Page 2 of 27 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 200 of 2649

Thread: Blatchford | Neighbourhood Master Plan | Discussion/Rumours

  1. #101
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    I have to wonder how much contamination has seeped into that concrete to be used in anything having to do with water or growing of things.

    I am sure they will find some use of the stuff.

  2. #102
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    west downtown
    Posts
    673

    Default keep the bath water ?

    Well I dont understand the purpose in keeping the runway ,or for that matter having planes landing on water....
    Sounds to me like the folks that cant let go of the dodo ( soother ) the airport is gone ! get over it allready !
    One of the most fantastic things about the airport being GONE is that planners and designers can now bring some height to our skyline and in turn more people into the core .Lets leave the sprawl for the suburbs and think about some high density , this is a city and most of the draw to living in a city is being close to the activitys of urban life right?
    If folks want to go for a walk in the trees and get away from the "life" then move to Leduc or Stony Plain or Sherwood Park but dont drag that sleepy retirement community jazz in the middle of close to a million people,It's a waste .
    Who cares what they do with the runway concrete, if they can recycle it GREAT ...I'm all for it ,hell I'll even buy a shovell and help! lol
    But it shouldn't be an issue or something left ignored behind a fence...
    I'm still on this idea that what we put there should leave the world awestruck not ho huming a wasted oppertunity.And that SWECO idea looks like a real drag , funny how they brag about their great ideas but I dont hear the world raveing about their gift to us all ! lol
    *just a thought , look what Toronto,New York , London,Paris,Chicago,Tokyo and many others have done with 60 acres in their core , givin' the oppertunity do you think they would build 3 story walkups and flat parks?

  3. #103
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    ^ not to take the discussion too much out of context, but would seaplanes require similar approach angles, building heights etc that having them would continue to impact our downtown?

    it isn't a huge deal, but would be a nice tourist thing to have a company or two oprating fishing trips to Lesser Slave Lake, Meadowlake Provincial Park, Lac La Biche area, or some of the other hundreds lakes all around Edmonton.

    Not a huge deal, however, if it is gone. Just an option along side many other uses of the water.

  4. #104

    Default

    I have no problem with towers on this site (see Foster plan), but to suggest that they're necessary to achieve the desired urban feel is wrong. In addition, to suggest parkland is superfluous in an urban context is ridiculous: NYC - massive central park; London - Hyde Park and very few buildings over 4-5 stories; Paris - Lourve grounds, tulleries, Jardin du Luxembourg, etc and very little over 4-5 stories. Ask the residents of these cities whether they'd trade their parks for a few towers.

    At a target of 30,000 people on this site, in a variety of housing forms (which I can tell you from experience, Edmonton lacks in central locations), this site will be plenty dense, and you will see plenty of variety in structures. These plans don't necessarily dictate zoning, they give an indication of how you can achieve the necessary density.
    Last edited by mick; 16-02-2011 at 12:36 PM.

  5. #105

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grish View Post
    ^ not to take the discussion too much out of context, but would seaplanes require similar approach angles, building heights etc that having them would continue to impact our downtown?

    it isn't a huge deal, but would be a nice tourist thing to have a company or two oprating fishing trips to Lesser Slave Lake, Meadowlake Provincial Park, Lac La Biche area, or some of the other hundreds lakes all around Edmonton.

    Not a huge deal, however, if it is gone. Just an option along side many other uses of the water.
    Grish

    From a practical operational point of view...not gonna happen.

    Rather than get into the long list of operational and safety issues it is just not a realistic option.

    IMHO
    Tom

  6. #106
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    in that case, leave it for "once in a while" demonstration option for the museum

    As I said, not a huge deal. Lets move on. It isn't not even a cornerstone of the proposal.

  7. #107
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    west downtown
    Posts
    673

    Default

    I figured that Hyde park and Central park would come up quick ! lol
    I was really just moving on a sentiment that we should dream big! We have a fantastic river valley,Borden Park, Rundle park,Hawrelak park and others , All very great .And I know that New York and London and alot of places have smaller structures in their density, but a park can be built anytime ( or parking lot is seems lol).If there is to be 4 story apartment/condos then I hope there is alot of them and alot of places for people to work there as well .
    NO airport to me means DREAM BIG!

  8. #108

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    I'm sorry when we describe something as "practical" it hardly inspires.

    I think it's very easy to write off BMIN because the design and premise is so very different from what we see in Edmonton and North America

    Amazing things can be done with things like solar tubes and reflective surfaces that will allow for amazing amounts of light to penetrate areas. Also these blocks aren't solid blocks, They are hollowed out and they are designed in such away that the southern elevation is lower than the north. To think that they designed this without light in mind is rather naive. I don't think the average joe really understands this design and I think that people are putting it down because of that.

    I also question plans that try to create an arts district or some other such area of focus when we already have said area in place. The plans need to ADD to the city, not try and move things that we already have to the airport lands. Thats just my opinion.
    Here's where I think BMIN's inspiration came from:


  9. #109

    Default

    Gee, who saw this coming? Not me, no sir. Not by a long shot.

    Caterina unimpressed by airport redevelopment proposals
    Staunch City Centre Airport defender says plans are not innovative

    One of city council’s strongest defenders of the City Centre Airport says he isn’t impressed by the proposals for redeveloping the site.

    “My initial thought is they’re all different, but they’re all the same,” Coun. Tony Caterina said Wednesday.

    “There are themes here of park space and stormwater management … that to me is not innovative.”
    Read more: http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/...#ixzz1E9eQCXbr

  10. #110
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Where ever the pilot takes me
    Posts
    2,214

    Default

    ^It's easy to be a critic, what is his redevelopment vision aside from the status quo?
    Did my dog just fall into a pothole???

  11. #111
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    411

    Default

    BNIM's is truly bizarre IMO. It looks like a cross between the Shire and Soviet housing.

  12. #112
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    The Big E
    Posts
    1,205

    Default

    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.
    Is there hope for Edmonton? Yes!!! The Oilers? Wait and see.

