Edmonton Construction 13 (November 2015)

[Hardhatdan]

https://www.falcontowers.ca/

Unfortunately, it's 100% the Langham template, punched white vinyl windows, tons of white EIFS, a tiny bit of window wall, nearly zero articulation in floor plate.

It looks to have all the construction cost minimizers in from a floorplate and envelope perspective, not to mention it's probably the usual base board heat and patio mounted AC for an extra. There are some progressive concept renderings on the site and you can just the 'value design' creeping in and eroding the original thought.

Buildings also seem to be pretty large floor plates.


Overall, each new rendering looks worse and worse.

[Black Star]

Originally Posted by Hardhatdan

https://www.falcontowers.ca/

Unfortunately, it's 100% the Langham template, punched white vinyl windows, tons of white EIFS, a tiny bit of window wall, nearly zero articulation in floor plate.

It looks to have all the construction cost minimizers in from a floorplate and envelope perspective, not to mention it's probably the usual base board heat and patio mounted AC for an extra. There are some progressive concept renderings on the site and you can just the 'value design' creeping in and eroding the original thought.

Buildings also seem to be pretty large floor plates.


Overall, each new rendering looks worse and worse.

Sad but true.....

[CMD UW]

Originally Posted by Hardhatdan

https://www.falcontowers.ca/

Unfortunately, it's 100% the Langham template, punched white vinyl windows, tons of white EIFS, a tiny bit of window wall, nearly zero articulation in floor plate.

It looks to have all the construction cost minimizers in from a floorplate and envelope perspective, not to mention it's probably the usual base board heat and patio mounted AC for an extra. There are some progressive concept renderings on the site and you can just the 'value design' creeping in and eroding the original thought.

Buildings also seem to be pretty large floor plates.


Overall, each new rendering looks worse and worse.

I disagree. You can tell that they've simplified the floor plans and have made them more efficient compared to Fox and Icon. Which is a very smart move.

The one major difference compared to their previous projects is that they've essentially developed a balcony across the entire building as an extension of the floor plate. You see this a lot in Toronto as it allows for maximum balcony coverage. In my opinion it also helps to create a more uniform aesthetic from the exterior.

All in all this will be an improvement over Fox Towers.

[Coldrsx]

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5...5124246/falconpanorama1.jpg?format=1500w

[Hardhatdan]

Originally Posted by CMD UW

I disagree. You can tell that they've simplified the floor plans and have made them more efficient compared to Fox and Icon. Which is a very smart move.

The one major difference compared to their previous projects is that they've essentially developed a balcony across the entire building as an extension of the floor plate. You see this a lot in Toronto as it allows for maximum balcony coverage. In my opinion it also helps to create a more uniform aesthetic from the exterior.

All in all this will be an improvement over Fox Towers.

Simplified, it's a pure square on plane (maybe it's a slight rectangle) and there is zero vertical articulation, this is simple for sure...it doesn't get simpler or cheaper to build.
I like boxy buildings personally, but this one is trying to mimic those Toronto versions, just much much cheaper and it shows. When the form is simple, the accentuating details matter a lot and this doesn't have it. I guess, at least they didn't wing ding the box, the modern esthetic is at least consistent.

Too bad they couldn't follow the initial concept renderings, they show on the website, with some vertical 'taper' and better use of window/curtain wall.

[Airboy]

Loading docks at Stantec are now being used. First furniture is being moved in. and the first tenants are going in this weekend. Parkade should also be open for use this weekend.

[Rocket252]

What is going on at the top of Stantec - looks like all work has stopped.

[Coldrsx]

For immediate release:

Langham Developments Limited is commencing with the development of Falcon One, the first phase of a two-tower residential development South of Jasper Avenue on 104th street. At 30-40 storeys, Falcon One will have approximately 296 residential units, a 2 storey retail podium and will be the tallest tower to date on 104th Street in Edmonton’s downtown. The second phase of the development Falcon Two, located immediately south of Falcon One, will have approximately 356 units at 40-50 Storeys. Both towers will have direct access to 104th Street and will feature stunning views of Edmonton’s downtown and River valley.

