Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 335

Thread: Jasper 108 street - two towers

  1. #1
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,996

    Default Jasper 108 street - two towers

    Jasper 108st pre app, 2 x 28 and 2 x 27 going north, ~750 units.

    ... More to come.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  2. #2
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    Please tell me they are ripping down that money mart.

  3. #3
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    jasper east
    Posts
    1,573

    Default

    Great spot once the lrt rolls through Norquest area. Kinda dead now between Jasper and campus.

  4. #4
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton Downtown Core
    Posts
    4,861

    Default

    Is this going for re-zoning purposes and/or to put pressure on the GoA to buy one of the last large parcels of land near Government Centre?

    This is MacLab is it not? And what parcels is it?

    As to LRT that turns on 107 North at 102 Ave. This project has great LRT right on Jasper and likely will include a pedway link to Corona Station.
    Last edited by EdmTrekker; 10-11-2015 at 08:27 AM.

  5. #5

    Default

    I'm quite curious about this one - more so in what uglyness they will tear down. Is this running along 108street or Jasper Ave?

    Would this rip out the el-mirador ? I know some people are fond of that building, but I dont find it worthy of keeping. Maybe the former bank ultra lounge (what ever its called now)? or maybe the queen donair/money mart? Which corner are we talking about?

  6. #6
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,996

    Default

    Significant Rezoning required.

    2-3 partners depending how you look at it.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  7. #7
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,996

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    I'm quite curious about this one - more so in what uglyness they will tear down. Is this running along 108street or Jasper Ave?

    Would this rip out the el-mirador ? I know some people are fond of that building, but I dont find it worthy of keeping.
    Both
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  8. #8

    Default

    I'd imagine any rezoning would have the time limit imposed similar to other recent upzonings?

  9. #9
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton Downtown Core
    Posts
    4,861

    Default

    Until we know who the partners are - it might not be unreasonable to think that the rezoning is an attempt to drive up value in the land - for purely land sale purposes. Ian you could hint if these partners are all local or not? If MacLab is in the 3, I won't hold my breathe thinking we will see much given their previous disinterest when the economy was firing on all cylinders.

  10. #10
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,996

    Default

    I would think so, yes.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  11. #11
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,996

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EdmTrekker View Post
    Until we know who the partners are - it might not be unreasonable to think that the rezoning is an attempt to drive up value in the land - for purely land sale purposes. Ian you could hint if these partners are all local or not? If MacLab is in the 3, I won't hold my breathe thinking we will see much given their previous disinterest when the economy was firing on all cylinders.
    Maclab is one, the other is an active developer, both are moving this forward... Not a land value play per se. That said, anything is for sale at the right price ^^no?
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  12. #12
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    7,592

    Default

    Maclab and Day are involved in this. Both are not speculators and land flippers. So that should shut down that comment.

  13. #13
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    31,314

    Default

    So if I'm reading these posts right, this will take up a big chunk of the NE corner of Jasper and 108 St including El Mirador? Will this also include the spot where Knoxvilles is now?
    “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

  14. #14
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,996

    Default





    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  15. #15
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,160

    Default

    I know it will take a while to go through the require process, but I cannot wait until this crappy block is gone from Jasper Ave. I can't tell from the diagram, but does this include the building where the Commodore Restaurant is as well?


    Jasper & 108 Multi-Tower Project Site
    by Scott, on Flickr
    Last edited by ScottieA; 10-11-2015 at 09:42 AM.
    Don't feed the trolls!

  16. #16

    Default

    This makes me so very very happy..

  17. #17
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    The site seems way too small for 4 towers.

  18. #18

    Default

    This has been quite the year+ for downtown, only wish someone would tell me the "BPs Lands" is now about to be redeveloped.

  19. #19
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,996

    Default

    Commodore thankfully is NOT included, nor the CRU west.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  20. #20
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,996

    Default







    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  21. #21
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,160

    Default

    So the surveyors that I saw by the Mirador a couple of months back were definitely there for this project.
    Don't feed the trolls!

  22. #22

    Default

    ^Yup
    www.decl.org

  23. #23

  24. #24

    Default

    ^ same site, but I think different owners? Idk

  25. #25
    You registered but never posted. username to be deleted.
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    800

    Default

    Wow! The skyline is really expanding west

  26. #26

    Default

    This would be a great addition to the downtown! As long as what is being proposed it of good quality as well.
    Hoping we see something sooner rather than later!

