Community Development - Blatchford

[ue]

^People in Stockholm have a much less harsh winter than in Edmonton.

[yo-youyi]

lots of love for Sweco here.. maybe its just me.. but i was kinda turned off by their video.. the very first thing they say grills edmonton pretty harshly .. was that even true btw? Edmonton's carbon foot print? I thought we were a North American leading city with recycle and waste management programs?

even besides that.. they spend a good minute just parading themselves. I liked the proposal.. i just didn't find it very unique or awe inspiring.. Perkin's with the geo thermal plan was one of the best sustainability ideas overall.

[Roquentin]

Mark me down for the KCAP proposal!

[Hallsy's Toupee]

I took the time to just watch the vids.

My overall impressions is that most of 'em stole my ideas from the C2E CCA redevelopment thread! Great minds think alike!

BMIN - like their ideas of urban park space and retaining CCA history, but didn't really grab me otherwise. Hi Ian!

Foster - their vid sucked, overall impression is that they phoned it in. But I like that they included highrise towers along with the man-made canals and greenspaces.

KCAP - vid is slow to load, but very impressed. Manmade ravine and canals and lakes, extension of roadways (109 St, 118 Ave), mixed uses (agricultural, recreational, aeronautics, commercial, education, health care). A winner!

Perkins - keeping runways, otherwise similar to KCAP.

SWECO - they really oversell the Edmonton carbon footprint thing and toot their own horns. But it looks good, and similar to the KCAP and Perkins.

If I had to rank them, it would be:
1. KCAP
2. Perkins
3. SWECO
4. Foster
5. BMIN

[Jasper and one o nin]

Its one thing to "celebrate" the history of the site, but at the end of the day, the people who live there are not going to give a shit about what it was. The manner in which the history is celebrated is not going to have a bearing on the lives of the residents. It should not get in the way of good planning, sustainability and good/appropriate/lasting urban design

[ciudad_del_norte]

Originally Posted by edmontonenthusiast

^People in Stockholm have a much less harsh winter than in Edmonton.

Yup I know and I'm not saying its necesarily fair association but I just feel better about them for winter. I'm just saying i'm not sure if I feel that way because of their concept or if it is more some weird subconcious association.

Originally Posted by yo-youyi

the very first thing they say grills edmonton pretty harshly .. was that even true btw? Edmonton's carbon foot print? I thought we were a North American leading city with recycle and waste management programs?

Yeah I would agree it was a crappy start. Not sure when trying to shame your audience became a good way to sell a concept... From what I recall hearing about Edmonton it is true though. Our Waste Management etc is way up there, but I think the car use really knocks us down in terms of Canadian cities. I don't remember the stats exactly but I think Edmonton's per capita footprint was fairly high for canadian cities, but decent when compared to all of north america. That being said I didn't really appreciate it either...it seemed kind of patronizing and useless because we were the ones that asked for a sustainable community...

[Black Star]

Originally Posted by Jasper and one o nin

Its one thing to "celebrate" the history of the site, but at the end of the day, the people who live there are not going to give a shit about what it was. The manner in which the history is celebrated is not going to have a bearing on the lives of the residents. It should not get in the way of good planning, sustainability and good/appropriate/lasting urban design

Totally agree. Little johnny and his parents will be on the canal in a boat...then suddenly little johnny looks up to his dad and says....daddy was this a runway before! Did Wop May Fly on this patch of water!

[Coldrsx]

Originally Posted by mick

cold - in what way did you think it was vancouverism dropped on Edmonton? Proposed built form, architectural style?

Other BNIM, the plans were what I would expect from teams of this calibre: well researched, full of themes/metaphors, and inclusive of the latest sustainable technology (some might say fads) and design aesthetics. All in all, I think they have paid a lot of attention to Edmonton and done quite a good job of integrating a contemporary mixed use community into a site that has, by design, been isolated from the city.

bingo... much of this i have 'already seen' and was hoping for more imaginative design. Dont get me wrong though, the systems and sustainability components are 1st class, but the designs and renderings leave me wanting more.

[CMD UW]

The intent of this exercise is to think outside of the box and deliver a 'concept' that demonstrates creativity, ingenuity, and promotes todays best practices for sustainable urban development. The winner of the competition will deliver a plan that will be tailored to provide 'marketable' housing product and land uses that are applicable to Edmonton. I believe all of the submissions achieved this.

@cold - what would you have done to be more 'imaginative'?

[MalcolmTucker]

Which plan had the urban agriculture component again? As a totally fad element I want to see to make sure it isn't more than normal community garden plots type scale of things.

