Edmonton Construction 12 (December 2013) - Page 477

Daveography · #**9521** Posted **Sep 22, 2015, 3:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Black Star

What good points did he make?

Just that basically our zoning and plans (like the downtown plan) are still a bit of a joke if planning and council are eager to endorse and approve rezoning and variances.

Basically we're still not very realistic with those things and setting poor expectations all around.

As for Dub, yeah, I'm not sure how he thinks a set of 20-story towers would be better for solar gain on that wall.

Coldrsx · #**9522** Posted **Sep 22, 2015, 3:11 PM**

^or the fact that his firm designed a 40 storey tower that will do identical things to Philips lofts.

Good to see Windsor Terrace pass as well.

edmontonoilers89 · #**9523** Posted **Sep 22, 2015, 3:12 PM**

Extremely happy Healy passed through. That's a huge swath of parking that will get eaten up, and this looks like a great development.

Any idea when construction will start up?

Coldrsx · #**9524** Posted **Sep 22, 2015, 3:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Black Star

What good points did he make?

He reminded admin about the CCDP and LUB, but failed to understand that both are dynamic and that our Downtown is quite a different venue than even 4 yrs ago.

Coldrsx · #**9525** Posted **Sep 22, 2015, 3:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by edmontonoilers89

Extremely happy Healy passed through. That's a huge swath of parking that will get eaten up, and this looks like a great development.

Any idea when construction will start up?

DP this spring, construction mid to fall 2016.

Makenosmallplans · #**9526** Posted **Sep 22, 2015, 3:44 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daveography

Just that basically our zoning and plans (like the downtown plan) are still a bit of a joke if planning and council are eager to endorse and approve rezoning and variances.

Basically we're still not very realistic with those things and setting poor expectations all around.

As for Dub, yeah, I'm not sure how he thinks a set of 20-story towers would be better for solar gain on that wall.

I'm loathe to draw military (or sports) analogies to readily - but as we used to say in business school, "a strategy rarely survives its first contact with the enemy." less confrontationally, no plan engages with reality intact. While in some limited cases it may be admirable to stick to the plan, the reality is that most of the time things change and we get to change our minds. its one of the really great things about being human.

hilman · #**9527** Posted **Sep 22, 2015, 4:05 PM**

Raymond Block:

https://twitter.com/MahSpace/status/646349939342114816

https://twitter.com/vineshpratap/status/646348660561739776

Hallsy's Toupee · #**9528** Posted **Sep 22, 2015, 4:22 PM**

Higher quality renderings of Raymond Block:
http://wexforddevelopments.com/location/raymond-block-whyte-avenue/

s4.audios · #**9529** Posted **Sep 22, 2015, 4:22 PM**

Wow that Raymond Block is a winner in my books, perfect for Whyte. That design of brick with black metal panels affixed around the windows is something I've seen in other cities but don't think anywhere in Edmonton. I like it a lot.

YegFan · #**9530** Posted **Sep 22, 2015, 4:26 PM**

^lacks architectural flair....boring.

The residential section of the building is ugly.

Missed opportunity IMO.

GreenSPACE · #**9531** Posted **Sep 22, 2015, 4:37 PM**

I don't care about architectural flair. Well-designed cities don't care about architectural flair. What is most important is urban design. And this project hits that on the nail! Perfect fit.

Daveography · #**9532** Posted **Sep 22, 2015, 4:37 PM**

Yeah, gotta say I'm less than impressed too. It's not terrible, just not what I would expect for such a prominent and valuable piece of land on Whyte.

Boris2k7 · #**9533** Posted **Sep 22, 2015, 4:42 PM**

Maybe it's because I'm from Calgary and we've been pushing back against these types of "brick on the bottom, different style on top" types of developments ("Stampitecture"), but I rather dislike Raymond block. I'm generally okay with the massing, setbacks, and corner treatment though.

GreenSPACE · #**9534** Posted **Sep 22, 2015, 4:45 PM**

You guys gotta look at projects in Scandinavia. It's all about street level interaction, quality materials at the base. They will design something, then pull it back a bit. Good architecture is subtle. This is not perfect by any means, but what is needed. If they need to set it back and put stucco up top in a contemporary way, I'm all for it. When it's done and the retail is full, more people living on Whyte, and it's contributing to the street, I'll be happy.

SHOFEAR · #**9535** Posted **Sep 22, 2015, 4:48 PM**

underwhelming. To big. should be broken up into two distinct looking structures along the block.

Mikemike · #**9536** Posted **Sep 22, 2015, 4:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by GreenSPACE

I don't care about architectural flair. Well-designed cities don't care about architectural flair. What is most important is urban design. And this project hits that on the nail! Perfect fit.

No, it doesn't.

Identical storefronts repeated down 200' of block face on a street that is full of unique 33-66' long frontages is far less than perfect. Higher floor-ceiling heights, while they may be great for attracting the high-rent tenants they are looking for also create a less intimate street and overwhelm rather than compliment the adjacent developments.

Even the awnings are monotonous and limit the visual accessibility/engagement between the sidewalks and 2nd story windows/spaces, architecture and signage, unlike the typical building on the Avenue. What look like placeholders for vertical projecting signage would be mostly invisible from the sidewalk, and the identical shape and form of the 3frames detracts from the variety that is visible elsewhere.

You only have to look at the next-door building visible on their rendering to see something better.

CMD UW · #**9537** Posted **Sep 22, 2015, 5:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by GreenSPACE

I don't care about architectural flair. Well-designed cities don't care about architectural flair. What is most important is urban design. And this project hits that on the nail! Perfect fit.

Totally agree. Architectural 'flair' usually ends up with too many architectural wingdings and that sort of sh*t.

GreenSPACE · #**9538** Posted **Sep 22, 2015, 5:11 PM**

^Oh goodness gracious. None of what you just said makes any urban design or planning sense. Awnings are now bad? No high-rent tenants? There is absolutely nothing great about the building next to it. Many examples of what not to do.

s211 · #**9539** Posted **Sep 22, 2015, 5:15 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boris2k7

Maybe it's because I'm from Calgary and we've been pushing back against these types of "brick on the bottom, different style on top" types of developments ("Stampitecture"), but I rather dislike Raymond block. I'm generally okay with the massing, setbacks, and corner treatment though.

I wonder if the low rise of this building is aping the look of the existing building on the NW corner of the intersection. I seem to recall a brick building there, but could be wrong. Used to be a book store or something?

I'm not impressed. The devil is in the details, especially the finishes, and right now I see lots of opportunity to clarify what's being used on the resi exterior. Otherwise, it screams "ready to be value-engineered even further" to me.

Mikemike · #**9540** Posted **Sep 22, 2015, 5:48 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by GreenSPACE

^Oh goodness gracious. None of what you just said makes any urban design or planning sense. Awnings are now bad? No high-rent tenants? There is absolutely nothing great about the building next to it. Many examples of what not to do.

Nothing wrong with high-rent tenants, but larger frontages and higher ceilings can have a negative impact on the street.

This is not rocket science.

The awnings as shown on the first drawing are monotonous. They appear to be retracted or gone on the 2nd, so that's a good thing. They're on the north side of the building, so they're not needed for sun protection. Other than for the few heavy rainfalls we get they're not good for rain or snow either: in a light rain they take what would be a tolerable drizzle into a drip zone that you have to avoid, and snow most often either gets blown under or is too heavy.

I'm really curious about your examples of what not to do, because I don't see any.