  27. #27

    Default

    That's great, but is someone someday going to build on that empty space next to Boston Pizza?

  28. #28
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    ^ Someday comes when the city starts taxing surface parking lots properly.

    Surface lots = high return, zero risk. Why would you ever take the risk of developing when you can sit on a cash cow in perpetuity?


    I can't let that rain on this parade though. This announcement is spectacular. Very happy to see 108 getting developed. Beautiful street landscaping, deserves great developments to match.

  29. #29
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,996

    Default

    ... or a park with significant density around it
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  30. #30
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    31,314

    Default

    One thing I want from this development besides the usual (retail bays, height, good design, etc) is a large setback from Jasper Ave. That LRT entrance in front of Knoxvilles is a real bottleneck.
    “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

  31. #31

    Default

    ^the jasper ave plan/downtown plan (not sure which) proposed moving those station entries off of jasper. Only access from the streets, not jasper ave.

  32. #32
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    31,314

    Default

    If that's the case then they probably should have included that in the 108 St pig lipsticking project.
    “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

  33. #33
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,726

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonic Death Monkey View Post
    One thing I want from this development besides the usual (retail bays, height, good design, etc) is a large setback from Jasper Ave. That LRT entrance in front of Knoxvilles is a real bottleneck.
    The pre-application notice from Parioplan above specifically discusses that.

  34. #34
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,996

    Default

    ^indeed... or for much less money, simply setback the project an extra 2m there.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  35. #35
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,847

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisD View Post
    Maclab and Day are involved in this. Both are not speculators and land flippers. So that should shut down that comment.
    Which Day are we going to get for this development? The one that is doing Kelly Ramsay? Or the one that is doing J22?

  36. #36

    Default

    Maclab has really cooled down on developing greenfield communities recently so I don't see this as a re-zone, hold and flip.

  37. #37
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    7,129

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nobleea View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisD View Post
    Maclab and Day are involved in this. Both are not speculators and land flippers. So that should shut down that comment.
    Which Day are we going to get for this development? The one that is doing Kelly Ramsay? Or the one that is doing J22?
    I'm sure he is hearing all the accolades directed his way regarding the KR and would want to continue this trend

  38. #38
    You registered but never posted. username to be deleted.
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    800

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaerdo View Post
    ^ Someday comes when the city starts taxing surface parking lots properly.

    Surface lots = high return, zero risk. Why would you ever take the risk of developing when you can sit on a cash cow in perpetuity?


    I can't let that rain on this parade though. This announcement is spectacular. Very happy to see 108 getting developed. Beautiful street landscaping, deserves great developments to match.
    If the government gets involved taxing like that then it could backfire, leading to a bad develop

  39. #39
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    452

    Default

    This one has sure been percolating for a long time.

    Also, Woodpecker Developments? Awesome.

  40. #40

    Default

    So under plan B, they plan to raze the spanish-inspired buildings? Don't they carry some heritage significance?

  41. #41
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    7,129

    Default

    They should have significance of some sort if they don't. I like those buildings but as usual in Edmonton its demolish the nice buildings and keep the empty parking lots. Ice District being the exception... so far.

  42. #42
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    ^ Again, risk calculation. Old buildings are expensive, the cap rate is often low and unpredictable.

    With surface parking lots there is literally zero risk. You can accurately predict exactly how much you will make on them over 30 years, and that is wrapped into the cost of the property.

    Unless we do something about surface parking lots on a regulatory level, it is going to be a superior investment to rip down old buildings.

  43. #43
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    31,314

    Default

    I too would prefer that El Mirador be saved, but apparently it's beyond saving. I think the bigger issue with heritage buildings in this city is not the destruction of them per se, but more an issue with neglectful owners who allow heritage buildings to rot away.
    “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

  44. #44
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    7,129

    Default

    Its terrible

  45. #45
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,996

    Default

    'Beyond saving'... who says?
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  46. #46
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    7,129

    Default

    Well obviously the developers will say that

  47. #47
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,996
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  48. #48
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    31,314

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    'Beyond saving'... who says?
    Pretty sure some of you in-the-know types said it here
    “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

  49. #49
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Edmonton/Athabasca
    Posts
    111

    Default

    Really hope that the El Mirador isn't demolished. Would be nice to see it incorporated somehow, akin to the Glenora B&B.

