HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Edmonton


Closed Thread

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #6161  
Old Posted Feb 1, 2017, 8:49 PM
Coldrsx's Avatar
Coldrsx Coldrsx is offline
Community Guy
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Edmonton, AB
Posts: 68,953
Quote:
Originally Posted by adam-machiavelli View Post
It's been under construction for over two years. Are these people who don't go downtown much?
As mentioned the developments and impact are starting to be felt visually and physically.

A few things of note:

3mil visitors/yr expected, 1300 residences, 356 hotel rooms, 1.3mil of office, 300k of retail/hospitality, ~3000 parking stalls.

Completion dates Q4 2018 (Stantec office) through Q3 2020 (West apartment).

__________________
"The destructive effects of automobiles are much less a cause than a symptom of our incompetence at city building" - Jane Jacobs 1961ish

Wake me up when I can see skyscrapers
     
     
  #6162  
Old Posted Feb 1, 2017, 9:18 PM
Coldrsx's Avatar
Coldrsx Coldrsx is offline
Community Guy
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Edmonton, AB
Posts: 68,953
Reference ID: Job No 239830089-001
Description: To erect multiple Temporary Event tents and structures for Rogers Hometown Hockey from February 2 to February 5, 2017 (tents, stages and miscellaneous event structures).
Location: 9918 - 102 AVENUE NW
Plan 4390NY Blk D
Applicant: SDI MARKETING
Status: Issued
Create Date: 1/24/2017 10:49:34 AM
Neighbourhood: DOWNTOWN
__________________
"The destructive effects of automobiles are much less a cause than a symptom of our incompetence at city building" - Jane Jacobs 1961ish

Wake me up when I can see skyscrapers
     
     
  #6163  
Old Posted Feb 1, 2017, 9:25 PM
s211 s211 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: The People's Glorious Republic of ... Sigh...
Posts: 8,465
Quote:
Originally Posted by 240glt View Post
This forum requires an intervention. Here is an emergency Ice district construction photo to help calm everyone down

Wow! Those are really starting to come along.
__________________
If it seems I'm ignoring what you may have written in response to something I have written, it's very likely that you're on my Ignore List. Please do not take it personally.
     
     
  #6164  
Old Posted Feb 2, 2017, 2:09 PM
Kevin_foster's Avatar
Kevin_foster Kevin_foster is offline
Kevin Folds Five
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Edmonton, Canada
Posts: 6,072
Quote:
Originally Posted by McBoo View Post
Wow! Congrats EEDC - that's one way cool website!

http://edmonton.com/
Agreed!
__________________
I used to be indecisive, but now I'm not sure...
     
     
  #6165  
Old Posted Feb 2, 2017, 11:35 PM
Hallsy's Toupee's Avatar
Hallsy's Toupee Hallsy's Toupee is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 6,891
So if we can get back to construction and development:

Would an 80-storey tower spur more development in The Quarters?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/w...opment-in-the-quarters-1.3964361?cmp=rss
     
     
  #6166  
Old Posted Feb 3, 2017, 1:14 AM
Black Star Black Star is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 7,259
Coun. Scott McKeen, whose Ward 6 encompasses the downtown, says he hasn't made up his mind about whether he'll support the proposal.


Jesus Christ Mckeen.......

I just dont know how this guy thinks sometimes.
     
     
  #6167  
Old Posted Feb 3, 2017, 4:22 AM
Channing Channing is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 199
^It's a pretty big ask from the Developer and is sort of putting all the Quarters eggs in a big basket instead of spreading it out more. The City better be asking for a lot in return for the height and density. What I've seen as the ask already (ie. LEED Silver, not sure on the public realm contributions) might not be enough.

I'm not sure a single super tall tower is going to spur more development.

The current zoning for that land is 6 storey. 20m. 280m is a 14x increase in height. That's huge.
     
     
  #6168  
Old Posted Feb 3, 2017, 4:38 AM
Kevin_foster's Avatar
Kevin_foster Kevin_foster is offline
Kevin Folds Five
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Edmonton, Canada
Posts: 6,072
I love tall buildings as much as the next person here, but you don't gentrify a whole neighborhood with one tall tower. Were only a CMA of 1MM and have downtown, airport lands and other areas to fill up as well. Id be a bigger fan of modernizing existing buildings and adding lots of nice mid sized infill.

Then again, I'm just a schmuck.
__________________
I used to be indecisive, but now I'm not sure...
     