Reza Mostashari president of Langham Developments is a veteran developer. He has completed 5 prominent downtown high rises. The Omega, Icon Tower I, Icon Tower II, Fox One and Fox Two.

Continued Revitalization of 104th Street
The Icon towers started the revitalization of 104 street in 2010, The Fox Towers continued the revitalization of the area completing phase one in 2015 and phase two in 2017. The Falcon Towers will connect 104th Street South of Jasper Avenue to the river valley transforming a gravel parking lot into two contemporary skyline changing towers continuing the revitalization of the area.

No where in Edmonton has a developer put so much focus developing one street downtown and transforming it into one of the city’s most vibrant districts.


Falcon One - North Tower
123 Meters
30-40 Storeys
296 Units

Falcon Two - South Tower
140 Meters
40-50 Storeys
356 Units

[Urban recluse]

Originally Posted by Hardhatdan

https://www.falcontowers.ca/

Unfortunately, it's 100% the Langham template, punched white vinyl windows, tons of white EIFS, a tiny bit of window wall, nearly zero articulation in floor plate.

It looks to have all the construction cost minimizers in from a floorplate and envelope perspective, not to mention it's probably the usual base board heat and patio mounted AC for an extra. There are some progressive concept renderings on the site and you can just the 'value design' creeping in and eroding the original thought.

Buildings also seem to be pretty large floor plates.


Overall, each new rendering looks worse and worse.

Agreed. The EIFS totally cheapens this development. Obviously they do not have the budget to work around the building codes?

[fortroad]

Originally Posted by Urban recluse

Agreed. The EIFS totally cheapens this development. Obviously they do not have the budget to work around the building codes?

Wait for those seemless glass deck rails to turn into this:

[Urban recluse]

Omg lmfao.

[s211]

Originally Posted by kcantor

^ ^^ ^^^

i don't think there is any real "right or wrong" to this decision. i also don't think there is enough information available to determine why in this case the decision was to include two ramps, one for each tower.

to start with, if the titles remain separate and the towers are "adjacent" and not connected, each can be done with it's own condominium plan without having to file for a phased development. cheaper and easier.

nominally higher construction costs (two ramps) and possibly nominally lower sales proceeds (fewer stalls to sell) but if they're separate projects then each one can be serviced with it's own water and sewer and power and backup generator etc. which is likely more cost effective in total than having to oversize everything from day one.

each building can then be financed on its own both long-term as well as for construction financing which is likely to be more attractive for lenders which means more affordable for the developer.

from a flexibility perspective, it's also more attractive to have two separate titles - and two boards etc. - to maintain future options for the developer (i.e. the option to still do the second tower as rental without losing to control to the first building's board).

lastly, and perhaps even more importantly from my perspective, if i have to compete to get in and out of my parkade (particularly if it's seven levels down), having to do so with twice as many ramps and half as many cars is twice as attractive.

on balance, i'm in Coldrsx's camp on this one.

I appreciate your detailed comments, which all have valid points. That said, I've yet to come across a multi-tower project in downtown Vancouver that had more than one single shared access point.

[s211]

Originally Posted by CMD UW

I disagree. You can tell that they've simplified the floor plans and have made them more efficient compared to Fox and Icon. Which is a very smart move.

The one major difference compared to their previous projects is that they've essentially developed a balcony across the entire building as an extension of the floor plate. You see this a lot in Toronto as it allows for maximum balcony coverage. In my opinion it also helps to create a more uniform aesthetic from the exterior.

All in all this will be an improvement over Fox Towers.

I'm really not a fan of how small the units are. They're extremely cramped. What they call a three bedroom is laughable.