  13. #113

    Default

    Ton Cat doesnt like anyone of them. Anyone surprised?
    youtube.com/BrothersGrim
    facebook.com/BrothersGrimMusic

  14. #114
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Alberta Ave
    Posts
    373

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mick View Post
    I have no problem with towers on this site (see Foster plan), but to suggest that they're necessary to achieve the desired urban feel is wrong. In addition, to suggest parkland is superfluous in an urban context is ridiculous: NYC - massive central park; London - Hyde Park and very few buildings over 4-5 stories; Paris - Lourve grounds, tulleries, Jardin du Luxembourg, etc and very little over 4-5 stories. Ask the residents of these cities whether they'd trade their parks for a few towers.

    At a target of 30,000 people on this site, in a variety of housing forms (which I can tell you from experience, Edmonton lacks in central locations), this site will be plenty dense, and you will see plenty of variety in structures. These plans don't necessarily dictate zoning, they give an indication of how you can achieve the necessary density.

    some quick number crunching led me to find this: if 60% of the land is used for residential, 30000 residents is 70 per acre, or 14 per standard single family lot. let's say 30% of that is dedicated to single family, and 60% more to 3 story, the remaining 10% to highrise. single family is say 15 people per acre (3 per household), 3 stories maybe 60-80 (many single dwellers). that's 1447 in single family homes, and 13507 in walk-up. This leaves 15000 people to fit on 43 acres of land. Let's say those high rise dwellings have an average occupancy of 1.6 people, and are an average of 100m². This means those "highrises" would be 7-8 stories tall.

  15. #115
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,550

    Default

    good math is good
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  16. #116

    Default

    I wonder if the Fosters proposal is just presented poorly. When I look at the design sketches I like what i see, but then the rather high schoolish slides turn me right off.

    If we don't move forward with BMIN, then KCAP is the next one on my list.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  17. #117
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    6,792

    Default

    quote
    it isn't a huge deal, but would be a nice tourist thing to have a company or two oprating fishing trips to Lesser Slave Lake, Meadowlake Provincial Park, Lac La Biche area, or some of the other hundreds lakes all around Edmonton.
    COOKING LAKE SEAPLANE BASE STILL OPEN ?

  18. #118
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Where ever the pilot takes me
    Posts
    2,214

    Default

    ^^I had the same impression with the Fosters proposal. It's almost as if they boiler plated the presentation panels and most of the video was wasted on the pencil drawing. They didn't seem to customize their presentation to local Edmonton particulars to the degree that the others did almost as though they took an existing presentation and simply made a few modifications. I think the most glaring deficiency was the lack of an over all vision of how the entire development might look.
    Did my dog just fall into a pothole???

  19. #119
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    5,566

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Drumbones View Post
    quote
    it isn't a huge deal, but would be a nice tourist thing to have a company or two oprating fishing trips to Lesser Slave Lake, Meadowlake Provincial Park, Lac La Biche area, or some of the other hundreds lakes all around Edmonton.
    COOKING LAKE SEAPLANE BASE STILL OPEN ?
    Unless they plan to take out a few bridges along the way, I don't think anyone is landing or taking a seaplane off on that canal.

    Mind you, as a co-pilot friend once remarked, you can land any plane anywhere ...........well, once anyway.

    That said, I tend, on first blush still, to like that proposal best
    ... gobsmacked

  20. #120

    Default

    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.
    Last edited by ThomasH; 16-02-2011 at 04:39 PM.
    Edmonton first, everything else second.

  21. #121

    Default

    ThomasH - thank you. I agree 100% with everything you said.

  22. #122
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Alberta Ave
    Posts
    373

    Default

    ok i've finally got to the videos, and have looked through the presentation panels in more detail. to me, perkins + will is the clear leader. they have certainly taken the development concept to the greatest detail, have a clear understanding of the sites context and connectivity, and demonstrate the most initiative in taking the impact of the project beyond the borders of the site. i have a concern with the quantity of artificial water bodies in this and other plans, i understand their benefit as an opportunity for stormwater storage, but edmonton generally receives very little precipitation and i'm not a hydrologist so i can't speak to their ecological benefit or detriment.

    BNIM certainly put forth the prettiest presentation, but the concept is too early phase to offer any formative opinions.

    i feel KCAP created more barriers than they mended via their canals, major roadways and above ground LRT. their flythrough made me feel as though i was always underneath something, not in a pedestrian-scale, natural community.

    i think i may have gained a bit more from the norman foster video if i had been able to read the text. their presentation boards look like a first-year project.

    finally sweco; nothing good to say really. no site specific ideas brought forward, their proposal seems to just be 'do it like sweden', which may not be a bad idea if they would have shown exactly how that would look on this particular site a bit better

  23. #123

    Default

    Yes, SWECO's proposal seems to be just "do it like Sweden".

    Perkins and Will's seems to be just "do it like Vancouver".

    Foster and Partners' seems to be just "do a mini-Edmonton in Edmonton"

    KPAC actually considers what Edmonton should look like if we had planned the city better 40 years ago.

    BMIN assumes we want to live in a giant park of nuclear fallout shelter replicas because "who the hell wants to live in Edmonton in the first place?"

  24. #124

    Default

    ^ Actually, KCAP seems to be just "do it like the Netherlands".
    Edmonton first, everything else second.

  25. #125

    Default

    ^ Not really. I didn't see any tulips or wooden shoes.

  26. #126

    Default

    Lol
    Edmonton first, everything else second.

  27. #127
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton Downtown Core
    Posts
    4,679

    Default

    I like the SWECO submission. They are global leaders and the concepts being proposed are in use in many cities in countries other than Sweden...check out their website. This was an international competition after all.

  28. #128
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    2,530

    Default

    The problem with a lack of major towers in all of the proposals was that the city dictated 30 000 residents to the firms. If you wanted to see towers we should have asked for 60 000 - 90 000 in my opinion.