     
  #6169  
Old Posted Feb 3, 2017, 4:50 AM
Design-mind's Avatar
Design-mind Design-mind is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 4,652
Quote:
Originally Posted by Channing View Post
^It's a pretty big ask from the Developer and is sort of putting all the Quarters eggs in a big basket instead of spreading it out more. The City better be asking for a lot in return for the height and density. What I've seen as the ask already (ie. LEED Silver, not sure on the public realm contributions) might not be enough.

I'm not sure a single super tall tower is going to spur more development.

The current zoning for that land is 6 storey. 20m. 280m is a 14x increase in height. That's huge.
I agree when it comes to building one tower verses many shorter towers, IMHO I would rather see many towers built to spur further development. But as far as blocking views I would call him out on his NIMBYism. How can you own a business across from two derelict apartment properties in the downtown and expect that no one would ever snap these up and develop.
     
     
  #6170  
Old Posted Feb 3, 2017, 5:05 AM
craner's Avatar
craner craner is offline
Go Tall or Go Home
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 7,344
^ Does this 280m tower have a chance ?
I get the arguments about spreading out the density and not concentrating it all in a single tall tower but the skyscraper geek in me can't help himself - I hope this tower gets built !!
     
     
  #6171  
Old Posted Feb 3, 2017, 5:26 AM
Black Star Black Star is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 7,259
Quote:
Originally Posted by Channing View Post
^It's a pretty big ask from the Developer and is sort of putting all the Quarters eggs in a big basket instead of spreading it out more. The City better be asking for a lot in return for the height and density. What I've seen as the ask already (ie. LEED Silver, not sure on the public realm contributions) might not be enough.

I'm not sure a single super tall tower is going to spur more development.

The current zoning for that land is 6 storey. 20m. 280m is a 14x increase in height. That's huge.

All eggs are not in one basket when this gets built. Why do people keep on saying this? The developer has a vision. And this is an 80-story tower.

Just because its tall…woooooooo...life sucker. The city should not be asking a lot in return. The return is the massive property tax the COE will collect. The Quarters has been a ghost town all my life.

In the last 5 years, we have seen incremental improvements which is very refreshing. Planning and building happens piece meal...this just happens to be a BIG piece.

Cantor has a vision which is a smaller piece...but equally as important in this area. Im not worried about what a 50 year old zoning law says. The COE is progressing and we have to be all in.

IMO…build it…think big.
     
     
  #6172  
Old Posted Feb 3, 2017, 7:17 AM
EdmTrekker EdmTrekker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,245
i agree - let's get this land deal done with zoning that reverts back - possibly the land as well if construction does not commence in X years with 80 Story's and not less. Zero point in agreeing to a land swap and zoning for a 10 story condo on site later ... deal must include a building of the scale proposed in the agreement without exception.
     
     
  #6173  
Old Posted Feb 3, 2017, 1:18 PM
240glt's Avatar
240glt 240glt is offline
HVAC guru
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: YEG -> -> -> Nelson BC
Posts: 11,297
Quote:
Originally Posted by craner View Post
^ Does this 280m tower have a chance ?
I get the arguments about spreading out the density and not concentrating it all in a single tall tower but the skyscraper geek in me can't help himself - I hope this tower gets built !!
Highly, highly doubtful anything close to the original proposal will happen IMO
__________________
Short term pain for long term gain
     
     
  #6174  
Old Posted Feb 3, 2017, 1:31 PM
Channing Channing is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Black Star View Post
All eggs are not in one basket when this gets built. Why do people keep on saying this? The developer has a vision. And this is an 80-story tower.

Just because its tall…woooooooo...life sucker. The city should not be asking a lot in return. The return is the massive property tax the COE will collect. The Quarters has been a ghost town all my life.

In the last 5 years, we have seen incremental improvements which is very refreshing. Planning and building happens piece meal...this just happens to be a BIG piece.

Cantor has a vision which is a smaller piece...but equally as important in this area. Im not worried about what a 50 year old zoning law says. The COE is progressing and we have to be all in.

IMO…build it…think big.
How about four 20 storey towers instead? That's essentially what this replaces. Concentrating it all into one single piece of land that doesn't even fit the 80 storey tower without buying more planned parkland.

The zoning laws are pretty new. Like last 10 years new. The Quarters Redevelopment plan is a lot of hard work done by planners. The current zoning requires that the City ask for a lot. The tallest towers allowed in the Quarters is currently 150m I believe, and that requires the highest sustainability targets in the zoning.
     