To roughly quote Douglas Adams: "the room wasn't large enough to swing a cat in, unless it was a very patient cat that didn't mind the occasional knock about the head."

[Airboy]

Originally Posted by Rocket252

What is going on at the top of Stantec - looks like all work has stopped.

Still going on. they are probably lifting mechanical equipment up. I saw some more steel arrive yesterday.

They are only lifting from the east side now. The south has the entrance that will be used to access the tower.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by s4.audios

But shorter towers are still going to bring in a lot of density. And Edmonton has plenty of land for taller buildings when demand keeps ramping up, for decades to come.

Tall towers keep higher densities within a smaller footprint in city centres, and help energize the surrounding businesses that create the vibrancy found in all other major cities. Downtown Edmonton really needs that.

Having really tall residential towers downtown is also very important as these would also share their neighbourhoods with non-residential buildings like office towers, malls, hotels, etc. Shorter condos just don't provide sufficient density with such varied land uses. Smaller 6-storey type apartments are good in the more outlying areas as they don't have to compete as much with other forms of structures, thereby allowing more density to go into an area in the suburbs.

[kcantor]

Originally Posted by s211

I appreciate your detailed comments, which all have valid points. That said, I've yet to come across a multi-tower project in downtown Vancouver that had more than one single shared access point.

i'm pretty sure the twin towers on cambie street across from the showmart building have separate parkade entries although they do use the same curb cut from the street. the 900 block on seymour has more than one curb cut and more than one access to their parkade(s). those are just top of mind but over and above that, all of the adjacent tower developments where there are 2 or 3 towers per block all have their own parkades and their own parkade access, even when they have abutting podiums, which is essentially what's proposed here.

[s211]

Originally Posted by kcantor

i'm pretty sure the twin towers on cambie street across from the showmart building have separate parkade entries although they do use the same curb cut from the street. the 900 block on seymour has more than one curb cut and more than one access to their parkade(s). those are just top of mind but over and above that, all of the adjacent tower developments where there are 2 or 3 towers per block all have their own parkades and their own parkade access, even when they have abutting podiums, which is essentially what's proposed here.

Ken, most of what you mention is at least 20+ year-old product. The market's moved on. Check out Concord's Marinaside area for examples of what I'm trying to describe. All newer product has integrated parking.

Where this is borne out most these days is where there are multi-use projects, like The Rise on Cambie/8th where commercial and residential parking access is completely integrated, with residential parking on the lowest level. If multi-use projects can do it, then surely a two tower condo complex can do it.

Yes, there's phased product on very large plots of land (CityGate for example) developed over many years that have separate strata corps and physically separate operations. However, for something like the Falcon product that has a site as small as it does, it's laughable to think that combined access and loading wasn't implemented.

Evolve, market.

[kcantor]

Originally Posted by s211

Ken, most of what you mention is at least 20+ year-old product. The market's moved on. Check out Concord's Marinaside area for examples of what I'm trying to describe. All newer product has integrated parking.

Where this is borne out most these days is where there are multi-use projects, like The Rise on Cambie/8th where commercial and residential parking access is completely integrated, with residential parking on the lowest level. If multi-use projects can do it, then surely a two tower condo complex can do it.

Yes, there's phased product on very large plots of land (CityGate for example) developed over many years that have separate strata corps and physically separate operations. However, for something like the Falcon product that has a site as small as it does, it's laughable to think that combined access and loading wasn't implemented.

Evolve, market.

i think you’re comparing apples to oranges... these two towers will have approximately 652 units between them. the rise has 92. the concord has 86.

[Black Star]

Anyway.... Langham emailed tonight.

Long story short. My wife and I are looking for a second residence downtown.

We are no longer looking at Langham.We Were anticipating a better design than what they have previously produced.. Their new design is weak and their height decrease is not we are looking for. We Want to a more riverside location with more style and height. Says the wife

[Edmontonium]

I think it would be looking better if northern tower would be the taller one.. not vice versa