    Even Foster and Partners with a few towers in their proposal said that their plan would see 38 000. All the other ones obeyed the 30 000 cap and therefore you have mostly low and mid rise.

    So don't blame the firms.

  29. #129
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    5,566

    Default

    Except that rather than anything new, the Sweco proposal looked to me like shopping at an urban village IKEA - row 34, shelf 19 garbage disposal system ...

    And KPAC? It actually came off to me more Copenhagen than Amsterdam.

    In the end, there'll be some serious disconnect between the presentations and the reality - so what I'm looking for is not so much detail (three masted schooners seem unlikely to me) as a general concept.

    One thing you have to love, is that all the proposals respect what the ECCA was - either canals or urban forest. NIce.
    ... gobsmacked

  30. #130
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,854

    Default

    Maybe have the canal in the shape of the Indy Track, so hydroplanes could race.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  31. #131
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    5,169

    Default

    I had the time today so I hit City Hall to see the presentations. The Norman Foster concept is my personal favourite as the layout seems more organic and seamless in regards to integrating to the surrounding areas. Also the park/water features to me reflected or was inspired how the River Valley System bisects the greater city.

    The Vancouver firms proposal was nice and very Vancouver but Edmonton is not Vancouver and recreating False Creek may not be such a great idea when the snow flies and the water freezes. That Vancouver housing style is something Edmonton needs desperately .

    Both the Swedish and Dutch firms proposals where very European in their concept which would require some adaptation to our Prairie climate though the Swedes would have the leg up on designing for a winter city such as Edmonton.

    All the concepts had great pro's and con's though the outfit from Kansas City with their proposal struck me as the worlds largest sod roofed hut complex far too underground bunker like for my tastes.
    Last edited by NielCole; 16-02-2011 at 11:18 PM.

  32. #132

    Default

    By the time they build this we'll all have flying cars and those runways will come in handy...for the high end demographic.
    http://www.moller.com/

  33. #133

    Default

    I agree that connecting the two parts of 118ave is a great idea. I really wonder why none of them tried to extend 109st up to an intersection with yellowhead, finally giving us a decent way into and out of downtown.

  34. #134

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AAAAE View Post
    The problem with a lack of major towers in all of the proposals was that the city dictated 30 000 residents to the firms. If you wanted to see towers we should have asked for 60 000 - 90 000 in my opinion.

    Even Foster and Partners with a few towers in their proposal said that their plan would see 38 000. All the other ones obeyed the 30 000 cap and therefore you have mostly low and mid rise.

    So don't blame the firms.

    I was amazed at all the small units. They are much lower densities that I would have wanted in the area. Are we scared of heights?

    I was in Mississaga recently and boy has it grown in the past few years.










    When I lived in Brampton, there were 26 major condo and apartment towers and a Kingsway Garden Mall sized mall in a 1km square area. As far as I have seen, the plans look lower density than Railtown or Oliver in general. Compact tall buildings allow for greater density and more public space.


    We should be looking at something like this

    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  35. #135

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Timo View Post
    I agree that connecting the two parts of 118ave is a great idea. I really wonder why none of them tried to extend 109st up to an intersection with yellowhead, finally giving us a decent way into and out of downtown.
    I agree, the 109th and 118th should be the major intersection.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  36. #136
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,550

    Default

    Brampton and Miss should NOT be where we are taking inspiration from... maybe the last places.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  37. #137
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    5,169

    Default

    Sooo right. Aside from central T.O (and not all of it either) there is nothing to be learned from the sprawl that is the GTA. Edmonton has too much "inspiration" from places consisting of endless subdivisions, freeways and malls already.

  38. #138
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Where ever the pilot takes me
    Posts
    2,214

    Default

    Certainly nothing Edmonton can learn from Mississauga with its faux downtown centered around a suburban style mall.
    Did my dog just fall into a pothole???

  39. #139

    Default

    Actually Mississauga is WAY better than it used to be around Square One - and Hazel McCallion is one of this countries best (and it would not be inappropriate to use the word greatest) mayors. Her more than three decades as mayor has been the #1 reason for the transformation.

    I first lived in Southern Ontario in the early 90s and it was Square One and nothing else there. Since then many condos and commercial developments meaning many more people. There is also an arts centre in downtown Mississauga (btw, that term would've been inappropriate as little as ten years ago) and it is getting more pedestrian friendly all the time.

    Additionally, the renaissance of Port Credit along the lakeshore has been nothing short of amazing. A former industrial area at the mouth of the Credit River it is now an extremely successful mixed use area complete with a marina.

  40. #140
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,550

    Default

    Port credit is a cute little place.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  41. #141
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Where ever the pilot takes me
    Posts
    2,214

    Default

    ^^Certainly a lot of new condos around Square One but it's hardly a model to emulate for a downtown. Although certainly not a rarity since Scarborough's "downtown" is very similar. But yes the area around Lake Ontario is quite nice especially Port Credit and Oakville.
    Last edited by norwoodguy; 17-02-2011 at 11:52 AM.
    Did my dog just fall into a pothole???

  42. #142
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Oliver
    Posts
    3,194

    Default

    Since it hasn't been mentioned in awhile:

    The muni is almost as large as Downtown and Oliver combined.
    (where we've been building high-rises for 50 years, and where there's still plenty of room for more)

    Should the muni have some high-rises? Certainly. Around LRT or on the main drags would be good spots.

    But it will primarily be low/med density, because otherwise the build-out would take until the year 2511.

  43. #143

    Default

    ^^ I don't think Mississauga's downtown is one we should emulate necessarily, I was just pointing out that it has come a LONG way from where it was - which was nowhere - just a shopping mall. Now the skyline (even in the 2 and half years since I've been away from Toronto) rivals Edmonton's. In fact, their tallest is taller than ours.