     
  #6175  
Old Posted Feb 3, 2017, 2:08 PM
kcantor kcantor is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 2,987
Quote:
Originally Posted by Channing View Post
How about four 20 storey towers instead? That's essentially what this replaces. Concentrating it all into one single piece of land that doesn't even fit the 80 storey tower without buying more planned parkland.

The zoning laws are pretty new. Like last 10 years new. The Quarters Redevelopment plan is a lot of hard work done by planners. The current zoning requires that the City ask for a lot. The tallest towers allowed in the Quarters is currently 150m I believe, and that requires the highest sustainability targets in the zoning.
Dear Mayor and Councillors,

RE: Bylaw 17844 – To allow for the development of a high rise mixed-use tower, Downton, Boyle Street and Riverdale; and supporting Bylaws 17841, 17870, 17871, 17842 and 17843

Please accept this letter as one of support for the above series of bylaws intended to provide for the potential development of the Alldritt Tower tentatively named The Quarters Hotel and Residences.

I am a resident of Riverdale and have worked downtown for the past 18 years. In that time, I have been actively involved in the development and redevelopment of buildings throughout the Edmonton region but more particularly in downtown Edmonton. I have taken quite public positions supporting the closure of the City Centre Airport and the development of the new downtown arena. I have also taken less public positions supporting the Capital City Downtown Plan, the redevelopment of Sir Winston Churchill Square and the Art Gallery of Alberta, and the relocation of the Royal Alberta Museum. Through the auspices of the Edmonton Downtown Development Corporation, I have taken an active role in the redevelopment and management of the Goodrich Block and the development plans for the Quarters when the Quarters was still identified as Jasper East Village.

I have been a supporter when warranted, not just booster, and I have been a critic when I felt criticism was appropriate. The Quarters Hotel and Residences has the potential to earn long-term admiration as a positive contributor to our downtown civic design and urban edges that its Conference Centre neighbor was unable to. When I say this, it is not a reflection of the relative height of the two projects although I am sure height will be an oft-raised topic in the current discussions. When it comes to height, it is important to remember that we lose or create our urban edges and our access to and views of our river valley at the street level of what we develop, not at the top.

Through the use of height, the Quarters Hotel and Residences will provide a two block open vista and links to the river valley that our Convention Centre denies for a similar distance. Some will want to focus on the proposed height exceeding that in the Quarters ARP. To that, it must be noted that the only other completed project in the Quarters to date exceeds the initial height restrictions and massing while the only other currently permitted project in the Quarters exceeds the plan’s height restriction by a factor of 3 – from 6 stories to 18. Many architects and planners would posit that the changes to urban design by increasing height from 18 stories to 37 – or from 37 stories to 80 – are less substantive than changing them from 6 stories to 18.

There will be concerns raised about potential underlying soils issues and the potential need to address old coal mines. The potential underlying soils issues are no different than those encountered beneath the new Stantec Tower in the Ice District. The potential need to address old coal mines is no different than those encountered by the adjacent Convention Centre. In both cases, these are cost issues borne by the developer, project designers and contractors. They are not zoning concerns.

As for integration into the urban fabric, we need to plan for integration into tomorrow’s urban fabric, not yesterdays. There was concern about how well the Pearl would integrate into Jasper Avenues urban fabric. Now completed, the Pearl provides a focal point to Jasper Avenue when travelling west through downtown and its urban edges are not much different that those of the Illuminada and other projects with much less overall height. The Quarters Hotel and Residences will provide a similar focal point travelling east - something that was at one time proposed as a civic goal during the Japer Avenue revisioning– with the added bonus of protecting our river valley views and enabling improved access from Jasper Avenue.

If there is one caveat to this support I would ask the City to address, it would be the length of time it may take from commencement to completion and the City’s insistence that any city sidewalks underneath any potential crane swings be scaffolded and protected. Insofar as this project is concerned, I would request that the City limit overhead crane swings to a 210 degree radius such that the sidewalks on the north side of Jasper Avenue connecting the Armature and the new Hyatt Place hotel to the Convention Centre and Canada Place remain accessible and pedestrian friendly and that those buildings and storefronts along the north side of Jasper don’t become disconnected from our urban fabric for years pending the completion of construction.

