Edmonton Construction 13 (November 2015) - Page 353

etown · #**7041** Posted **Apr 27, 2017, 6:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Albicaulis

Website is up and running:
https://talltoweredmonton.com/

Generic development site but with some renderings; they really need to get rid of the crudely photoshopped cover pic.

I didn't realize t the south side of Jasper ave was so built at one time.
I just assumed it was always wide open until the Shaw was built.
https://talltoweredmonton.com/lands/

Coldrsx · #**7042** Posted **Apr 27, 2017, 7:40 PM**

https://talltoweredmonton.com/

Urban recluse · #**7043** Posted **Apr 27, 2017, 9:21 PM**

Speechless.

Urban recluse · #**7044** Posted **Apr 27, 2017, 9:22 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by etown

I didn't realize t the south side of Jasper ave was so built at one time.
I just assumed it was always wide open until the Shaw was built.
https://talltoweredmonton.com/lands/

Just imagine if those buildings were still standing, renovated, etc.

Black Star · #**7045** Posted **Apr 28, 2017, 3:03 AM**

Just wow....

Do I dare say a better looking project than Stantec!

Coldrsx · #**7046** Posted **Apr 28, 2017, 3:27 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urban recluse

Just imagine if those buildings were still standing, renovated, etc.

It still upsets me how much we consciously decided to get rid of.

Urban recluse · #**7047** Posted **Apr 28, 2017, 3:33 AM**

Yeah, so much character annihilated.

EdmTrekker · #**7048** Posted **Apr 28, 2017, 1:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Black Star

Just wow....

Do I dare say a better looking project than Stantec!

Agreed and if constructed to 80 floors will be of greater impact. I will be disappointed if this is not built and some "lesser" design and lower height building is constructed. Getting a 50 story hotel and residential on that site with poor design could give the city a black eye. This better be HIGH and the design better be stunning and timeless.

Urban recluse · #**7049** Posted **Apr 28, 2017, 2:23 PM**

It would be disappointing if there is a reduction in height.

Coldrsx · #**7050** Posted **Apr 28, 2017, 2:35 PM**

Love that they are shooting for 80, thinking 40-50 is more reasonable and viable.

CMD UW · #**7051** Posted **Apr 28, 2017, 2:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

Love that they are shooting for 80, thinking 40-50 is more reasonable and viable.

Or less.

Urban recluse · #**7052** Posted **Apr 28, 2017, 2:50 PM**

Hard to say really, as they have never mentioned an alternative have they (ie: maybe it will not be that tall)?

s211 · #**7053** Posted **Apr 28, 2017, 2:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

Love that they are shooting for 80, thinking 40-50 is more reasonable and viable.

Part of the math regarding density may come down to how much build-out on the revenue side they need in order to pay for all the glitzy common park area improvements shown.

Coldrsx · #**7054** Posted **Apr 28, 2017, 2:59 PM**

The land deal requires a minimum of 40, the zone up to 80.

Coldrsx · #**7055** Posted **Apr 28, 2017, 3:03 PM**

Reference ID: Job No 143774258-077
Description: To construct exterior (new door) and interior alterations to an existing Professional, Financial and Office Support Services Use (Unit#102). (RBC)
Location: 10111 - 104 AVENUE NW
Plan 8021480 Blk 1 Lot A
Applicant: ONE PROPERTIES
Status: New
Create Date: 4/25/2017 4:21:13 PM
Neighbourhood: DOWNTOWN

---

Awesome!

Reference ID: Job No 246182704-001
Description: To construct exterior alterations to an Apartment House building (installation of 2 rooftop hot tubs).
Location: 9943 - 109 STREET NW
Condo Common Area (Plan 0628335)
Applicant: PERMIT MASTERS
Status: New
Create Date: 4/24/2017 11:47:05 AM
Neighbourhood: DOWNTOWN

---

Reference ID: Job No 227514182-006
Description: To change the Use of an approved General Retail Stores to a Bar & Neighbourhood Pub (95.13 sq.m. public space/100 occupants) (CRU 2) and to construct interior alterations.
Location: 10344 - 105 STREET NW
Plan B2 Blk 5 Lot 166
Applicant: M O GEORGE ARCHITECT, MOBOLANLE
Status: In Development Review
Create Date: 4/21/2017 4:07:52 PM
Neighbourhood: DOWNTOWN

Hallsy's Toupee · #**7056** Posted **Apr 28, 2017, 3:58 PM**

New RBC branch in COE building - or is one of the 2 existing downtown RBC branches moving?

s211 · #**7057** Posted **Apr 28, 2017, 4:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

The land deal requires a minimum of 40, the zone up to 80.

And I'm guessing we'll see if vertical phasing is contemplated if the structural provisions are in place beforehand, e.g. voids for additional elevator shafts, etc. If you don't see that, then as per Eaton Centre don't expect anything further.

GreenSPACE · #**7058** Posted **Apr 28, 2017, 5:02 PM**

^Some of the most expensive construction costs anywhere, you kinda need to go higher to make the project work.

Kevin_foster · #**7059** Posted **Apr 28, 2017, 5:15 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by s211

Hoo-boy. Why do I get the sense the site has a greater probability of looking like the Venetian and Peregrine Point had a demon child, rather than something worthy of city's front page.

LIKE DIS????

EDIT: AVERT YOUR EYES

hqcan · #**7060** Posted **Apr 28, 2017, 5:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

The land deal requires a minimum of 40, the zone up to 80.

Ambitious, exciting project but I agree that the project economics would be more difficult the smaller the height (especially considering the surface/sub-surface infrastructure required regardless of height). A 40 story tower would effectively be Encore, except that tower bas a very standard floor plate and surface/sub-surface design requirements.

This either happens in the full (or close to) or doesn't happen at all imho.

kCantor, what are you hearing being a developer in the area?