  44. #144

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mercucio View Post
    Actually Mississauga is WAY better than it used
    Additionally, the renaissance of Port Credit along the lakeshore has been nothing short of amazing. A former industrial area at the mouth of the Credit River it is now an extremely successful mixed use area complete with a marina.
    When I was training on the credit river in the 80s that area was basically factory land not much around. Today its quite fantastic the way its been revived.

    And I agree with others on here that we should not look at Mississauga for inspiration. We have a parcel of land that we can create something that others will want to recreate.

  45. #145

    Default

    My point was not to copy Mississauga but that we should not be scared to build higher than 6 floors on the Muni lands. Has anyone seen in any of the designs some significantly tall residential buildings?
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  46. #146
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    5,169

    Default

    Don't forget "downtown" Mississauga was never hampered by flight paths from Pearson so they were able to soar higher than Edmonton though the vast majority are condo towers.

    With the City Centre Airport soon to be history, Edmonton too will have the chance to to reach for the sky.... In the CBD, Oliver and hopefully some examples as well in the newly christened "Blatchford Fields" redevelopment area.

  47. #147

    Default

    I agree. I like the idea of some height in the area.

  48. #148

    Default

    I just hope we don't end up with a bunch of matchstick condos made from wood that the Fire Chief had called "wooden skyscrapers lying on their sides". We should have a constructions standard for the airport lands of concrete, masonry and steel building that demonstrate our permanence rather than a clapboard prairie town mentality.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  49. #149
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,895

    Default

    ^agreed.

    One thing I do like is the different proposals of alternative energy sources. I like the Geothermal and even the wind turbines, I wouldn't mind seeing those and also some solar power as well. Why not try to make the area as self sustainable as possible.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  50. #150
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Far from home
    Posts
    687

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Some questions and thoughts regarding the authenticity of the 'sustainability' and 'environmental' claims the various planners are talking about:

    I curious which plans keep the old runways and which ones rip them up?

    How environmentally friendly is ripping up and disposing of the runways vs "re-purposing" them. How deep is the concrete and how much is there?

    What happens with all the ground that has to be dug up for the foundations, ponds, canals, etc? Are the planners recycling it for hills or trucking it away?

    i.e These are front-loaded environmental issues. It takes a lot of subsequent environmental upgrades and nominal gains to offset even small negative front-end environmental impacts.
    What you're saying is all true, but it needs to be stressed that environmental impacts are just one factor when it comes to successful community building.
    Remember we're aiming to build a new district which supports 37,000 residents and 34,000 new jobs and should out-live by far the current runway's usefulness. So in that case, if the current infrastructure can be accommodated into a good system and layout, then sure, use it. Otherwise, it should go, regardless of the fact that it's removal requires energy, displaces land, etc..
    Conserving energy is great, but we still need to make sure we're building something of value.

    As for the environmental claims themselves, don't just dismiss the work displayed as pie in the sky, or wishful thinking. I've worked with Fosters previously (on a similar, albeit even more ambitious scale) and I can guarantee that they take these things extremely seriously. What you see now is still early/preliminary stuff, but when the time comes, they'll do all their homework. Their environmental reports are extremely comprehensive and take all sorts of things into account. They are not in the business of simply "green-washing".

  51. #151
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    5,566

    Default

    Wind turbines might be interesting. Not many populated areas want them - so, if they gained acceptance in a residential area it might be a Canadian first.

    Keep in mind, the electricity generated can't be dedicated to just ECCA lands- but would have to feed in to the grid.

    Geothermal? The proposition I saw mentioned a 5-thousand metre well.

    That's deep.








    Really deep.
    ... gobsmacked

  52. #152
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Alberta Ave
    Posts
    373

    Default

    the site's adjacency to the rail line makes it a pretty good candidate for a biomass combined heat and power plant such as in Güssing, Austria

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/28/bu...4.7290268.html

    http://www.epa.gov/chp/basic/renewable.html

  53. #153
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Far from home
    Posts
    687

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    I just hope we don't end up with a bunch of matchstick condos made from wood that the Fire Chief had called "wooden skyscrapers lying on their sides". We should have a constructions standard for the airport lands of concrete, masonry and steel building that demonstrate our permanence rather than a clapboard prairie town mentality.
    Couple things:

    First, I'm a firm believer that the notion of permanence in architecture is a folly. A far better solution now is to consciously design buildings with a limited lifespan, but with the building's demolition, recycling, repurposing, etc. properly taken into account. A true "cradle-to-cradle" understanding of our constructed environment.

    Because, let's face it, the biggest challenge now to many of our older buildings is not crumbling structure or similar.... It's their inflexibility in regards to trends, consumer preferences, and over-arching societal trends that we couldn't have realistically predicted 60 years ago (de-industrialisation? the rise of an information/service based economy?).

    Secondly, wood is an extremely robust and flexible building material. It's a renewable resource and it's locally sourced. It has a very low embodied energy, and wood building components and products can both be readily manufactured from salvaged/recycled material, and be themselves easily recycled. A wood-constructed multi-family residence costs less, is quicker to construct, has a more comfortable (regulated) interior climate, and better insulation than it's concrete or iron brethren. All while producing up to 50% less CO2 emissions.
    If your concern is fire-safety, then really that's another issue itself. The code needs to be strengthened.... Which is something easily accommodated for in wood-construction, ie. type X gypsum/drywall... You know, the same material often used as fire protection for steel structures.

  54. #154
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    They could of course invest in these... we could all invest in theses as in the entire city...


  55. #155
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,550

    Default

    One thing we need to mindful of and careful with is not to 'compete' with downtown, north edge, quarters, west rossdale with targeted demo.... at least not at first.

    We only have so many buyers, families, owners, and investment.... the former need those 1st.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  56. #156

    Default

    The interesting thing about proposing urban windmills is how to deal with their drawbacks. One of the more common complains is that some of those living within a few hundred meters of one experience a sense of vibration or humming.

