get higher (Quest has this to some effect, but something more dramatic in an office tower could be neato)


I'm not an architect, and I know I'm new to these forums and have much to be exposed to - I don't have the pictures to back up my points at this time, but I'm sure there are plenty of examples out there.

Actually, a few of the proposed residential towers come to mind - Abbey Lane, I think - simply because it does utilize the tier effect, and seems less straight up box-like compared to some of the other buildings I mentioned.

(Don't 🞵🞵🞵🞵 on me mentioning Abbey Lane if you don't like the tower, please. Just the best example I can think of atm to illustrate my thought.)

[Keats82]

^

After looking up some pictures of Calgary and Edmonton, I realized that Calgary does have many rectangular box buildings. Tho from some of the shots, a fair number of them utilized glass or glazing in a way which I think give them greater effect. Or more variation in length and width of their dimensions that they break the monotonous feel.

Here's hoping to see more purdy buildings in Edm in the future!

[SHOFEAR]

I wouldn't hate stationlands so much if the overlords at Qualico would stop pretending that this is some sort of gift to the city and wanting us to all bend over and 🞵🞵🞵🞵 the tassels off their shoes.

Portrait gallery = civic gift...no. Guaranteed lease, conveniently hidden in the bowels of the mall designed funnel foot traffic through the mall.

I can appreciate a developer making money, i deal with that everyday....but the spin is what makes me sick.

[Coldrsx]

Originally Posted by SHOFEAR

I can appreciate a developer making money, i deal with that everyday....but the spin is what makes me sick.

to be fair, I don't think there has been 'spin' on this...

[s211]

Originally Posted by CMD UW

I totally agree with you HHD. My biggest reservation with the entire Stationlands concept is the monolithic podium that sprawls 4 blocks and essentially creates a 'wall' that separates the downtown and McCauley / Chinatown. If the podium was broken up it would help relieve its overall massing and extend the street 'grid' to the north.

Good point you make there.

I think the "well, it was blocked before, so why change" argument is W-E-A-K. Think of downtown Boston after the big dig, and the opportunities created by re-connecting neighbourhoods that were sliced in two many decades below.

[Daveography]

^ I know I for one didn't say that (in fact I did say I would have preferred to have seen it opened up). All I wanted to point out was that in all fairness, Stationlands isn't "creating" any new walls like CMD claims.