Canadian City Proposals - Page 319

LeftCoaster · #**6361** Posted **Jan 23, 2013, 8:01 PM**

Very nice!

I like A the most as well, but given the financing issues surrounding this proposal I doubt it will be the chosen scheme.

Wooster · #**6362** Posted **Jan 23, 2013, 8:25 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

Transportation won't allow C.... even though I like that crossing option best. BUT, if we are doing a bridge, do A.

I suspect A will be chosen.

Transportation doesn't allow pedestrians to cross the street in a downtown? Odd.

Black Star · #**6363** Posted **Jan 23, 2013, 8:36 PM**

Counsel has all but voted on A. Administration has instructed counsel that option A is most viable to all parties.

Coldrsx · #**6364** Posted **Jan 23, 2013, 9:00 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wooster

Transportation doesn't allow pedestrians to cross the street in a downtown? Odd.

Lengthy conversations with them said 104ave MUST remain a major arterial... WITHOUT much interruption.

I disagree with them in terms of 'disruption', but I can bend on it IF the pedestrian realm is well done and activated.

SHOFEAR · #**6365** Posted **Jan 23, 2013, 9:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wooster

Transportation doesn't allow pedestrians to cross the street in a downtown? Odd.

Not surprising really, those guys live in a bubble. A former project I was working on was stalled for months during approvals because Drainage and Transportation couldn't agree on a specific issue. One department will demand something to make their maintenance marginally easier even if it adds major hurdles to another departments responsibilities. And people wonder why developers would rather do projects in the surrounding municipalities where you have the same guy reviewing transporation, drainage, water, shallow utilities etc...

Coldrsx · #**6366** Posted **Jan 23, 2013, 9:13 PM**

From the arena debate... our downtown Councillor was quoted as saying

'Someone came to see me about a 69 storey development' - Batty

Daveography · #**6367** Posted **Jan 23, 2013, 9:20 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SHOFEAR

Not surprising really, those guys live in a bubble. A former project I was working on was stalled for months during approvals because Drainage and Transportation couldn't agree on a specific issue. One department will demand something to make their maintenance marginally easier even if it adds major hurdles to another departments responsibilities. And people wonder why developers would rather do projects in the surrounding municipalities where you have the same guy reviewing transporation, drainage, water, shallow utilities etc...

Transportation is ridiculously out of touch with the direction and vision of council. Their mandate is car-first, car-second, and car-third, and all other considerations are optional.

Coldrsx · #**6368** Posted **Jan 23, 2013, 9:21 PM**

PASSED:

Mandel - Yes
Sloan - No
Leibovici - Yes
Anderson - Yes
Henderson - Yes
Batty - Yes
Iveson - No
Sohi - Yes
Caterina -Yes
Diotte - No
Krushell - Yes
Gibbons - Yes
Loken - Yes

SignalHillHiker · #**6369** Posted **Jan 23, 2013, 9:30 PM**

So it's A then? And it's a go?

If so, congratulations, Edmonton! Brilliant building.

O-tacular · #**6370** Posted **Jan 23, 2013, 9:32 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

PASSED:

Mandel - Yes
Sloan - No
Leibovici - Yes
Anderson - Yes
Henderson - Yes
Batty - Yes
Iveson - No
Sohi - Yes
Caterina -Yes
Diotte - No
Krushell - Yes
Gibbons - Yes
Loken - Yes

I'm so happy for Edmonton! If this was in Calgary I guarantee you they would have chosen option B. Our motto here is cheaper at all costs. The Flames will likely end up with a warehouse for a new arena.

Chadillaccc · #**6371** Posted **Jan 23, 2013, 10:04 PM**

Definitely option A, it's the most aesthetically pleasing (by far) and with that design, they will be able to do the "oil drop" lighting effect in the roof... since it will be the Oilers' stadium.

Chadillaccc · #**6372** Posted **Jan 24, 2013, 1:41 AM**

Vue Condos, Thunder Bay.

Excavation complete, construction beginning this spring

Quote:

Originally Posted by vid

A more up-to-date render from the Vue Condos website:

http://www.vuecondos.ca/project.htm

MTLskyline · #**6373** Posted **Jan 24, 2013, 3:24 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

Vue Condos, Thunder Bay.

Excavation complete, construction beginning this spring

Those would be a nice addition to the Thunder Bay of Quebec I think.

Chadillaccc · #**6374** Posted **Jan 24, 2013, 6:31 AM**

Do you mean Saguenay?

isaidso · #**6375** Posted **Jan 24, 2013, 9:03 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker

So it's A then? And it's a go?

If so, congratulations, Edmonton! Brilliant building.

+1

Congratulations Edmonton. This has the potential to become a landmark for your city. Option A is G O R G E O U S !

#**6376** Posted **Jan 25, 2013, 3:40 PM**

Content removed

isaidso · #**6377** Posted **Jan 25, 2013, 5:53 PM**

That proposal looks pretty awful. Are they trying to attract buyers or talk them out of it?

#**6378** Posted **Jan 25, 2013, 8:24 PM**

Content removed

isaidso · #**6379** Posted **Jan 25, 2013, 10:05 PM**

They've got to do some major changes to go from tacky low brow commie block to modern condo.

lake of the nations · #**6380** Posted **Jan 26, 2013, 3:52 PM**

Here is a render of the 12-storey building that should be built here next summer. It will likely be approved and could possibly become Sherbrooke's tallest.

GROUPE MAURICE