    Well, what do we have here but a proposal shows windmills lining a several hundred meter deep—and kilometers long—stretch of industrial land intended for noise and vibration! Depending on the viability of wind patterns in the area, I'd like to see these considered regardless of which plan is chosen.
    I think of art, at its most significant, as a Distant Early Warning system that can always be relied on to tell the old culture what is beginning to happen to it. —Marshall McLuhan

  57. #157
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    NW Edmonton
    Posts
    145

    Default

    I liked KCAP from the Netherlands the best, followed by Perkins + Will from Vancouver.

  58. #158

  59. #159
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    6,792

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dialog View Post
    The interesting thing about proposing urban windmills is how to deal with their drawbacks. One of the more common complains is that some of those living within a few hundred meters of one experience a sense of vibration or humming.

    Well, what do we have here but a proposal shows windmills lining a several hundred meter deep—and kilometers long—stretch of industrial land intended for noise and vibration! Depending on the viability of wind patterns in the area, I'd like to see these considered regardless of which plan is chosen.
    I agree fully with that, after all they are along the yellowhead highway, one of the busiest in the city with steady truck traffic and across from cnr rail yards clanging with train cars. I don't think they would be heard or felt next to all that. But...one thing I have seen on the news one day was that they kill a lot of birds. A guy had a truck and pitchfork down by pincher creek picking up all these dead birds by the windmills to dispose of them so they wouldn't have a pack of coyotes and other scavengers there.
    Last edited by Drumbones; 18-02-2011 at 01:32 PM.

  60. #160

    Default

    None of these plans deal with problems that are specific to Edmonton. They are all general "sustainable" villages that could be thrown into any city. They are only integrated into edmonton superficially, all having some reference to the river valley.
    But the main problem facing Edmonton is sprawl and it's un-urban feel. I area should be much more dense. I guess that this is a fault of the city and it's specifications and not the firms. I agree with IGNIGHTERS if you want parks and open spaces move to the suburbs.
    Edmonton already has plenty of under utilized parks and green space.
    And there is no point on putting more green spaces or urban farms the centre of the city if the city keeps expanding taking up farm land that is much better for growing things than an old concrete runway.
    Day Dreaming of Canals maybe fun but it is not practical and monstrously expensive.
    Plans that begin to make Edmonton more Urban and functional would be much more inspiring and sustainable in the long run than a hodge podge of "green" concepts.

  61. #161

    Default

    ^ judging by your comments, I wonder if you even looked at the plans, or are just repeating / inferring from comments

  62. #162

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Seven View Post
    None of these plans deal with problems that are specific to Edmonton. They are all general "sustainable" villages that could be thrown into any city. They are only integrated into edmonton superficially, all having some reference to the river valley.
    But the main problem facing Edmonton is sprawl and it's un-urban feel. I area should be much more dense. I guess that this is a fault of the city and it's specifications and not the firms. I agree with IGNIGHTERS if you want parks and open spaces move to the suburbs.
    Edmonton already has plenty of under utilized parks and green space.
    And there is no point on putting more green spaces or urban farms the centre of the city if the city keeps expanding taking up farm land that is much better for growing things than an old concrete runway.
    Day Dreaming of Canals maybe fun but it is not practical and monstrously expensive.
    Plans that begin to make Edmonton more Urban and functional would be much more inspiring and sustainable in the long run than a hodge podge of "green" concepts.
    Welcome to the forum, Mr. Caterina.

  63. #163
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Where ever the pilot takes me
    Posts
    2,214

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Seven View Post
    And there is no point on putting more green spaces or urban farms the centre of the city if the city keeps expanding taking up farm land that is much better for growing things than an old concrete runway.
    Are you dense? One of the objectives is to create a dense urban development to reduce or eliminate further sprawl that swallows up more farmland. Or are your objecting becase you are one of the ECCA fetishists?
    Did my dog just fall into a pothole???

  64. #164
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    west downtown
    Posts
    673

    Default huh?

    Quote Originally Posted by norwoodguy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Seven View Post
    And there is no point on putting more green spaces or urban farms the centre of the city if the city keeps expanding taking up farm land that is much better for growing things than an old concrete runway.
    Are you dense? One of the objectives is to create a dense urban development to reduce or eliminate further sprawl that swallows up more farmland. Or are your objecting becase you are one of the ECCA fetishists?
    Why would you ask if he was dence ?
    If you watch the videos most, if not all of the submissions include large amounts of greenspace .
    It is a valid concern ...

  65. #165

    Default

    A large amount of green space that also makes room for 30,000 people.

    this isn';t about creating new york or Tokyo , it's about making a sustainable city.

    This is grossly denser. then 95% percent of the neighborhoods in Edmonton.

    It's not like the green space is without purpose. It creates a stopping place for migratory birds. Serves as runoff basins and Act as buffers against traffic noise amongst other things.

    I think there is a lack of understanding what sustainable means... sustainable is not a cement jungle.
    Last edited by edmonton daily photo; 18-02-2011 at 03:38 PM.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  66. #166
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Where ever the pilot takes me
    Posts
    2,214

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IGNITERS View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by norwoodguy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Seven View Post
    And there is no point on putting more green spaces or urban farms the centre of the city if the city keeps expanding taking up farm land that is much better for growing things than an old concrete runway.
    Are you dense? One of the objectives is to create a dense urban development to reduce or eliminate further sprawl that swallows up more farmland. Or are your objecting becase you are one of the ECCA fetishists?
    Why would you ask if he was dence ?
    If you watch the videos most, if not all of the submissions include large amounts of greenspace .
    It is a valid concern ...
    The ECCA redevelopment reclaims a lot of urban space that could delay further consumption of farmland. The writer seemed to have completely missed that point. Perhaps I am over reacting to the writers undertones for retaining the ECCA.

    Objecting to setting aside green space is a bit of red herring, I think we all agree that such allocations are desirable. The writer seems to imply that it is a waste to do so. Also, the proposals vary in the degree of green space and the use of such space for "farming" versus urban gardens and at this point not set in stone.
    Did my dog just fall into a pothole???