Otherwise on the sustainability side, community heating/generation is great at this scale. Depending on how much land it needed, geothermal could help as well, even if at this scale it would likely have a small impact on total energy use compared to lets say a full size installation on a house.

but the designs and renderings leave me wanting more.

Besides the public realm components, the individual buildings would only be guided by whatever broad design guidelines the plan as passed by council included in it. In my mind the buildings in a plan are only indicative of density, scale, and position, not anywhere close to a final product.

was that even true btw? Edmonton's carbon foot print? I thought we were a North American leading city with recycle and waste management programs?

Edmonton gets almost all of its electricity from coal. Add to that close to standard north american driving habits, and the need to heat everything and you have a big carbon footprint.

Diverting waste over and above the standard profitable recycling activities from landfills saves very little CO2 if you are operating your landfill properly. That doesn't mean it is a bad thing to do, just it isn't a panecea.

[Coldrsx]

"@cold - what would you have done to be more 'imaginative'?"
&
"Besides the public realm components, the individual buildings would only be guided by whatever broad design guidelines the plan as passed by council included in it. In my mind the buildings in a plan are only indicative of density, scale, and position, not anywhere close to a final product. "

obviously... but I felt most of the firms went far too much into lifestyle and renderings of built form as opposed to a higher level 'what could be'.

Dont get me wrong, they are all sexy and far beyond much of what we have seen here to date, but I expected more creativity and more pushing of the envelope.

I find much of them too 'safe'

[mick]

I guess your concerns give a bit of insight into where BNIM was coming from, and, perhaps, show a leaning toward their approach. As I previously noted, their approach is perhaps to conceptual and thematic for a site that is very much embedded in a functioning urban context.

I don't know if safe is the right word for the other solutions. I'd say the designs were constrained by having to at least attempt to fit into an existing urban context, one that poses significant challenges - given the barriers around the site; I think they've done that about as well as could be expected, while still proposing unique solutions that respond to the site, the city, and our climate.

[CanadianCentaur]

SWECO and KCAP seem to me the best ideas, based on what I've seen from the video presentations. Not exactly a fan of BNIM, and Fosters is more or less meh. Perkins is just behind KCAP in my book - it's not bad, but could be better. Now I gotta check out the PDF files.

[hqcan]

Well it looks like Ian and Tony Caterina agree on one thing

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/...201/story.html

[ciudad_del_norte]

^ Haha. I actually kind of forgot about Caterina, Diotte has been holding a monopoly on being "that" councillor more or less since the election. He does have a point though, his plan of keeping the airport open was definately the most innovative...

[Xelebes]

Going to have to say I prefer the KCAP more. Sweco's just didn't look like it was built for our climate.

[itom 987]

Here are my thoughts on the airport redevelopment plans:

1. KCAP - I liked this plan the best of them all, it is the only plan that unites 118th Ave. This plan does the best job of meshing in with Edmonton's urban fabric and that goes a long way into reducing any risk of ghettoization, it also improves areas outside the airport lands. I like the canals, and the way the park system joins with the bike path in the south west to the cemetery in the north east. I know that some of you are against the idea of windmills within city limits but the ones shown are situated south of the Yellowhead and CN rail yard which means we don't have to worry about shadows. The industrial zoned land just south of it acts like a decent buffer between the windmills and residential areas. Keep in mind that Toronto has a windmill in the middle of the city and no one seems to complain. I also like the fact that all forms of urban housing are shown from european style row houses which are great for families (a product that Edmonton seriously lacks) to high rise living. I like the combined Via Rail and LRT station, both services will work well together, I feel that the existing rail station doesn't live up to Edmonton's expectations. I like those seven bridges connecting both sides of the canal creating a very accessible and walkable environment. I feel that this plan should be the one we use as the blueprint. We can take all the good ideas from the other plans such as green roofs, toboggan hill, geothermal energy, solar panels and incorporate them into this blueprint. For the record, float planes will not be able to use the canal due to the number of bridges and buildings nearby.

2. Perkins and Will - I like the water feature and how it takes advantage of those long sunny summer days. I love the toboggan hill, I would be overjoyed if the growing mound beside the cement plant in west Edmonton was moved to the airport site. Edmonton is a prairie city and adding a hill will go a long way into breaking the bland prairie landscape. The plan's water feature is similar to KCAP. I like how the park is set up but I find it too large for the area. I give a big plus for the idea of a geothermal heating plant that would offer excess heating to areas outside of the airport lands. If something like this is successful we could expand it to serve the entire city. I like the different forms of housing shown, the recycling, energy distribution, and waste disposal methods. This plan ties in the minor threads of the urban fabric but it doesn't tie in the larger threads such as 118 Ave.

