Edmonton's Stationlands

Kimo · #1 Posted **Apr 23, 2007, 4:35 AM**

I was surfing around on Wikipedia and found info on Calgary's list of tallest buildings and decided to look up Edmonton's. Halfway down it showed Current Projects with Stationlands at the top of the list. They had it listed as Approved.
Now I realize that anything on Wikipedia is now subject to scrutiny, but this piqued my interest. Has this been approved? Or is the information not correct?

Hardhatdan · #2 Posted **Apr 23, 2007, 4:43 AM**

Oh boy...
Someone anyone want to explain this?

Kimo · #3 Posted **Apr 23, 2007, 4:57 AM**

Here is the link to it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...gs_in_Edmonton

ibz · #4 Posted **Apr 23, 2007, 5:00 AM**

Murman will get to it soon enough

SHOFEAR · #5 Posted **Apr 23, 2007, 5:04 AM**

nobody really wants to get into it.....

Basically it has so much wrong with it and it should never happen in it's current form.

Wooster · #6 Posted **Apr 23, 2007, 6:06 AM**

Ha. This is probably the 7th such Stationlands thread since I joined in 2003.

Someone will explain it, who will it be?

murman · #7 Posted **Apr 23, 2007, 3:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SHOFEAR

nobody really wants to get into it.....

Basically it has so much wrong with it and it should never happen in it's current form.

AWFUL location for the proposed uses.

Design needs to wake up from its 1970s slumber.

A textbook lesson on a design that fails from every possible measure.

Thus endith today's lesson.

Mods: please lock this thread before I have to go postal again on every twit that seems to think this project is DT Edm's saviour.

Coldrsx · #8 Posted **Apr 23, 2007, 4:09 PM**

It will have UG connections to new haven, brockville....

feepa · #9 Posted **Apr 23, 2007, 4:46 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by murman

AWFUL location for the proposed uses.

Design needs to wake up from its 1970s slumber.

A textbook lesson on a design that fails from every possible measure.

Thus endith today's lesson.

Mods: please lock this thread before I have to go postal again on every twit that seems to think this project is DT Edm's saviour.

Murman, I'm not disagreeing with you, but rather, interested in what you would do with this chunk of land (if it was yours to do with what you want) Can you play around with mspaint, or describe in words what you would do with this barren land, and how it would tie into the areas around it...and help mend the broken urban fabric that is this area

Stationlands is not DT Edm Saviour, and I really hope that what ever comes of it is completely different then what we have seen for 10+ years in the same tired renderings

Coldrsx · #10 Posted **Apr 23, 2007, 4:55 PM**

Stationlands is ripe for mixed use, we can all agree...but what. Id like to see it tie in chinatown more, casino, rink, hotel, condos, how about a new greyhound station fronting 101st.

danby · #11 Posted **Apr 23, 2007, 4:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

It will have UG connections to new haven, brockville....

lol loves it!!

thinks back to that simpsons!

CMD UW · #12 Posted **Apr 23, 2007, 5:03 PM**

Re: Stationlands - see coldrsx's response.

murman · #13 Posted **Apr 23, 2007, 6:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

Stationlands is ripe for mixed use, we can all agree...but what. Id like to see it tie in chinatown more, casino, rink, hotel, condos, how about a new greyhound station fronting 101st.

Mixed-use is the new mantra in planning these days, but what rarely seems to get air-time is that ALL of the uses proposed must be economically-viable, or else the uses shouldn't be there in the first place.

Planners just seem to white-wash over that rather all-encompassing point. I've seen many mixed-use projects that have either been out-and-out disasters, and I've seen ground-level commercial in point-block towers that has sat vacant since day one, or leased for far less than pro-forma.

From my viewpoint, the only thing that makes economic sense, at the present time, in that location is as a parking lot. There's much more superior sites elsewhere for all of the uses proposed. How some people think that negative plus negative plus negative should end up equalling a huge positive escapes me.

I would rather let land sit fallow and be developed when conditions warrant, and Stationlands is a perfect example in that regard.

It's just that tertiary. Stationlands should not be developed as a saviour-like mixed use muddle. It should be allowed to develop organically, as the market warrants.

HomeInMyShoes · #14 Posted **Apr 23, 2007, 6:02 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by feepa

Murman, I'm not disagreeing with you, but rather, interested in what you would do with this chunk of land (if it was yours to do with what you want) Can you play around with mspaint, or describe in words what you would do with this barren land, and how it would tie into the areas around it...and help mend the broken urban fabric that is this area

Stationlands is not DT Edm Saviour, and I really hope that what ever comes of it is completely different then what we have seen for 10+ years in the same tired renderings

The problem I have with the current design of Stationlands is it actually does nothing to address integrating and linking the area North of it to the rest of downtown. It's really just buiding a gigantic wall between City Hall and Churchill Square and the Chinatown area. Replacing the current psychological and physical barrier that is there right now is not improving the area much. Reintegrating the street access into Chinatown would do much more for that area in the long run.

We managed to get rid of the rails as a barrier to the North edges of downtown so let's try not to recreate a wall to ensure the separation.

I don't actually mind the design of the towers. Even though they are starting to look a bit dated into the late 90s now, they are a gigantic leap forward in many respects, but the Berlin Wall podium has to go for me.

On the whole, Stationlands will not be built in it's current form because attrracting the major tenant they need for the prime office space on the fringe of downtown when there are many better lots in downtown right now is difficult if not impossible. I think it might have survived if Capital Health had picked it instead of 107th Street, but that's done now.

IKAN104 · #15 Posted **Apr 23, 2007, 6:40 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kimo

I was surfing around on Wikipedia and found info on Calgary's list of tallest buildings and decided to look up Edmonton's. Halfway down it showed Current Projects with Stationlands at the top of the list. They had it listed as Approved.
Now I realize that anything on Wikipedia is now subject to scrutiny, but this piqued my interest. Has this been approved? Or is the information not correct?

As far as I can tell, nobody has really answered your question yet. Simply put, yes it has been approved but that doesn't mean it will be built. They need some tenants to sign on the dotted line first.

Coldrsx · #16 Posted **Apr 23, 2007, 6:41 PM**

however, with the new Oilers rink bound for the lot directly beside it...id guess, like it or not, we will see it go.

feepa · #17 Posted **Apr 23, 2007, 6:52 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

however, with the new Oilers rink bound for the lot directly beside it...id guess, like it or not, we will see it go.

It would be cool to see 100th st or 99th st extend north across this project...somehow... kinda like GMCC does for 107th street...
I really hope this design has significant changes...

Coldrsx · #18 Posted **Apr 23, 2007, 6:54 PM**

i dont mind pedestrian openings, but i personally dont want to see roads go through here.

feepa · #19 Posted **Apr 23, 2007, 7:00 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

i dont mind pedestrian openings, but i personally dont want to see roads go through here.

Thats really what I meant - was ped openings... That would be one of my suggestions to making this project tie in all the neighborhoods around it, instead of one big wall...

CanadianCentaur · #20 Posted **Apr 23, 2007, 7:12 PM**

It strike me as pretty odd that Qualico wants to put in a podium while this project's away from the main retail/commercial heart of downtown. Not to mention, as others have said already, it'll just cut off downtown from the neighbourhoods to the north and east.

I don't think Stationland's going to be built as planned, if it ever goes up. Even with the new NHL arena in place, it may most likely be a scaled-down version, hopefully without that damned podium.