  67. #167

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by norwoodguy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by IGNITERS View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by norwoodguy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Seven View Post
    And there is no point on putting more green spaces or urban farms the centre of the city if the city keeps expanding taking up farm land that is much better for growing things than an old concrete runway.
    Are you dense? One of the objectives is to create a dense urban development to reduce or eliminate further sprawl that swallows up more farmland. Or are your objecting becase you are one of the ECCA fetishists?
    Why would you ask if he was dence ?
    If you watch the videos most, if not all of the submissions include large amounts of greenspace .
    It is a valid concern ...
    The ECCA redevelopment reclaims a lot of urban space that could delay further consumption of farmland. The writer seemed to have completely missed that point. Perhaps I am over reacting to the writers undertones for retaining the ECCA.

    Objecting to setting aside green space is a bit of red herring, I think we all agree that such allocations are desirable. The writer seems to imply that it is a waste to do so. Also, the proposals vary in the degree of green space and the use of such space for "farming" versus urban gardens and at this point not set in stone.
    Just view it as taking everyones postage stamp front yard and squishing it into one big one.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  68. #168
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    west downtown
    Posts
    673

    Default oh ,

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    A large amount of green space that also makes room for 30,000 people.

    this isn';t about creating new york or Tokyo , it's about making a sustainable city.

    This is grossly denser. then 95% percent of the neighborhoods in Edmonton.
    Edmonton does not have the population for a New York/Tokyo like project ,but that doesn't mean we have to throw our hands in the air and plant a few grass fields to fill up space lol
    This passion for big words like "sustainability" is great, but it hardly comes off as a big exciting project that the people of this city are gonna want to throw a bunch of money at .
    Lets face it , It really doesn't matter how "green" or "sustainable" this or any project is ,taxes will not be any lighter...We are all gonna have to pony up for this .All some people are expressing/desireing is a honest hope that it looks great and is something to be proud of .
    If we can turn a bunch of bacon wrappers and tim hortens cups into park benches thats great! But I for one at least want to be dazzled by exciting design ( like the art gallery) and some of the high rise projects that are happening in the city ( even that really cool one that will occupy jasper ave and 109th st .).
    I dont think that makes similar opinions "dense" or invalid, Just proves that this city still has some people that care about the end result and havng something to stand back at look at with pride.

  69. #169
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    31,003

    Default

    This ranting against greenery in the proposals is very sad.
    “You have to dream big. If we want to be a little city, we dream small. If we want to be a big city, we dream big, and this is a big idea.” - Mayor Stephen Mandel, 02/22/2012

  70. #170

    Default

    ^ I agree...
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  71. #171
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    6,792

    Default

    Me too.

  72. #172
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    west downtown
    Posts
    673

    Default Hardly "ranting"

    c'mon...it's hardly "ranting"
    And it's not like we are talking about clearcutting a natural forest here lol

  73. #173

    Default

    [QUOTE]
    Quote Originally Posted by jdk13 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mick View Post
    I have no problem with towers on this site (see Foster plan), but to suggest that they're necessary to achieve the desired urban feel is wrong. In addition, to suggest parkland is superfluous in an urban context is ridiculous: NYC - massive central park; London - Hyde Park and very few buildings over 4-5 stories; Paris - Lourve grounds, tulleries, Jardin du Luxembourg, etc and very little over 4-5 stories. Ask the residents of these cities whether they'd trade their parks for a few towers.

    At a target of 30,000 people on this site, in a variety of housing forms (which I can tell you from experience, Edmonton lacks in central locations), this site will be plenty dense, and you will see plenty of variety in structures. These plans don't necessarily dictate zoning, they give an indication of how you can achieve the necessary density.

    I was listening to CBC TV this evening about Maple Leaf Square in Toronto. Built privately by a consortium of companies including the owners of the Maple Leafs (read: No Tax Dollars Mr Katz) that includes twin 65 storey condos with 872 units, a 169 room hotel, office & retail space and is a self contained urban village in a box.

    This development covers 8,500 m2 which is about 1% of the entire airport lands with a Floor Area Ratio of over 19 and if you use a condo occupancy rate of 2 persons/unit or 1,744/8,500m2 = a relative density of 200,000 people/km2. To give you an idea of the scale of the development, you could put the Maple Leaf Square complex inside the NAIT outdoor track.

    I am not saying to build such a complex but I think we should expand our view and create a more self contained city plan that has the density and synergy of a better urban environment with lots of land left for green space and not just rows of low-medium density housing and matchstick condos with some funky canal that is frozen for most of the year.






    Plans for the $500 million development were unveiled in 2005, with an expected completion in 2009. However, as of June 2008, the completion estimate was spring 2010.[2] The finished complex will have 1,800,000 square feet (167,000 m2) of usable space covering 2.1 acres (8,500 m2) on one city block.[2]
    According to MLSE (though others sources cite slightly different figures), the two glass and precast concrete towers will be 65 stories, containing 872 residential units, a 169-room Hotel LeGermain Boutique Hotel, 230,000 square feet (21,000 m2) of office space, 110,000 square feet (10,000 m2) of retail space, a 7,000-square-foot (650 m2) daycare centre, a High-Definition theatre that will broadcast Leafs TV and Raptors NBA TV 24-hours a day, and four levels of underground parking with nearly 900 spaces. The retail complex will include a Longo's grocery, a 24,000-square-foot (2,200 m2) sports bar, a sports retail store, and a fine dining restaurant.[2] For residents, there will be a rooftop garden and swimming pool.
    The building will be surrounded by an outdoor plaza with a capacity of 5,000 people, which is expected to host pre-game gatherings and other sports-related events.[3] In conjunction with the project, the Air Canada Centre itself is undergoing some renovations itself, expected to be complete before the hockey season begins in September 2009.[3]
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maple_Leaf_Square
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  74. #174

    Default

    We should save the higher density stuff for Oliver, strathcona and garneau and the CBD.