Yours very truly,

PRIMAVERA Development Group

Kenneth L. Cantor, President
Honorary Member, Alberta Association of Architects

[email protected]
__________________
"If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee
     
     
  #6176  
Old Posted Feb 3, 2017, 2:24 PM
Channing Channing is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 199
Let me be clear, I'm not against the tower. But I'm against the developer getting this increased FAR/Height/Density at the cost of nothing, especially when compared to what is currently zoned for. (From 6 storeys to 80)

It's bad enough we are already giving a big middle finger to any planning the city has done, and this is not the first place we've done that.
     
     
  #6177  
Old Posted Feb 3, 2017, 2:45 PM
kcantor kcantor is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 2,987
Quote:
Originally Posted by Channing View Post
Let me be clear, I'm not against the tower. But I'm against the developer getting this increased FAR/Height/Density at the cost of nothing, especially when compared to what is currently zoned for. (From 6 storeys to 80)

It's bad enough we are already giving a big middle finger to any planning the city has done, and this is not the first place we've done that.
isn't that a slightly specious objection?

one might say the proper answer to your question is "the same amount of money the city paid when limiting the far/height/density on this parcel to 6 stories in the first place".

if the proposed far/height/density makes sense from a municipal planning perspective, it should be available, not sold. in that respect, individual sites like this one are no different than the multiple sites comprising the quarters or the ice district etc. - the financial payback for the city is the perpetual return the city will receive in the form of property taxes from that targeted infill density (except the city doesn't have to incur the up front costs it paid for in the quarters and the ice district etc.).

the logical conclusion of your argument would be strip the zoning away from every parcel of land in the city and then offer to sell it to the highest bidder(s) at the time the owners want to do something with it. this is the kind of "zoning for sale" that sees good planning decisions deferred in exchange for nominal cash bribes extorted for community leagues...
__________________
"If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee
     
     
  #6178  
Old Posted Feb 3, 2017, 3:11 PM
Channing Channing is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
isn't that a slightly specious objection?

one might say the proper answer to your question is "the same amount of money the city paid when limiting the far/height/density on this parcel to 6 stories in the first place".

if the proposed far/height/density makes sense from a municipal planning perspective, it should be available, not sold. in that respect, individual sites like this one are no different than the multiple sites comprising the quarters or the ice district etc. - the financial payback for the city is the perpetual return the city will receive in the form of property taxes from that targeted infill density (except the city doesn't have to incur the up front costs it paid for in the quarters and the ice district etc.).

the logical conclusion of your argument would be strip the zoning away from every parcel of land in the city and then offer to sell it to the highest bidder(s) at the time the owners want to do something with it. this is the kind of "zoning for sale" that sees good planning decisions deferred in exchange for nominal cash bribes extorted for community leagues...
I'm not sure where the leap is from requiring the developer provide back to the public in the form of quality urban design, public realm improvements and sustainability targets, while still meeting the uses and general forms of the zoning albeit with the increase FAR/Height/Density to stripping away all zoning and offering it to the highest bidder.

In fact I'm pretty sure I'm advocating the opposite. let's respect the work of the planner, the administration and City Council who already approved a certain plan.

I'm very much not okay with the City just taking cash to build whatever the developer wants (Ie, parking lot *cough* north of the Arena *cough*) but instead think the work of the planners should be respected as much as possible, and if there are deviations, they need to be justified and 'paid' for, just not in the form of cash to Council. This is already built into the Quarters Area Plan and zoning in the forms of bonus FAR for meeting certain sustainability targets.

I think I ready already that some of the park money for this project was cut as being too ambiguous and costly?

Last edited by Channing; Feb 3, 2017 at 3:33 PM.
     
     
  #6179  
Old Posted Feb 3, 2017, 3:38 PM
kcantor kcantor is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 2,987
Quote:
Originally Posted by Channing View Post
...

In fact I'm pretty sure I'm advocating the opposite. let's respect the work of the planner, the administration and City Council who already approved a certain plan.

...
from a curiosity perspective, did you object fo the existing hyatt place and proposed artshab projects for not respecting the work of the planner, the administration and city council "who already approved a certain plan"?

is looking at this proposed change to that certain plan on its merits any different than looking at that certain plan's changes to the previously approved jasper east village plans which was also done on merits incorporating updated information and objectives?
__________________
"If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee
     
     
  #6180  
Old Posted Feb 3, 2017, 3:56 PM
Albicaulis's Avatar
Albicaulis Albicaulis is offline
I smash you
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Posts: 261
Thanks kcantor for that letter, it certainly helped detangle the many separate (and unrelated) issues associated with this proposal.
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Closed Thread

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Edmonton
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 7:19 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.