Edmonton Construction 11 (November 2011) - Page 352

Hardhatdan · #**7021** Posted **Apr 19, 2013, 4:00 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

Which I am fine with, IF, done well.

It has a cape what more do you want? Ask for a utility belt via townhouses.

Hallsy's Toupee · #**7022** Posted **Apr 19, 2013, 1:28 PM**

That cape is supposedly curtain wall.
CTV Morning Live has a story on that public meeting last night. Residents have the usual NIMBY concerns re: height and parking.

Coldrsx · #**7023** Posted **Apr 19, 2013, 2:45 PM**

As a resident kitty corner, our condo board has issues with the lane congestion and visitor parking. I do wish we had a requirement for more than 1/7 visitor stalls IF they have commercial on the main floor. Our visitor stalls are intended for people visiting units/owners, NOT starbucks, but we understand if you are popping in and out that it will occur. Challenge there is that our actual visitors often have no parking.

As for height, I am fine with it personally, many on our board are not.

s4.audios · #**7024** Posted **Apr 19, 2013, 3:08 PM**

What is the proposed height?

Coldrsx · #**7025** Posted **Apr 19, 2013, 3:10 PM**

118m, 36 storeys, 1m shorter than Pearl.

s4.audios · #**7026** Posted **Apr 19, 2013, 4:13 PM**

What's the hate on the height? If they don't like it because they are lower, then sell your damn place and buy in to the new one!! lol

Is the location the parking lot directly North of Omega?

Harrison · #**7027** Posted **Apr 19, 2013, 4:44 PM**

I'm not feeling too confident about the "cape". Although only a massing model, it doesn't seem to go well with the rest of the building. Here's to hoping, since Brad Kennedy did say it was going to be a good looking building...

240glt · #**7028** Posted **Apr 19, 2013, 4:47 PM**

Brad Kennedy couldn't design himself out of a wet paper bag, IMO.

That proposal just look wierd.

s211 · #**7029** Posted **Apr 19, 2013, 5:05 PM**

I could have taken five second to put glazing on the full massing model to give a better picture of the overall project. Emphasizing the cape is just so much "look at me"...

Mycroft · #**7030** Posted **Apr 19, 2013, 5:17 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by s4.audios

Is the location the parking lot directly North of Omega?

I wish. They are planning on knocking down the two houses used for commercial activities on the south side of 99 Ave, the old yellow house, and the apartment building directly to the south. Fcking lame with all of the vacant land in the area (Arlington!)

Hallsy's Toupee · #**7031** Posted **Apr 19, 2013, 5:26 PM**

They would also knock down the Thai resto just SW of Omega

oiler-dude · #**7032** Posted **Apr 19, 2013, 5:36 PM**

Seems only logical to knock down existing buildings when we have a plethora of empty lots. Across the street.

I know not always as simple as that, but it's frustrating all the same.

SHOFEAR · #**7033** Posted **Apr 19, 2013, 5:58 PM**

You can only build on what you own.

The twisted irony is a quality developer will likely do a much better job to maintain the property and find interim uses for the existing buildings. Thus the property never becomes some black hole of a gravel parking lot that we all want to see eliminated.

s211 · #**7034** Posted **Apr 19, 2013, 6:46 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by GreenSPACE

John Day Developments
MacLab Enterprises
Bentall Kennedy/Melcor Developments
EAD Development Partnership
Dundee Realty
Station Lands Ltd (2 proposals)
Five Oaks Inc
RedBrick Developments Inc
Morguard
Colliers Macauley Nicolls Inc on behalf of HCI Ventures Ltd.
Strategic Group on behalf of 1602157 Alberta Ltd.
Aimco on behalf of 1484958 Alberta Ltd.

http://blogs.edmontonjournal.com/201...l-civic-tower/

Confirms rumours of 2 Station Lands Proposals (Qualico and Kipnes)

Here's the proper link: http://blogs.edmontonjournal.com/2013/04...tep-toward-transformational-civic-tower/

240glt · #**7035** Posted **Apr 19, 2013, 7:14 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by s211

Here's the proper link: http://blogs.edmontonjournal.com/2013/04...tep-toward-transformational-civic-tower/

I can only see a few of these as realistic candidates for this RFP

s211 · #**7036** Posted **Apr 19, 2013, 9:15 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 240glt

I can only see a few of these as realistic candidates for this RFP

For sure. Who was it said that some projects bring all the wanna-be developers out of the woodwork? Gillespie?

Mycroft · #**7037** Posted **Apr 19, 2013, 10:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SHOFEAR

You can only build on what you own.

Wildly untrue. Tridel rarely purchases the land that they build on as a means of avoiding tying up large amounts of capital, and they've done pretty well for themselves.

CMD UW · #**7038** Posted **Apr 20, 2013, 2:04 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 240glt

Brad Kennedy couldn't design himself out of a wet paper bag, IMO.

That proposal just look wierd.

I often question the designs that Brad produces. Many of his ideas are costly to construct and often create inefficient interior layouts.

Well, there is a new tower proposal that I'm involved in that should be coming out shortly. Very Vancouver design-wise. Simple, modern, townhouse podium, efficient layouts. I'd like to tell you more, but that'll come in a few more weeks.

CMD UW · #**7039** Posted **Apr 20, 2013, 2:07 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mycroft

Wildly untrue. Tridel rarely purchases the land that they build on as a means of avoiding tying up large amounts of capital, and they've done pretty well for themselves.

Regardless, you have to have a willing landowner to do this.

Mycroft · #**7040** Posted **Apr 20, 2013, 4:51 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CMD UW

Regardless, you have to have a willing landowner to do this.

Indeed, just as you need a market and a viable parcel of land to develop. I'm not sure knocking down several [presumably] cash-flowing buildings and after pursuing an expensive DC is the way to go, but I'd be happy if they prove me wrong.