Edmonton Construction 13 (November 2015)

[ue]

Originally Posted by s4.audios

^That is just it though, the site is not a park. It is a hill. A hill that is not walkable in any sort of way. The only time I've ever seen it used was during Red Bull's crashed ice, when the road below was closed.

This whole idea of it inviting development in the river valley is ridiculous. Its a fricken hill full of bushes seperated from the valley by a road.

Is this not the site of the proposed tower? The renderings are a bit ambiguous, but based on them, it looks like the tower is supposed to be built across from the white-black two storey on Jasper, roughly at the Jasper/101 Ave intersection. That site is still on flat land, not hillside.

That being said, there is a fair bit of greenspace in the plan, more so than I remember, so that's good. I'm not really against a building on that site so much as I'm iffy on the height. Again, the original plans for the human scaled 'Armature' area were preferred, with a bit more height at the 'Five Corners'. A 280m tower belongs in the core proper or maybe north edge.

[BretttheRiderFan]

I was shocked when I learned that the developer was legit, had put millions into this already and actually wanted it built. Thought it would be another Edmontonian, but it isn't. You can't not support this!

[s4.audios]

Originally Posted by ue

Is this not the site of the proposed tower? The renderings are a bit ambiguous, but based on them, it looks like the tower is supposed to be built across from the white-black two storey on Jasper, roughly at the Jasper/101 Ave intersection. That site is still on flat land, not hillside.

That being said, there is a fair bit of greenspace in the plan, more so than I remember, so that's good. I'm not really against a building on that site so much as I'm iffy on the height. Again, the original plans for the human scaled 'Armature' area were preferred, with a bit more height at the 'Five Corners'. A 280m tower belongs in the core proper or maybe north edge.

Technically that tiny park you referenced is part of the plan, but the actual tower is to the West of it. The park will be removed but from the way I read the rendering, it will be converted back to a tiny park beside the tower, so it won't be lost, but rather enhanced.

[ue]

Originally Posted by BretttheRiderFan

I was shocked when I learned that the developer was legit, had put millions into this already and actually wanted it built. Thought it would be another Edmontonian, but it isn't. You can't not support this!

So because the company has, of their own volition, poured money into this, it should go ahead?

Originally Posted by s4.audios

Technically that tiny park you referenced is part of the plan, but the actual tower is to the West of it. The park will be removed but from the way I read the rendering, it will be converted back to a tiny park beside the tower, so it won't be lost, but rather enhanced.

Yeah, just west, basically where the road is now... so still not on the hillside. I agree that the parkspace will be augmented by this, and so I support that, but just not the height in full.

[rapid_business]

Originally Posted by ue

Is this not the site of the proposed tower?

I love that when you spin around in the street-view, there is a cop chatting with a driver in a Beemer.

[rapid_business]

I am still hard-pressed to see anything materializing out of this project. Call me a skeptic, but I can't see it moving forward for a number of reasons. Happy to bet and give odds too.

[tallisgood]

As much as I'd like to see something like this, I just feel the neighbourhood is in greater need of horizontal development in order to clear a lot of the blight, rather than one super-tall structure surrounded by blocks of neglect and decay that likely won't be developed/rehabilitated any time soon. Six or seven nice mid-rises would go a long way toward making that area feel a lot less post-apocalyptic.

Finally, there is not even one rendering out there that I know of. That picture from the paper is not a proper rendering. Let's see what this thing REALLY looks like first.

But.... if it's a nice design I won't cry to see it happen, even though it's not what I would like to see happen.

[kcantor]

Originally Posted by ue

Is this not the site of the proposed tower? The renderings are a bit ambiguous, but based on them, it looks like the tower is supposed to be built across from the white-black two storey on Jasper, roughly at the Jasper/101 Ave intersection. That site is still on flat land, not hillside.

