Edmonton Construction 9 (2008-08) - Page 460

noodlenoodle · #**9181** Posted **Nov 17, 2009, 3:44 PM**

I think the reason I've got such an issue with Century and the Icons is we've literally put mediocre architecture/finishing/design up on actual pedestals. All three buildings would be much better located somewhere else where their fauxstorical podiums wouldn't have been required.

kcantor · #**9182** Posted **Nov 17, 2009, 4:38 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by edmontonenthusiast

Here, you can't see the whole building as this was intended to be artistic, but instead you get a close up of the monstrosity.

from a little higher up - not nearly as "artistic" but by the same token it clearly (or not so clearly - it is a blackberry photo after all) shows that the icons are far from the "worst offenders" in our building inventory. and the vitriol they seem to attract (monstrosity???) seems to be a mix of too personal bridge burning and/or simply not knowing any better and repeating either for the sake of controversy or to appear worldly while proving otherwise (the artistry certainly being better than the commentary in this instance).

sure some of the detailing could have been executed better (and i have posted along those lines) but sometimes you just have to wonder about what gets posted and what gets said...

kcantor · #**9183** Posted **Nov 17, 2009, 4:40 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by noodlenoodle

I think the reason I've got such an issue with Century and the Icons is we've literally put mediocre architecture/finishing/design up on actual pedestals. All three buildings would be much better located somewhere else where their fauxstorical podiums wouldn't have been required.

not running them into the ground at every opportunity is a long way from "putting them on pedestals" even though i think you may have been referring to their podiums...

Wooster · #**9184** Posted **Nov 17, 2009, 4:43 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by cdnklc

and right below that is a much newer four storey frame vinyl clad piece of *&^%... proving perhaps that the market will get what the market is prepared to pay for regardless of where the market is.

That building predates the Beltline ARP. Probably about 10 years old when there was almost literally zero residential market in the beltline. You couldn't build that — anymore - not from a market or urban design policy perspective.

kcantor · #**9185** Posted **Nov 17, 2009, 4:58 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by cdnklc

and right below that is a much newer four storey frame vinyl clad piece of *&^%... proving perhaps that the market will get what the market is prepared to pay for regardless of where the market is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wooster

That building predates the Beltline ARP. Probably about 10 years old when there was almost literally zero residential market in the beltline. You couldn't build that — anymore - not from a market or urban design policy perspective.

i think we're saying much the same thing - the market will get what both sides in the market are prepared to pay for. and neither "side" of the market can force the other to underwrite or subsidize what they are prepared to pay for their side of it, something that doesn't get recognized here nearly enough...

CMD UW · #**9186** Posted **Nov 17, 2009, 5:02 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by noodlenoodle

I've got more faith in Procura starting anything before Vinterra.

Mayfair yes, that's a rental project, different dynamics. The next condo would be Valleyview imo.

Although I forgot about Azure, perhaps they'll move on this?!?

Jasper and one o nin · #**9187** Posted **Nov 17, 2009, 5:15 PM**

^No, it wont be. I know. Valleyview is dead for now

tallisgood · #**9188** Posted **Nov 17, 2009, 5:32 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jasper and one o nin

^No, it wont be. I know. Valleyview is dead for now

Damn! I really wanted to see that get built.

240glt · #**9189** Posted **Nov 17, 2009, 5:54 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wooster

That building predates the Beltline ARP. Probably about 10 years old when there was almost literally zero residential market in the beltline. You couldn't build that — anymore - not from a market or urban design policy perspective.

Literally zero residential market ? C'mon man, we're not that naive up here. When I bought my condo in the beltline in '02 after having lived in the area for a year, the area market was very strong, & it had been for some time.

In spite of that gems like that POS at 15th & around 11thst still got put up as recently as 2003. Things may have changed recently, but the beltline still got it's share of '—' well into the 2000's.

Wooster · #**9190** Posted **Nov 17, 2009, 6:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 240glt

Literally zero residential market ? C'mon man, we're not that naive up here. When I bought my condo in the beltline in '02 after having lived in the area for a year, the area market was very strong, & it had been for some time.

In spite of that gems like that POS at 15th & around 11thst still got put up as recently as 2003. Things may have changed recently, but the beltline still got it's share of '—' well into the 2000's.

Oh I agree change has been relatively recent - but it has also been very rapid. There had been the odd stick-built low rise or townhouse here and there in the late 80s, 90s and early 2000s, but the Emerald Stone was literally the first building taller than 4-5 storeys that had been built in the Beltline in 20 years. Population growth had been steadily negative for about 15 years. Emerald Stone was completed in 2004 I believe. The Beltline ARP passed in 2006.

Kevin_foster · #**9191** Posted **Nov 17, 2009, 6:45 PM**

RE: Professional building.

Pic from Noodlenoodle

Note how the east side of the building is spotlighted, and the main entrance is well lit... very well executed!

Kevin_foster · #**9192** Posted **Nov 17, 2009, 6:47 PM**

- which replaced this:

from: http://www.flickr.com/photos/one42chrisp/734811250/

noodlenoodle · #**9193** Posted **Nov 17, 2009, 7:17 PM**

I had every intention of correcting the perspective shift in that professional bldg shot to make it straight, but technical issues abound (damn, I hate Adobe!)

Pic has an interesting comment on it on my flickr. "the glow of the lighting is nice, but the building is no match for the classic structure that once stood there :/ "

240glt · #**9194** Posted **Nov 17, 2009, 8:27 PM**

Here's a sneak peek at the last phase of the Northlands expansion that will be turned over next month:

Looking down at the east mall from the 4th level pedway

New ballroom

East mall

New entrance

New halls G & H

And a bonus skyline shot from the roof

0773|=\ · #**9195** Posted **Nov 17, 2009, 9:08 PM**

^Nice skyline density from that angle!

Thanks for pics of the Northlands expansion, 240glt!

0773|=\ · #**9196** Posted **Nov 17, 2009, 9:10 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CMD UW

Although I forgot about Azure, perhaps they'll move on this?!?

I echo this question. This is the one I am most curious/potentially excited about. IMO, this is the only other residential development in this city that rivals Cascadia.

240glt · #**9197** Posted **Nov 17, 2009, 9:15 PM**

I thought the Jasper facing ground level (assumably retail) portion or Azur was going to be started fairly soon.

noodlenoodle · #**9198** Posted **Nov 17, 2009, 9:20 PM**

Would it make sense to use the Cascadia site for staging between Mayfair and Azur?

TimB09 · #**9199** Posted **Nov 17, 2009, 9:31 PM**

Any chance we see The Pearl as the next condo that goes up? I know it just got approved...

240glt · #**9200** Posted **Nov 17, 2009, 9:32 PM**

^^ I would imagine that having an empty lot across from the construction site will be nice for having space for sea cans, site trailers and parking, but it'll still be a tight build given how busy 109th and Jasper are.