HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #761  
Old Posted Jun 5, 2014, 6:50 PM
MalcolmTucker MalcolmTucker is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 11,429
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLACK STAR View Post
^^
^

Absolutely agree. Please no more multi colored housing.
For the prices they will need to make this work there is going to be a need to have many different design styles. Though a minimalist modernist development might appeal to me, I would much rather have the development fill out with different styles than sit stagnant with a master vision.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #762  
Old Posted Jun 5, 2014, 6:59 PM
EdmTrekker EdmTrekker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,167
Quote:
Originally Posted by ue View Post
^ I agree. The ones on the right look fine, but the ones on the left look like your typical bland suburban fare. Especially with the mustard yellow and bright red.
I agree and wonder why they would propose that design (left 2 story stucco) in the first place. This development needs architecture that helps support the vision of Blatchford not some crap from suburbia that looks cheap and out of place. I really like the roof top uses for patio, container gardens etc. I thought that what Blatchford would be about not what is being shown n the left hand side.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #763  
Old Posted Jun 5, 2014, 7:03 PM
Hallsy's Toupee's Avatar
Hallsy's Toupee Hallsy's Toupee is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 6,775
Personally I would like to see more midrises and highrises. But I will wait and see if more renderings are released today.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #764  
Old Posted Jun 5, 2014, 8:32 PM
Black Star's Avatar
Black Star Black Star is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 7,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker View Post
For the prices they will need to make this work there is going to be a need to have many different design styles. Though a minimalist modernist development might appeal to me, I would much rather have the development fill out with different styles than sit stagnant with a master vision.

I'm aware of this. I just don't like multi coloured buildings
__________________
Beverly to 96 St then all the way down to Riverdale.
Ol'Skool Classic Funk, Disco, and Rock.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #765  
Old Posted Jun 5, 2014, 8:39 PM
ue ue is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 9,480
You can have a mix of building styles (because really, the same style over such a large area would be quite vapid), but they can be attractive building styles too.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #766  
Old Posted Jun 5, 2014, 9:06 PM
Coldrsx's Avatar
Coldrsx Coldrsx is online now
Community Guy
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Canmore, AB
Posts: 66,668
Keep in mind that the City is pushing for more colour in building design, see Scandinavia or NFLD, due to our dull grey winters. I prefer the THs on the right and generally like what I see.
__________________
"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
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #767  
Old Posted Jun 5, 2014, 9:48 PM
Makenosmallplans Makenosmallplans is offline
Erik Soderstrom
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Edmonton - Pleasantview
Posts: 223
Think the colour is great - provided the materials are decent quality. something resembling actual clapboards - if its cheap vinyl it'll look bad no matter what colour or non colour it is.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #768  
Old Posted Jun 5, 2014, 10:22 PM
EdmTrekker EdmTrekker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldrsx View Post
Keep in mind that the City is pushing for more colour in building design, see Scandinavia or NFLD, due to our dull grey winters. I prefer the THs on the right and generally like what I see.
I don't have a problem with colour - it is the suburbanite cheap look that is bothersome.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #769  
Old Posted Jun 5, 2014, 10:25 PM
ue ue is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 9,480
^ Right. It reminds me of the Railtown condos, which really belong beyond the Henday.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #770  
Old Posted Jun 6, 2014, 2:55 AM
itom 987's Avatar
itom 987 itom 987 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 5,046
The buildings are OK to me, I have more problems with the lake. If I wanted to go to a pond in the wilderness I would go to the countryside, or go to the river valley. This is near the centre of the city, please make the LAKE more urban.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #771  
Old Posted Jun 6, 2014, 1:28 PM
SHOFEAR's Avatar
SHOFEAR SHOFEAR is offline
DRINK
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: City Of Champions
Posts: 8,219
Quote:
Originally Posted by itom 987 View Post
The buildings are OK to me, I have more problems with the lake. If I wanted to go to a pond in the wilderness I would go to the countryside, or go to the river valley. This is near the centre of the city, please make the LAKE more urban.
First, it is likely a SWMF for the neighborhood. During a storm event the water level will likely rise somewhere around 2m. It would be somewhat challenging to design a urban landscape around it with hard surfaces that would accommodate such a rapidly fluctuating water level.

It very likely a component of the environmental focus of the neighborhood too. All of the vegetation that surrounds it will help clarify and clean the water before it is released into the storm system downstream and ultimately the river.
__________________
Lana. Lana. Lana? LANA! Danger Zone
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #772  
Old Posted Jun 6, 2014, 3:48 PM
rapid_business's Avatar
rapid_business rapid_business is offline
Urban Advocate
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 6,888
Quote:
Originally Posted by SHOFEAR View Post
First, it is likely a SWMF for the neighborhood. During a storm event the water level will likely rise somewhere around 2m. It would be somewhat challenging to design a urban landscape around it with hard surfaces that would accommodate such a rapidly fluctuating water level.