That being said, there is a fair bit of greenspace in the plan, more so than I remember, so that's good. I'm not really against a building on that site so much as I'm iffy on the height. Again, the original plans for the human scaled 'Armature' area were preferred, with a bit more height at the 'Five Corners'. A 280m tower belongs in the core proper or maybe north edge.

that is where it was first proposed and is the land alldritt already owns. the city wants that for the "urban balcony" and it was the city's suggestions to move the tower further to the west, approximately centred on that "bow tie" of hillside beside shaw that is between jasper avenue and the top of the grierson hill retaining wall. that will allow the site in your photo to be developed as parked. the roads and laneway shown in your link are surplus and incorporated in the final build either way.

[craner]

Originally Posted by tallisgood

As much as I'd like to see something like this, I just feel the neighbourhood is in greater need of horizontal development in order to clear a lot of the blight, rather than one super-tall structure surrounded by blocks of neglect and decay that likely won't be developed/rehabilitated any time soon. Six or seven nice mid-rises would go a long way toward making that area feel a lot less post-apocalyptic.

Finally, there is not even one rendering out there that I know of. That picture from the paper is not a proper rendering. Let's see what this thing REALLY looks like first.

But.... if it's a nice design I won't cry to see it happen, even though it's not what I would like to see happen.

So are you concerned that if the tower goes ahead that the chances of horizontal development (midrises) getting built in the future are lessened ?

[McBoo]

Originally Posted by rapid_business

I am still hard-pressed to see anything materializing out of this project. Call me a skeptic, but I can't see it moving forward for a number of reasons. Happy to bet and give odds too.

Was right there with you, till I read the news this morning that if this doesn't go ahead, City has the right to buy the land back.

Now, not so sure it's a bait and switch ...

[ue]

Originally Posted by kcantor

that is where it was first proposed and is the land alldritt already owns. the city wants that for the "urban balcony" and it was the city's suggestions to move the tower further to the west, approximately centred on that "bow tie" of hillside beside shaw that is between jasper avenue and the top of the grierson hill retaining wall. that will allow the site in your photo to be developed as parked. the roads and laneway shown in your link are surplus and incorporated in the final build either way.

Ok, thanks. I was basing it off of this rendering;

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

http://wpmedia.edmontonjournal.com/2016/...ters-in-downto.jpeg?quality=55&strip=all

[technomad]

Originally Posted by craner

So are you concerned that if the tower goes ahead that the chances of horizontal development (midrises) getting built in the future are lessened ?

I would say deferred, condo demand in edmonton definitely isn't infinite

if this went ahead, I could see it being like arriva in calgary, standing solo for a lot of years..

[MalcolmTucker]

I'm still worried about the condo/apartment phases of the ICE District JW Hotel and Stantec - prices can only diverge so much between old stock and new units, and how long did the Pearl take to finally get to mostly sold? And many of those years selling the pearl there wasn't the added pressure of a recession.

[s4.audios]

Originally Posted by ue

So because the company has, of their own volition, poured money into this, it should go ahead?



Yeah, just west, basically where the road is now... so still not on the hillside. I agree that the parkspace will be augmented by this, and so I support that, but just not the height in full.

What is the concern with height?

IMO it is not that out of place at all, this site isn't like it is way out East of downtown. It is literally half a block out of the Eastern edge of Downtown (assuming 97 street is the edge). There are mid to high rises within a block distance. It is exactly like saying you'd prefer this on the North edge, except, it is on the East.

If we are assuming the Quarters will develop with residential buildings, this doesn't deter from the plan at all. Let's not forget half the tower will be hotel. Unless we expect a big swath of hotels in the quarters, we can put this down in the books as a residential property of under 150 meters (just like any other development we hope will happen in the Quarters?).

Also, disagree with Tallisgood that it will reduce the chances of other midrise developments, I think it will have an opposite effect. This will be the tallest, baddest, property in Western Canada. This will attract interest, people will possibly want to live by it, developers will possibly want to develop near it, just like the case with the arena. One committed developer sounds more promising than hoping for multiple developers to build mid-rise, which we don't even know if the interest is even there.