    4-10 story stuff in the airport lands should get us to the goal of 30,000- 38,000 people.

  75. #175

    Default

    if the future condo buildings on the airport lands should be 4 stories, then they should be concrete buildings (or some other variation, but not wood frame)

    this should be the standard across the city (but that's another issue!)

  76. #176

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    We should save the higher density stuff for Oliver, strathcona and garneau and the CBD.

    4-10 story stuff in the airport lands should get us to the goal of 30,000- 38,000 people.
    yep.. we are not looking to create a new DT core on the airport lands
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  77. #177
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    31,003

    Default

    Still...I wouldn't mind seeing at least a couple of high-rise tower villages a la Century Park.
    “You have to dream big. If we want to be a little city, we dream small. If we want to be a big city, we dream big, and this is a big idea.” - Mayor Stephen Mandel, 02/22/2012

  78. #178

    Default

    One of the plans calls for that...

    I'm okay with a sea of low rises... Just take a walk through oliver.... The North side of jasper has great foot traffic where i find the South side of Jasper, where all the high rises are, has a very different feel and not at all like a neighbourhood.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  79. #179

    Default

    I have seen the prelims for all - but will look through them again neforemaking judgement...

    Just thought it was interesting driving on Yellowhead last night that the parcel of land just to the west of the airport is up for sale as well... could the city /developer annex that land as well and/or incorporate it? Industrial now - could be the utility hub for the area potentially as well...

  80. #180

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    One of the plans calls for that...

    I'm okay with a sea of low rises... Just take a walk through oliver.... The North side of jasper has great foot traffic where i find the South side of Jasper, where all the high rises are, has a very different feel and not at all like a neighbourhood.
    The problem is variety. You should not have all residential towers in one place, retail in another (ex. Oliver Square), schools (UofA main campus) and business offices in another. When retail, residential, schools and business are mixed you have multiple uses thoroughout the day, night and weekends. You also can give people choices where they can live, work and shop within a few walkable blocks or just have one car instead of two for the spouse who must travel further to work or better yet be connected with transit. 104th & jasper is one micro area that is becoming this mixed type of neighbourhood. Even a building itself can house all four types such as the Maple Leaf Square shows. I applaud areas in Oliver where there are retail shops, professional offices, resturants and bars in the base and offices or condos above.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  81. #181
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    5,169

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    One of the plans calls for that...

    I'm okay with a sea of low rises... Just take a walk through oliver.... The North side of jasper has great foot traffic where i find the South side of Jasper, where all the high rises are, has a very different feel and not at all like a neighbourhood.
    Conversely I prefer Oliver south of Jasper. It has some great focal points, Victoria Promenade which on a summers evening encourages strolling overlooking the River Valley, The area around Ecole Grandin certainly feels like a nieghbourhood to me. There area some problems, Edmonton Motors cuts off a large chunk from Jasper and the Connelly-McKinley Funeral home (and please pardon the pun) is a dead zone with it's massive parking lot.

    Aside from Paul Kane Park and the potential around the nice and wide 121st Street running from Jasper to 104th the northern section of Oliver just seems to be a lot of cookie cutter lowrises cowering behind the highrise apartments that seem to all congregate on the first blocks north of Jasper. Just my opinion.

  82. #182
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Far from home
    Posts
    687

    Default

    Personally, I think you guys so concerned with density are off the mark on this one...

    536 acres = 2.169 km^2
    So with 30000 residents thats 13698 residents/ km^2

    Downtown currently has a residential population of 11572 (5075/km^2) and Oliver has a density of 10645/km^2. Of course, neither of those neighborhoods are "maxed out" yet, but it certainly puts these types of comparisons into perspective.

    Maybe it's not the case, but I think a lot of people just see lots of open parklands and mostly mid-level buildings in the schemes and then make the reactionary claim that things aren't dense enough.

    I mean, I guess the city could theoretically double the projected density... But the point was never to make another CBD/core. It was to make a ecologically conscious, walkable, mixed-use, and diverse neighbourhood that would be attractive to a number of different user-groups, particularly families. It's an alternative to both our traditional neighbourhoods and downtown living, offering somewhat of a balance between the two in a central-ish area of the city.

    And at the end of the day, it's to be 13x denser than the city-wide population density. Isn't that enough?

  83. #183
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    St. Albert, Alberta
    Posts
    1,007

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Leendert View Post
    thanx for posting these. i like the Swedish submission the best!
    Thank You For Finally Going Higher!

  84. #184

    Default

    Let's not forget all over the world how satisfyingly dense an environment of consistently 3-5 stories w/ground retail + green spaces can be. A lot of Vancouver, Toronto & Montreal 's density comes from this, or big old 3-story homes made into two or three suites.

    Something important was mentioned in Sweco's display boards: this completion is to bring in the firm to guide the redevelopment project, to work with the city on multiple areas and issues. This competition was not to show Edmonton a series of renderings of Exactly What It's Going To Look Like When Built. In this light BNIM didn't get it as their submission has some pretty clear architectural directions/requirements as presented. Sweco's seems a bit biased in that they cut-n-paste a lot of overtly Swedish dwellings into renderings, but again--having not been offended by their pitch--it's obvious to them and to me that by the time the first designs for the buildings are drawn, tastes will have shifted from the present and building design will change.

    As much as I'd like the Canadian firm to win, this seemed a bit too evident in Will and Perkin's submission of so many (too?) well done renderings of dwellings.
    I think of art, at its most significant, as a Distant Early Warning system that can always be relied on to tell the old culture what is beginning to happen to it. —Marshall McLuhan

  85. #185

    Default

    I like Will and Perkin's and Sweco the best. They both talk about the facilities nearby and try to integrate them. They also I think are a bit more green focused with shared technologies. My only concern with Will and Perkins is that the local food looks cool, but are modern Edmontonian's too lazy to want to buy into that?

    I thought the Dutch one is a bit unrealistic with all those bridges and similar, it looks awfully expensive to try and create something that doesn't exist there at the moment. The other two are rather meh.