It very likely a component of the environmental focus of the neighborhood too. All of the vegetation that surrounds it will help clarify and clean the water before it is released into the storm system downstream and ultimately the river.
Indeed. However, they have made the conscious switch from the urban lake (renderings with active use on the lake) to unusable SWMF. I heard they are working with drainage to see if access can be granted for skating in the winter, but if not, it is a lost opportunity for the neighbourhood and for the city.
__________________
Cities are the most extraordinary human creation. They are this phenomenon which has unbelievable capacity to solve problems, to innovate, to invent, to create prosperity, to make change and continually reform. - Ken Greenburg
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #773  
Old Posted Jun 6, 2014, 6:05 PM
kcantor kcantor is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 2,977
Quote:
Originally Posted by SHOFEAR View Post
First, it is likely a SWMF for the neighborhood. During a storm event the water level will likely rise somewhere around 2m. It would be somewhat challenging to design a urban landscape around it with hard surfaces that would accommodate such a rapidly fluctuating water level.

It very likely a component of the environmental focus of the neighborhood too. All of the vegetation that surrounds it will help clarify and clean the water before it is released into the storm system downstream and ultimately the river.
a two meter change in the water level during the occasional storm event? horrors... think of the children!

how do they ever manage to create recreational opportunities in bc or the maritimes where the change in water levels can be more than twice that twice a day???

somewhat challenging? not in the least.

somewhat expensive? possibly, but probably no more expensive than recreating those urban and recreational possibilities elsewhere so you're not really saving anything by not doing it here.

this is the difference between doing what we agreed to pay for or not, not a matter of "challenges"...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #774  
Old Posted Jun 6, 2014, 6:11 PM
EdmTrekker EdmTrekker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,167
Quote:
Originally Posted by rapid_business View Post
Indeed. However, they have made the conscious switch from the urban lake (renderings with active use on the lake) to unusable SWMF. I heard they are working with drainage to see if access can be granted for skating in the winter, but if not, it is a lost opportunity for the neighbourhood and for the city.
Why bother with the development if there is no water use. Water use is what most Edmontonians thought they would see when the airport closed down - it was those images that made us believe that in closing the airport down we would build something so much better. I would rather a massive urban park than just residential.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #775  
Old Posted Jun 6, 2014, 6:14 PM
MalcolmTucker MalcolmTucker is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 11,429
Given the city is projecting a rather small profit now, I wonder what else will be lost in value engineering. Doesn't really give me hope. Especially when the city is now onto the next big thing, releasing value in Rossdale. Seriously, wouldn't it be better to focus on one or two projects like this at once, instead of diluting the market and ensuring all don't live up to their potential?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #776  
Old Posted Jun 10, 2014, 4:55 AM
itom 987's Avatar
itom 987 itom 987 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 5,046
The city of Edmonton is building this project, not a private company looking for profit. If Edmonton makes money from the project, great! But this is a public project, our goal should be to break even. The profit we will realize is the dividends from increases in tax revenue, land values, and efficiencies in providing services. Those numbers will make the project pay for itself. But if you cheapen the project for the sake of making a quick buck then tax revenue, land values, and efficiencies will also diminish.

Edmonton is situated in the middle of nowhere. Almost every other province and territory in Canada have a better collection of lakes than Alberta does. Edmonton is the most northern city with a population over a million - this isn't something to brag about, there is nothing of significance (besides resources) north of us. Edmontonians have a long drive to the mountains compared to Calgarians. The only city of significance near us unfortunately is Calgary which is kicking our butt in almost every category I can think of. Vancouver has excellent scenery and architecture making it almost impossible to compete with.

What cities can Edmonton look up to? Las Vegas, and Dubai. Why? Because they are also in the middle of nowhere but have created something that make people want to go there. The Ghermezian knew the position Edmonton is in when they built West Edmonton Mall, and that mall remains one of the few things Edmonton has that no other city had; until recently, other cities would still kill to have it. Dubai built an oasis in the middle of the desert from scratch to secure their future after oil is gone. So far, it looks like their investment is paying off, they already have one of the top 10 busiest airports in the world. If it wasn't for gambling, Las Vegas would be a sh*t town in the middle of the desert. Edmonton needs to stop being a sh*t town in the middle of the frozen prairies.