3. SWECO - I like the different forms of housing shown, the recycling, energy distribution, and waste disposal methods. I feel that this is one of the key ideas that could transform Edmonton into a green city. I would never use the urban blueprint for the land because it doesn't do a good job of connecting with the rest of the city. This isolation could lead to ghettoization. I also find the blocks too small compared to what we see in the neighbourhoods beside it which makes for a lot of shovelling to do in the winter. The circular road looks like it was placed on there randomly and serves little purpose to the urban environment.

4. Foster and Partners - This plan is alright but it looks like it is building "Edmonton" within Edmonton. We don't need something that directly competes with the N Sask. river valley. I like the covered streets, they could make a great place to shop year round and should be included in the chosen plan. Aside from a couple if towers and apartments with with courtyards there isn't much variety in housing options available. It could deter families from living there. I would never use the urban blueprint for the land because it doesn't do a good job of connecting with the rest of the city. This isolation could lead to ghettoization. I like the fact that there are no above ground parking spaces. Surface parking lots should be banned from the redevelopment regardless of which plan we choose. I feel that Foster and Partners didn't put enough time and energy into making their plan. It would be nice if we saw more detail.

5. BMIN - I like the green roofs, and the flexible mixed-use strategy throughout the site, unfortunately that's about it. The plan does nothing to compliment the surrounding urban fabric, let alone meshing with it. I find the plan being way too edgy, it looks more like something from a science fiction novel than a district within a city. The "hills" are a unique concept but the master plan is very rigid, you can't add density without wrecking the master plan, unless you want to burrow further underground. Humans aren't ground hogs, we have never been and never will unless some unfortunate disaster strikes. The renderings of the buildings them selves are very underwhelming, is anybody going to purchase a unit in a building underneath a hill that is made of shipping containers? I don't mind shipping containers but they need to be used properly in context or else they won't work. This plan gives a perfect storm for ghettoization, lack of connectivity with the rest of the city and ugly buildings. I don't mean any disrespect to those Edmontonians that spent the time to give input to this plan, your intentions are good. The designers at BMIN did a bad job of putting the concept together, they should have been more creative with the building facades, the environment should have been more vibrant, and the layout should have done a better job at meshing with the city.

[Kevin_foster]

SWECO and KCAP appealed to me the most, although I can definitely tell there is still much, much, much more planning to do to make any sort of conclusive opinion.

I was fully expecting Fosters would come in with some bigger ideas. Hats off to SWECO for the effort put into their submission.

[Coldrsx]

Green builders buoyed by proposals for Edmonton’s airport lands
 
 
BY HANNEKE BROOYMANS, EDMONTONJOURNAL.COM FEBRUARY 21, 2011 8:01 PM BE THE FIRST TO POST A COMMENT
 
 
EDMONTON – A couple spearheading the development of a carbon-neutral village in Leduc County is delighted with the five proposals unveiled last week for the Edmonton airport lands redevelopment project.

Husband and wife team Godo Stoyke and Shanthu Mano have been working on their vision for a carbon-neutral village for years now, first revealing their plan at a public meeting in November 2008. They’re feeling invigorated by the airport lands proposals.

“I’m hearing good things,” said Mano on Monday. “Godo is totally impressed. ... Every now and then he’ll come running to me, saying ‘Oh Shanthu, you should see this.’ ... It’s kind of exciting for us, too. I always love it when people are doing wonderful things around the world because it just means we’re all working together. It’s a good feeling.”

[Coldrsx]

Re-imagining the Airport lands
by Lawrence Herzog
Inside Edmonton | Vol. 29 No. 8 | February 24, 2011

Renderings from Perkins + Will
The conceptual designs for the transformation of the City Centre Airport lands, released earlier this month, tantalize with visions of parks, lakes, a tram line, apartments with roofs covered with grass and solar panels. Thinkers on five international design teams have come up with proposals for a compact, energy-efficient creation, home to more than 30,000 residents.

If their boldest visions should see the light of day, the 217-hectare airport site would be different from anything the city has ever seen. Generous green spaces, innovative uses for historical buildings, family-friendly housing, geothermal heating linked to downtown, a three-kilometre canal and activity opportunities are some of the touchstones of the concepts.

http://www.rewedmonton.ca/content_vi...ONTENT_ID=3048