The economy is the only thing that will stop development around this tower once built. But the economy will do that with or without it.

[ue]

Originally Posted by s4.audios

What is the concern with height?

IMO it is not that out of place at all, this site isn't like it is way out East of downtown. It is literally half a block out of the Eastern edge of Downtown (assuming 97 street is the edge). There are mid to high rises within a block distance. It is exactly like saying you'd prefer this on the North edge, except, it is on the East.

If we are assuming the Quarters will develop with residential buildings, this doesn't deter from the plan at all. Let's not forget half the tower will be hotel. Unless we expect a big swath of hotels in the quarters, we can put this down in the books as a residential property of under 150 meters (just like any other development we hope will happen in the Quarters?).

Also, disagree with Tallisgood that it will reduce the chances of other midrise developments, I think it will have an opposite effect. This will be the tallest, baddest, property in Western Canada. This will attract interest, people will possibly want to live by it, developers will possibly want to develop near it, just like the case with the arena. One committed developer sounds more promising than hoping for multiple developers to build mid-rise, which we don't even know if the interest is even there.

The economy is the only thing that will stop development around this tower once built. But the economy will do that with or without it.

Simply that it is out of scale with a human scaled environment like what was planned for the Quarters. I think there are places for increased height, but there seems to be so much focus on building the tallest wherever, and honestly, skyscraper districts are often not that inviting when you're at ground level. New York and Hong Kong are exceptions.

The reason I mentioned the North Edge is that it seems to be the direction of CBD growth along 101 St and to the north of the Ice District, and is developed with the tallest buildings in the city abutting it. The Quarters? Not so much. Aside from the Sun Life building, all of the taller buildings are west of 100 St, thus the Quarters would make a nice transition towards mid-rise, human scale, as originally planned.

[tallisgood]

Originally Posted by craner

So are you concerned that if the tower goes ahead that the chances of horizontal development (midrises) getting built in the future are lessened ?

technomad (above) basically said what I am thinking.

Throw in an economy that isn't as strong as it used to be, and I just don't see that area filling up with shiny new projects any time soon.

[s4.audios]

Honestly I agree with your view point, what you are getting at. I'd rather support more human scale in quarters. I just personally would say this one tower is an exception. A skyscraper district may not be that inviting, but just one tower is not going to have that effect. Especially when you look at what Aldritt is proposing at the ground level; a rather large, elaborate, and green public space.

There is proof the Quarters is having a really tough time getting interest from developers. I think this project will will spur that, at a much more human scale as well.

[itom 987]

Originally Posted by ue

Simply that it is out of scale with a human scaled environment like what was planned for the Quarters. I think there are places for increased height, but there seems to be so much focus on building the tallest wherever, and honestly, skyscraper districts are often not that inviting when you're at ground level. New York and Hong Kong are exceptions.

Scale has never been the problem. Street level development and skyscrapers can work well together, there are many cities besides New York and Hong Kong that have vibrant street life in their skyscraper districts. Poor planning has always been the problem.

I tend to view Alldritt Tower as being a giagantic watch tower. Residents living there will be able to spot riffraff and crime happening throughout the Quarters and the river valley. This tower has a good chance of cleaning up the area around it, making it safe to walk in at night. The city can add a "no flipping" condition along with the approval to prevent Alldritt from ripping us off. Edmonton has nothing to loose by approving this development.

[CanadianCentaur]

I have misgivings about the site for the proposed tower in the Quarters. It's not just the timing which is still not ideal due to the current economic conditions.

The foundation is also what sort of worries me. The site of that tower's a little close to the edge of the river valley and I believe there's a number of old coal mines in that area, which could add to the instability in that area. Correct if I'm wrong - I'm no expert in construction and foundation setup matters.

[itom 987]

The developer wants to put over 100 pilings 75 meters deep into bedrock. I believe that is deeper than the pilings used for Stantec Tower.