Edmonton Construction 11 (November 2011)

[Coldrsx]

Important or not, it is an embarrassing addition to the downtown.

[Shodan]

Now go watch Hunger Games in style for twice the price....


VIP movie theatre set to open in city April 20

Bill Mah
Edmonton Journal

Tuesday, March 27, 2012

Cineplex Entertainment says it will open the company's first Alberta VIP movie theatre in Edmonton on April 20.

Cineplex Odeon Windermere and VIP Cinemas will be an 11-screen, 49,000-square-foot theatre at the Currents of Windermere shopping development near Terwillegar Drive and Anthony Henday Drive.

Three of the auditoriums will be VIP Cinemas - a premium, adults-only movie-going experience. For a charge of up to $10 more for a 3-D movie, moviegoers receive reserved seating in large leather seats with more legroom and movable tray tables. VIP customers can also order from in-seat menu service.

The theatre complex will also feature a licensed lounge, seven traditional auditoriums and one UltraAVX auditorium - which has a larger screen, reserved seating and higher resolution digital projection and upgraded sound for up to $5 more per 3-D movie.

An adults-only lounge will serve a menu including calamari, chicken wings and wraps. Cineplex says the theatre will be the first in Edmonton to serve Poptopia, the company's premium popcorn brand that includes sweet and savoury flavours such as cookies and cream and caramel.

"By offering VIP Cinemas, UltraAVX and traditional auditoriums, Cineplex Odeon Windermere and VIP Cinemas will provide a unique movie-going experience for everyone," said Pat Marshall, Cineplex vice-president of communications, in a release. "With great onscreen entertainment and an expanded food selection, our guests can spend their entire evening at the theatre for a complete night out."

[email protected] twitter.com/mahspace
© Edmonton Journal 2012

Copyright © 2012 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks Publications, Inc.. All rights reserved.
CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks Publications, Inc.. All rights reserved.

http://www2.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=ea8cccc8-54fd-4862-b3ad-aa9d0fb42b05&sponsor=

[Coldrsx]

It will be interesting to see how this does for the last thing I would want to do is eat marginal enhanced food (Popcorn/nachos is plenty good) and pay upwards of $20 for a movie.

[Jasper and one o nin]

^ I agree, but demographically speaking, Alberta has the highest income among all provinces, most disposable income, and the fewest number of University graduates.
Beer over martinis, nachos over cocktail weinies and caviar, Hunger games over Tchaikovsky

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/81-595-m/2009075/c-g/c-g3-eng.htm

Government of Alberta. (2011). Facts on Alberta: Living and Doing Business in Alberta. Edmonton: Government of Alberta. ISBN: 978-0-7785-9710-0 print

[Coldrsx]

Family friendly housing guidelines from Vancouver for those interested:

This is from the False Creek North ODP

Quote:
Twenty-five percent of the total number of dwelling units shall be suitable for families with small children, as defined in Guidelines for High Density Housing for Families with Children adopted by City Council May 30, 1989.
From the Coal Harbour ODP
Quote:
Twenty-five percent of the total number of the basic residential allowance of dwelling units shall be suitable for families with small children, as defined in Guidelines for High Density Housing
for Families with Children adopted by City Council May 30, 1989, and as amended from time to time.

Even as well back as 74 the city's False creek ODP
Quote:
(d) Household Mix – The following household types should be provided as basin-wide objective:
Families with children 25 percent
Couples (young and mature) 25 percent
Elderly 15 percent
Singles 35 percent

The SEFC ODP required 25%,35% and even 50%.
Quote:
(i) with respect to families, 35% of the residential units in areas 1A, 2A, 3A, and 3B, and 25% of the residential units in areas 1B, 2B, and 3C are to be suitable for families with small children, in accordance with the High-Density Housing for Families with Children Guidelines adopted by Council on March 24, 1992;
(j) with respect to the affordable housing units in areas 1A, 2A, and 3A, priority is to be on family housing, with 50% of the non-market units to be suitable for families with small children, and integration of the units into each residential area;
(k) 25% of the market housing in areas 1A, 2A, and 3A, and 25% of the modest market housing in areas 1A and 3A, are to be suitable for families with small children; and

[240glt]

Originally Posted by Jasper and one o nin

^ I agree, but demographically speaking, Alberta has the highest income among all provinces, most disposable income, and the fewest number of University graduates.
Beer over martinis, nachos over cocktail weinies and caviar, Hunger games over Tchaikovsky

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/81-595-m/2009075/c-g/c-g3-eng.htm

Government of Alberta. (2011). Facts on Alberta: Living and Doing Business in Alberta. Edmonton: Government of Alberta. ISBN: 978-0-7785-9710-0 print

Well that's a mighty snotty attitude. I know a lot of university grads who've got no class whatsoever, and I know lots of blue collar/ trades types who also enjoy the finer things. I guess it's easier to stereotype.


Anyways... Looks like Epcor tower has had some more space absorbed

120805450-001
20-Mar-2012
10423 - 101 STREET NW
Plan 4812NY Lot 98B
To construct Interior Alterations to
an Office Building. 8th. floor (
Rancho and Bee Clean).
KASIAN ARCHITECTURE, CHRISTIAAN Value: $ 300,000 Site Area:
Type: Office Buildings (520)
(03) Interior Alterations
Area: 1776 Units: 0
DOWNTOWN



99704029-007
15-Mar-2012
10813 - 82 AVENUE NW
Plan 4400R Blk 171 Lot 4
To construct a 3 Storey Building
with the following Uses: Main
floor General Retail, second and
third floor Health Service (Office).
This includes 6 RTU's. No
washrooms or demising walls.
CHAN-ENG HOLDING LTD Value: $ 0 Site Area:

[Jasper and one o nin]

^ actually that's a good point. I didn't intend on being stereotypical - I was trying to consider the lens that Cineplex would look through. Edmonton has been a testing ground for corporations looking at moving their brand into Canadian markets b/c of our unique demographics.
But you're right, I was probably generalizing.

[Coldrsx]

So Enbridge is taking another 75,000sqft in downtown Edmonton... Manulife Place.

In the past 6 months they have absorbed 223,000sqft!!!

http://www.avisonyoung.com/sites/default/files/market-intelligence/2012Q1_Office_Report_0.pdf

[rapid_business]

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

It will be interesting to see how this does for the last thing I would want to do is eat marginal enhanced food (Popcorn/nachos is plenty good) and pay upwards of $20 for a movie.

I'm still waiting for someone to copy this format: http://www.livingroomtheaters.com/

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

So Enbridge is taking another 75,000sqft in downtown Edmonton... Manulife Place.

In the past 6 months they have absorbed 223,000sqft!!!

http://www.avisonyoung.com/sites/default/files/market-intelligence/2012Q1_Office_Report_0.pdf

That is awesome! If only they would plan for a consolidated building in 10 years or so for a nice huge addition downtown.

[kcantor]

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

Family friendly housing guidelines from Vancouver for those interested:

This is from the False Creek North ODP

Quote:
Twenty-five percent of the total number of dwelling units shall be suitable for families with small children, as defined in Guidelines for High Density Housing for Families with Children adopted by City Council May 30, 1989.
From the Coal Harbour ODP
Quote:
Twenty-five percent of the total number of the basic residential allowance of dwelling units shall be suitable for families with small children, as defined in Guidelines for High Density Housing
for Families with Children adopted by City Council May 30, 1989, and as amended from time to time.

Even as well back as 74 the city's False creek ODP
Quote:
(d) Household Mix – The following household types should be provided as basin-wide objective:
Families with children 25 percent
Couples (young and mature) 25 percent
Elderly 15 percent
Singles 35 percent

The SEFC ODP required 25%,35% and even 50%.
Quote:
(i) with respect to families, 35% of the residential units in areas 1A, 2A, 3A, and 3B, and 25% of the residential units in areas 1B, 2B, and 3C are to be suitable for families with small children, in accordance with the High-Density Housing for Families with Children Guidelines adopted by Council on March 24, 1992;
(j) with respect to the affordable housing units in areas 1A, 2A, and 3A, priority is to be on family housing, with 50% of the non-market units to be suitable for families with small children, and integration of the units into each residential area;
(k) 25% of the market housing in areas 1A, 2A, and 3A, and 25% of the modest market housing in areas 1A and 3A, are to be suitable for families with small children; and

and for those who are interested in knowing how successful those policies have been (from "blocktalk" for false creek north):

Total Adult Population 7,128
Single 43.8%
Married 39.1%
With post-secondary ed. 80.3%
Total Families 1,932
Couples with children at home 28.0%
Married with children at home 27.4%
Common-law with children at home 0.6%
Lone parent families 12.5%
Avg. number of children/family 0.5
Total Households 3,968
Owners 48.3%
Renters 51.7%
Houses 2.0%
Apartments 97.5%
Avg. household income $110,648


it's tough to corelate these but of just under 4,000 households, it would seem like less than half are occupied by families and only 40% of those include children which is give or take under 20% of all households. for comparison, oliver is give or take just under 10% of units with children and downtown edmonton is in fact almost 8% (470 of 6,125)...

i have not been able to source a breakdown on the age of those children (i.e. preschool/primary/secondary/post education age) living in falsecreek north but i believe the school board does track that for elementary and secondary catchment areas in edmonton (open borders notwithstanding).

on the assumption that not all dwellings suitable for children will ever be occupied by family units that actually include children either initially or because the children ultimately leave (which is the case for single family homes as well), my guess is that what is seen here is what can be reasonably be anticipated as a long term achievable target for edmonton and i'm not sure that those won't be met by market demand irrespective of legistlated requirements. if the schools and the community facilities and the transportation and the amenities etc. are there, families with children will be there as well. without those things, all the legislation we want won't attract them.

[Coldrsx]

^nice Ken, thanks.

[s211]

Originally Posted by cdnklc

and for those who are interested in knowing how successful those policies have been (from "blocktalk" for false creek north):

it's tough to corelate these but of just under 4,000 households, it would seem like less than half are occupied by families and only 40% of those include children which is give or take under 20% of all households. for comparison, oliver is give or take just under 10% of units with children and downtown edmonton is in fact almost 8% (470 of 6,125)...

i have not been able to source a breakdown on the age of those children (i.e. preschool/primary/secondary/post education age) living in falsecreek north but i believe the school board does track that for elementary and secondary catchment areas in edmonton (open borders notwithstanding).

on the assumption that not all dwellings suitable for children will ever be occupied by family units that actually include children either initially or because the children ultimately leave (which is the case for single family homes as well), my guess is that what is seen here is what can be reasonably be anticipated as a long term achievable target for edmonton and i'm not sure that those won't be met by market demand irrespective of legistlated requirements. if the schools and the community facilities and the transportation and the amenities etc. are there, families with children will be there as well. without those things, all the legislation we want won't attract them.

If anything is certain, the CoV underestimated school requirements for the area. The one school built specifically for the area maxed out several years ago.

Blame it all on breeding hipsters that are loathe to leave the area!

[Coldrsx]

SLC's downtown has just undergone a major transformation. Perhaps some lessons learned and some to avoid?

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=198420

[kcantor]

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

SLC's downtown has just undergone a major transformation. Perhaps some lessons learned and some to avoid?

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=198420

thanks Coldrsx... looks like we found the bottom half of the telus toll building penthouse there on the right:

[feepa]

The Telus toll addition should've just been paint in a similar colour to the existing building. Now it just stands out like a sore thumb.

How would the Telus toll addition look on top of the EPCOR tower Ken?

how does the phrase go... if it looks like shit, smells like shit, and test like shit...

[Xelebes]

The Telus Toll just needs to have a few more gawdy renovations until it looks a bit more balanced.

[Drynagolt]

That looks absolutely phenomenal. Very impressive. Dare to dream

[s4.audios]

ultima sales centre is going up beside quest.. looks to be almost done.

What's going up at NAIT? Looks like its just a parkibg lot but i didnt get a good look. Theres a crane there.

[mcc16]

That last photo that cdnklc reposted looks like the feel they are going for in the plans for the quarters. Not sure if i like it. It's nice and all, but it just seems too much like an indoor mall with a retractable roof. It all seems very tight and closed off.