Edmontonians need an urban outdoor oasis that we can enjoy year round. I want to see people boating on the lake in rowboats, canoes, rafts etc. I want to see the lake lit up at night like a swimming pool in summer, glowing ice in the winter giving much needed light to compensate for our short winter days. I want to see a large hill to the north, as tall as the river valley is deep (we might not have enough space but as close as we can) so people can have a wonderful view our great city. I want a great aviation museum commemorating our past. Blatchford should be beautiful enough to have wedding photos taken there, it should be Edmonton's Dubai.

The nearsightedness coming from Edmonton's administration needs to stop. I am getting sick and tired of administration telling everyone that it's their way, or the highway. We need to remind city council that they have the licence to fire administration if necessary. City administration needs realize that they there to serve Edmontonians, it's our home after all, lets be proud of where we live.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #777  
Old Posted Jun 10, 2014, 6:05 AM
ue ue is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 9,480
While you may not like it, there is a segment of the population that finds beauty in the open prairie and the vast wilderness of the north.

Calgary isn't in the mountains and so while it is a quick getaway for people on the weekends, it has little bearing on the day-to-day happenings in Calgary.

I'm guessing that to you, Chicago, Toronto, Ottawa, and Atlanta, not to mention London, Paris, and Berlin are in areas devoid of interesting nature.

Las Vegas has the open desert and the Grand Canyon and the Hoover Dam in proximity. People in Los Angeles don't just go west to the coast or north to the mountains to see nature, they also go east into the empty desert, which has a similar vastness that the prairies do.

Edmonton doesn't need gimmicks like WEM. The city was actually doing a lot better pre-WEM until the past few years when things have really picked up.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #778  
Old Posted Jun 10, 2014, 6:36 AM
MalcolmTucker MalcolmTucker is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 11,429
Downgrading the environmental aspect to standard district energy, maybe with some geothermal makes sense. The amenity lakes should stay though. Can get away with the same small streets by buying some small garbage/recycling trucks. Will already have to buy small fire trucks so does it matter really? Why would the neighborhood presort garbage - the city as a whole is already an example to behold on the waste management front.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #779  
Old Posted Jun 10, 2014, 12:49 PM
Shodan's Avatar
Shodan Shodan is offline
Sherwood Park as a Nation
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Where I hang my hat
Posts: 2,372

Profit site or eco-paradise?

Paula Simons
Edmonton Journal

Tuesday, June 10, 2014

Principle versus profit. Idealism versus pragmatism. Tuesday, Edmonton City Council must choose from among five different scenarios for the old City Centre Airport lands. It must decide what kind of Blatchford it wants to build.

"The balance is, how green do you want to be? And how much money do you want to make? That's the tension we're facing," says Bev Esslinger, councillor for Ward 2. "Where do we go from here?" Esslinger and Mark Hall, executive director of the

Blatchford project, have invited me to the top of the old air traffic control tower, overlooking the 217-hectare site, to discuss the question. From up here, the views are great. The vision of the future is more murky...

© Edmonton Journal 2014

Copyright © 2014 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks Publications, Inc.. All rights reserved.
CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks Publications, Inc.. All rights reserved.

http://www2.canada.com/components/pr...a5a17&sponsor=
__________________
Sweet.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #780  
Old Posted Jun 10, 2014, 2:17 PM
hilman's Avatar
hilman hilman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 2,763
Quote:
BUILDING A TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE INTO BLATCHFORD
posted June 10th, 2014 in 2013-2017 Term, A beautiful city, A city with better housing & transportation choices, A fiscally responsible city, Airport, Environment

There used to be a time when we would see the words ‘scaled back’ next to a city-backed project and applaud City Council for making a prudent decision. So when a few headlines bubbled up last week that pegged the new Blatchford plans as ‘scaled back’, it was a refreshing change to see some Edmontonians aghast that we might be flirting once again with mediocrity.

How far we’ve come.

Certainly we have to watch our debt ceiling as we tackle projects like the Southeast LRT and rebuild our drainage infrastructure for changing weather. But that doesn’t mean we necessarily have to ‘mediocricize’ Blatchford.

Here’s my thinking:

The refinement from the first and extremely ambitious Perkins + Will plan for Blatchford to the current plan being recommended to Council are centred around four key changes.

The first is elongating a sci-fi inspired (my words) pneumatic garbage disposal system that essentially sucks all the waste from the community to one central location – the theory being, instead of multitudes of garbage trucks driving through the community, you only need one. As much I’d love to see one of these in action, investing $91 million in pneumatic waste collection doesn’t make a lot of sense to me when we are already making great strides in greening our fleet of city vehicles and diverting 90% our waste from landfill. With last week’s announcement on Enerkem’s waste-to-energy biofuel plant, we’re already ahead of nearly every city around the world on waste processing.
http://doniveson.ca/2014/06/10/build...to-blatchford/
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

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

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


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:53 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.