  86. #186

    Default

    Edmontonians are lazy?

    I liked both the SWECO and W&P entries... they seemed fairly close, though W&P seemed to try to honour the history of the airport and SWECO seemed to ignore it.

    we have urban gardens that are very successful and high in demand to rent a plot already.
    Last edited by Medwards; 20-02-2011 at 04:14 PM.

  87. #187

    Default

    ^its a North American pick up truck thing. I just wonder if there are enough "eco" families in Gen X / Gen Y to want a plot of land to garden, I know I don't, but it doesn't have to be targetted at me I guess. Just my preference, I think both W&P and Sweco are really good, either would be great for the City (I hope).

  88. #188

    Default

    none of these 5 plans are what we will end up seeing. The winning bid will get to work on with the city on coming up with much more detail.

  89. #189

    Default

    The winning plan will integrate the existing communities, retail environments, roads and transportation and nait facilities into it's design.

    The swedish one is good, but ignores the need for a major connector from downtown to yellowhead on 109st.

    All the designs seem to be happy to put in artificial waterways and then throw up bridges crossing these without regards to cost. Waste of money imoh.

    Tieing the redevelopment into Prince Charles and NAIT is necessary to prevent an 'isolated' community.

  90. #190
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,550

    Default

    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
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  91. #191
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,550

    Default

    Hello,

    The City Centre Redevelopment info session has been rescheduled for March 21 at 5:30pm.

    Phil Sande, the Executive Director of the ECCA Redevelopment Project will be speaking on the project and will update us on the opportunity for next gener’s to give input into the project after the design concept has been chosen.

    When: Monday, March 21 at 5:30pm

    Where: Heritage Room, City Hall, SE Corner

    If you are interested in attending, please RSVP to: [email protected] by March 15.

    For more info on ECCA: http://www.edmonton.ca/city_governme...ds-review.aspx


    Best Wishes,
    Christine

    Christine Causing, BA, MES,
    Next Gen Initiative Coordinator,
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  92. #192
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,854

    Default

    Game On (Envision Edmonton appeal rejected)...
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  93. #193

    Default

    Anyone know which local firms have partnered up with these 5 bids?

    For instance I know parioplan teamed up with Swedish submission.

  94. #194
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    31,003

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by micmac View Post
    Anyone know which local firms have partnered up with these 5 bids?

    For instance I know parioplan teamed up with Swedish submission.
    I think Manasc Isaac is partnered with BNIM from Kansas City. A certain high-profile C2Eer can be seen in their vid.
    “You have to dream big. If we want to be a little city, we dream small. If we want to be a big city, we dream big, and this is a big idea.” - Mayor Stephen Mandel, 02/22/2012

  95. #195
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,135

    Default

    Group2 partnered with Perkins + Will.

  96. #196
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Folsom, CA
    Posts
    501

    Default

    The city website shows all the firms involved in each bid on their site. Lots of local firms involved on most bids.

    From http://www.edmonton.ca/city_governme...nd-videos.aspx
    BNIM:
    Edmonton consultant firms: FVB Energy Inc. and Manasc Isaac Architects Inc.
    Other consultant firms: BioRegional Development Group, Snohetta, Crandall Arambula, Atelier Dreiseitl Portland, BuildGreen Solutions and ARUP
    Foster & Partners:
    Edmonton consultant firms: Enermodal Engineering Ltd., Calder + Bateman and Bunt & Associates
    Other consultant firms: Zeidler Partnership, Parsons Brinkerhoff, Civitas Inc. and Urbanics
    KCAP:
    Edmonton consultant firms: Dialog and Al-Terra Engineering Ltd.
    Other consultant firms: G.P. Rollo, HB Lanarc, MIG Inc., Nelson\Nygaard, PWL Partnership and Carlyle + Associates
    Perkins + Will:
    Edmonton consultant firms: Group 2 Architecture Engineering Ltd. and Alberta Western Heritage
    Other consultant firms: Civitas Urban Design, Cobalt Engineering LLP, Nelson Nygaard, Phillips Farevaag Smallenberg, Pro Forma Advisors and Archineers
    SWECO:
    Edmonton consultant firms: ParioPlan Inc., Bunt & Associates Ltd., Architecture/Arndt Tkalcic Bengert, Select Engineeering Consulants Ltd., Enermodal Engineering Ltd. and EIDOS Consultants Incorporated
    Other consultant firms: Colliers International Consulting Services

  97. #197
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton Downtown Core
    Posts
    4,679

    Default

    Where are we in terms of timelines....who is doing what and by when?
    Is there a Project Schedule and who is managing that schedule?

  98. #198
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,550

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonic Death Monkey View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by micmac View Post
    Anyone know which local firms have partnered up with these 5 bids?

    For instance I know parioplan teamed up with Swedish submission.
    I think Manasc Isaac is partnered with BNIM from Kansas City. A certain high-profile C2Eer can be seen in their vid.
    A nice argyle vest to boot

    I would suspect we hear who 'won' late April or early May.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  99. #199
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Westmount
    Posts
    3,256

    Default

    No decision yet:

    The selection of a firm to design the City Centre Airport redevelopment in Edmonton was postponed Wednesday after councillors couldn’t agree on a winner.

    “City council has incredible passion and desire to make this the kind of facility that would be a signature for the future of Edmonton,” Mayor Stephen Mandel told a news conference.

    “We have not be[en] able to come to a consensus about a team to pick. This is a major, major, major decision for the City of Edmonton, and we want to get it right.”
    And no word on when a decision will be reached:

    The mayor, who is scheduled to be out of town until next Wednesday, couldn’t say when a company will be chosen.

    “This is not about to do or not to do. That’s not the question. This is about the creative delivery of this (plan).”

  100. #200
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    3,713

    Default

    ^indecision, a rarity in these parts...
    be offended! figure out why later...

Page 2 of 27 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •