Edmonton Construction 11 (November 2011) - Page 143

tallisgood · #**2841** Posted **May 6, 2012, 5:06 AM**

I just emailed Mayor Mandel with my objections to this horrible design. I urge everyone to follow suit. Please keep these communications professional and polite. Let's not be our own worst enemy.

Jasper and one o nin · #**2842** Posted **May 6, 2012, 2:58 PM**

emailing the Mayor will not do anything. Property owners have a right to develop their property any way they wish, as long as it complies with statutory and regulatory planning documents. The City can only regulate the design, character, and appearance of a building to the point where it can impose regulations that ensures consistency, and comformatity, but cannot take away certain rights of the owner.. Doing so would be contrary to the legislation. City policy and regulations can set out building material, setbacks, specific urban design elements, but cannot be style police. That is why the EDC can only provide recomendations, and even that, their recommendations are only with respect to how the building relates to the public realm. A DO cannot refuse a building because, in his opinion, it looks ugly, but it complies with the applicable provisions of the zoning bylaw. Believe it or not, the owner has a right to develop an ugly building. As long as it complies with the zoning bylaw, and stat plans. It's not the City, its the developer. So don't waste your time emailing the Mayor or the Planning Department.

Hallsy's Toupee · #**2843** Posted **May 6, 2012, 3:39 PM**

Hence why I think a media campaign would be more effective. Tweeting to Elise Stolte is a good start but she hasn't done anything yet.

Xelebes · #**2844** Posted **May 6, 2012, 3:40 PM**

I just don't see it. The only element missing which would not add significant load bearing on the tunnel is some wind-breaking elements on the roof.

Gary Wayne · #**2845** Posted **May 6, 2012, 6:53 PM**

Procura is what we need to launch an email campaign against. let people know there are better accommodations to look at then what they are proposing to build. Maybe organize a rally at the head office of Procura. Make sure the media is there to report it. The time has come to say no to junk in Edmonton. Only Edmonton's citizens can make it happen.

Jasper and one o nin · #**2846** Posted **May 6, 2012, 11:22 PM**

^oh for god sakes! a rally, seriously? Lets put an exclamation point to this - maybe the rest of Canada can look at Edmonton in a negative light? Just send an email to Procura. Maybe they will consider it. Maybe they won't. Maybe they will give a reasonable explanation.
People who will rent an apartment there will probably not care what it looks like from the outside. In fact, the rent will be cheap b/c they're not breaking the bank with the design.

Black Star · #**2847** Posted **May 7, 2012, 12:09 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jasper and one o nin

^oh for god sakes! a rally, seriously? Lets put an exclamation point to this - maybe the rest of Canada can look at Edmonton in a negative light? Just send an email to Procura. Maybe they will consider it. Maybe they won't. Maybe they will give a reasonable explanation.
People who will rent an apartment there will probably not care what it looks like from the outside. In fact, the rent will be cheap b/c they're not breaking the bank with the design.

Maybe they will give a reasonable explanation.

Mr Lessens explanation was Architecture beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Which is a correct statement....But if this is the standard they want to achieve I rather see a renovated Mayfair hotel!!

CMD UW · #**2848** Posted **May 7, 2012, 1:47 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jasper and one o nin

In fact, the rent will be cheap b/c they're not breaking the bank with the design.

I guarantee they won't be cheap. I'll bet the building will be well appointed with well done suites. The exterior is a different story. I'd wager they'll demand rents between $900-1800.

Hallsy's Toupee · #**2849** Posted **May 7, 2012, 2:27 AM**

I hope a reputable developer or the city purchases the Procura land in front of the Hotel MacDonald because I now fear that they'll drop one of their turds there. With the way things are going with Century Park, Mayfair North and possibly Cascadia, I have lost faith in a company who, just up until last year, were being hailed for their investment in the downtown core.

hqcan · #**2850** Posted **May 7, 2012, 5:05 AM**

Folks, let me be extremely clear on my thoughts.

The only thing (outside of municiple regulatory requirements) that impacts the final design of a building (or any product for that matter, from cell phones to cars) is the end consumer. In the case of these residential developments, the end user is the existing Edmonton market. Our decisions will have the final say as to whether these kinds of hideous (in my opinion) buildings continue to get built in Edmonton.

And the simplest gauge of our desires is as follows: If Edmontonians in the market for condos in the downtown core consistently make the Ultima their top pick, then Procura, Langham, etc. will invariable HAVE to match that level of quality in order to compete in the same market place.

With respect to whether the Mayfair can sell well based on lower market pricepoints, I personally doubt that you can build a new condo tower on Jasper Ave (considering land costs alone) and come in considerablly lower then what Ultima (or even Pearl for that matter) will be coming in at.

So speak with your wallets Edmonton!

hqcan · #**2851** Posted **May 7, 2012, 5:12 AM**

One last note: Have any of you considered contacting David Staples and getting him to write an article in the journal about these kinds of issues? Personally, I'd ask him to just write a piece on how the Ultima tower is finally setting a new bar in Edmonton (and aligning us with cities like Van/Tor) for condo developments in the downtown core. I think one very positive piece on the Ultima in the Edmonton Journal could do wonders both to help your average Edmontonian (i.e. people not on this forum) see the massive differences in quality available at similar pricepoints and also really make a mark at lower quality developers.

Just a thought and I'm pretty sure David Staples would be onboard with the consensus views held in these circles.

240glt · #**2852** Posted **May 7, 2012, 2:03 PM**

I'd be suprised if the North building goes condo... it'll be rental for sure. I know few people that would consider buying into a building where the suites have no balconies. I could see the rents being higher, esp. if they are going with larger suites.

I really liked the original design so this is a bit dissapointing, but the riteous indignation here is pretty funny. A rally ???? c'mon... if you guys think you can affect some sort of change, file an appeal with the SDAB. I guarantee you though that it will be a big waste of time and $72.

Channing · #**2853** Posted **May 7, 2012, 2:14 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 240glt

I'd be suprised if the North building goes condo... it'll be rental for sure. I know few people that would consider buying into a building where the suites have no balconies. I could see the rents being higher, esp. if they are going with larger suites.

I really liked the original design so this is a bit dissapointing, but the riteous indignation here is pretty funny. A rally ???? c'mon... if you guys think you can affect some sort of change, file an appeal with the SDAB. I guarantee you though that it will be a big waste of time and $72.

The said it was going to be condo at EDC I believe.

Coldrsx · #**2854** Posted **May 7, 2012, 2:42 PM**

HQCan - I have indeed been in talks with David re: more urban design articles and more exposure for developments/initiatives that move our urban core forward in a positive way. As per your 'vote with your wallet' comment, I have been harping on that for years. You buy crap, you get more of said crap.

Oh 240...

Jasper and one o nin · #**2855** Posted **May 7, 2012, 2:44 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CMD UW

I guarantee they won't be cheap. I'll bet the building will be well appointed with well done suites. The exterior is a different story. I'd wager they'll demand rents between $900-1800.

Nope, $700-$1195. That what it is

Coldrsx · #**2856** Posted **May 7, 2012, 3:04 PM**

This

is just a wee bit more put together than

this

(http://img851.imageshack.us/img851/2488/17389766.jpg)

s211 · #**2857** Posted **May 7, 2012, 3:27 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by hqcan

One last note: Have any of you considered contacting David Staples and getting him to write an article in the journal about these kinds of issues? Personally, I'd ask him to just write a piece on how the Ultima tower is finally setting a new bar in Edmonton (and aligning us with cities like Van/Tor) for condo developments in the downtown core. I think one very positive piece on the Ultima in the Edmonton Journal could do wonders both to help your average Edmontonian (i.e. people not on this forum) see the massive differences in quality available at similar pricepoints and also really make a mark at lower quality developers.

Just a thought and I'm pretty sure David Staples would be onboard with the consensus views held in these circles.

I think would be pretty simple to tie crap like this into the other story they ran about how Edmonton has a huge problem keeping people in the city, as opposed to people moving elsewhere for more opportunities, better climes, etc. I know I wouldn't want to live in a city that consistently throws up shit and calls it what the market wants. If that's what the market wants, then screw that market. I'd move elsewhere. Who wants to live in a heap of ugly?

Coldrsx · #**2858** Posted **May 7, 2012, 3:30 PM**

^precisely. Again, the number of people I know who have moved here from Toronto or Vancouver who have had a hard time finding a modern sleek tower to live in/buy and end up settling for something acceptable mediocre is a sign we are not up to par.

Kevin_foster · #**2859** Posted **May 7, 2012, 3:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by hqcan

So speak with your wallets Edmonton!

Agree, however............. when the market is tight, and there are little to no options to rent, does that not mean any building, crap or not, will get occupied simply out of desperation rather than aesthetics?

Kevin_foster · #**2860** Posted **May 7, 2012, 3:40 PM**

What the mayfair should/could have been. (approx same height, footprint, etc.)

That lot was prime for virtually any size or type of development you could imagine.

This is how I feel.