    Frustrating how there is a surface lot adjacent to this lot, yet the developers have decided to build on the lot with the heritage structures.

  50. #50

    Default

    Im not a developer, but you cant develop what you dont own. Its not like they can just pick and choose which property they want to work on.

  51. #51
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Edmonton/Athabasca
    Posts
    111

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Im not a developer, but you cant develop what you dont own. Its not like they can just pick and choose which property they want to work on.
    I understand this, just wish they would've purchased the parking lot over the El Mirador site. Perhaps they tried but the owner of the parking lot didn't want to sell...can't say for sure.

  52. #52

    Default

    Hey another historic resource we can knock down after El Mirador could be the Birk's Building on 104 and Jasper. It's not that tall either and would really help with 104th streets redevelopment.

  53. #53
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    7,592

    Default

    El-Mirador, while interesting and unique in it's own way given where it is located on the property and that it's likely light wood-frame construction nearing the end of its lifespan, I'm afraid that there's not much one can do.

  54. #54
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    7,129

    Default

    90% of this city is wood framed, better just blow it up
    Last edited by Drumbones; 10-11-2015 at 10:17 PM.

  55. #55
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton Downtown Core
    Posts
    4,861

    Default

    Not worth saving imo.

  56. #56
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    7,592

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Drumbones View Post
    90% of this city is wood framed, better just blow it up
    Did I say that...perhaps it's time to clean your glasses or get your eyes tested. I look forward to you amending your post.

  57. #57
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    31,314

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisD View Post
    El-Mirador, while interesting and unique in it's own way given where it is located on the property and that it's likely light wood-frame construction nearing the end of its lifespan, I'm afraid that there's not much one can do.
    How is that that the Strathcona Hotel can last over 125 years then?
    “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

  58. #58

    Default

    The materials for the fit and finish for the el mirador on the exterior could be replicated for pennies on the dollar vs saving the structure. It's an interesting style with flare, most likely the oldest and only building with Spanish detailing in Edmonton.

    I wouldn't advocate for a faux replica under a tower for this one however I believe it would be so simple it would shock most people.

  59. #59
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,996

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisD View Post
    El-Mirador, while interesting and unique in it's own way given where it is located on the property and that it's likely light wood-frame construction nearing the end of its lifespan, I'm afraid that there's not much one can do.
    Sad and incorrect.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  60. #60
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,996

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EdmTrekker View Post
    Not worth saving imo.
    Incorrect.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  61. #61

    Default

    Saying someones opinion is incorrect without further explaining why you think its incorrect is poor form, bra

  62. #62

    Default

    What's with the rush to save crap that 99% of Edmonton will never walk by and if they happened to drive by they wouldn't even notice it.

  63. #63
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Edmonton of course
    Posts
    1,147

    Default

    DT is on fire so happy to hear about this one.
    live for happiness because without it everything seems ho hum

  64. #64
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Saying someones opinion is incorrect without further explaining why you think its incorrect is poor form, bra
    Not only that, but whether this is worth saving is totally subjective. There can be no incorrect opinion on the matter.

    I personally love the building and I wish we had more like it. If we didn't allow rezoning at will but allowed owners of older or architecturally significant buildings to transfer density to their neighbouring landowners maybe we could keep it. That would be nice.

    But under our current system I think it's not worth saving. Or rather, not worth putting significant public resources into saving. What we could spend restricting development here to maintain an interesting private building could be spent on the future park for far more public benefit. And I don't, at all, fault the owner for not wanting to severely limit the value and utility of his property just to keep it. A good developer, after all, believes that what he builds is also good and beautiful and contributes to the public realm.

  65. #65

    Default

    Thank god. This area is a dive. Also, owners of said heritage buildings should be footing the bill to renovate their buildings. Not holding out till tax payers money goes into something that people will hardly notice just driving by or walking by.
    Last edited by Sickbones; 11-11-2015 at 11:31 AM.

  66. #66
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    31,314

    Default

    I agree that there should be more stringent maintenance rules on ownership of heritage properties. If it was up to me, if an owner can't be bothered to maintain and preserve a heritage building then they should be levied heavy fines or expropriated. As it is, a certificate of heritage preservation is not worth wiping your arse with in this city. Our current system sees heritage buildings being held hostage until the COE coughs up dough (McDougall Church, Molson Brewery) which isn't right to me.

    As for El Mirador: it would be a unique feature of a redeveloping Capital Blvd. Even if Capital Blvd is turned into another Yaletown, El Mirador would be a nice break from that monotony of high rises. Or just imagine El Mirador repurposed for retail. Imagine a couple of eateries overlooking that courtyard. All kinds of opportunities there.

    Sure you could rebuild a replica but it wouldn't be the same:
    http://yegishome.ca/news/2004/08/05/...in-in-edmonton
    “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

  67. #67

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sickbones View Post
    Thank god. This area is a dive. Also, owners of said heritage buildings should be footing the bill to renovate their buildings. Not holding out till tax payers money goes into something that people will hardly notice just driving by or walking by.
    Which is exactly what happened with the Arlington and the Gem, among others. If we're going to have the private sector decide which of out buildings are worth historical preservation, we soon won't have any left, except perhaps as that most Edmonton of methods, a facade.

  68. #68
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    7,592

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonic Death Monkey View Post
    I agree that there should be more stringent maintenance rules on ownership of heritage properties. If it was up to me, if an owner can't be bothered to maintain and preserve a heritage building then they should be levied heavy fines or expropriated. As it is, a certificate of heritage preservation is not worth wiping your arse with in this city. Our current system sees heritage buildings being held hostage until the COE coughs up dough (McDougall Church, Molson Brewery) which isn't right to me.

    As for El Mirador: it would be a unique feature of a redeveloping Capital Blvd. Even if Capital Blvd is turned into another Yaletown, El Mirador would be a nice break from that monotony of high rises. Or just imagine El Mirador repurposed for retail. Imagine a couple of eateries overlooking that courtyard. All kinds of opportunities there.

    Sure you could rebuild a replica but it wouldn't be the same:
    http://yegishome.ca/news/2004/08/05/...in-in-edmonton
    It would be next to impossible, and I believe illegal, for any municipality to 'force' owners to maintain their buildings if they are placed on the historic inventory. Please note there is a difference between buildings that are on the inventory and those that have been formally designated through a bylaw.

    As it stands the City's only options are:
    a) purchase the property for fair market value.
    b) grant increased development rights in exchange for retaining/integrating the building with new development. This is only available if the owner is rezoning the site.
    c) encourage the owner to designate the building as a Historic Resource which provides them access to funding to carry out improvements.
    Last edited by ChrisD; 11-11-2015 at 01:49 PM.

  69. #69
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    7,592

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Sickbones View Post
    Thank god. This area is a dive. Also, owners of said heritage buildings should be footing the bill to renovate their buildings. Not holding out till tax payers money goes into something that people will hardly notice just driving by or walking by.
    Which is exactly what happened with the Arlington and the Gem, among others. If we're going to have the private sector decide which of out buildings are worth historical preservation, we soon won't have any left, except perhaps as that most Edmonton of methods, a facade.
    And 'facadism' is used extensively throughout the world, with many European cities leading the way. I've said this before there is NOTHING wrong with facadism. The only way I would support keeping an entire historical building intact is if there were unique architectural features (extensive millwork, grand staircases, sculpted ceilings, etc) on the interior that distinguish it from anything else.

  70. #70
    Administrator *
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Queen Mary Park, Edmonton
    Posts
    2,755

    Default

    As much as I will miss El Mirador, this is going to be a transformative development for this part of town. Amazing density!

  71. #71

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisD View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Sickbones View Post
    Thank god. This area is a dive. Also, owners of said heritage buildings should be footing the bill to renovate their buildings. Not holding out till tax payers money goes into something that people will hardly notice just driving by or walking by.
    Which is exactly what happened with the Arlington and the Gem, among others. If we're going to have the private sector decide which of out buildings are worth historical preservation, we soon won't have any left, except perhaps as that most Edmonton of methods, a facade.
    And 'facadism' is used extensively throughout the world, with many European cities leading the way. I've said this before there is NOTHING wrong with facadism. The only way I would support keeping an entire historical building intact is if there were unique architectural features (extensive millwork, grand staircases, sculpted ceilings, etc) on the interior that distinguish it from anything else.
    Europe has many, MANY more historical buildings than we do. You could demolish every one of the buildings on Edmonton's historical list and it would barely make a dent in the cities there, with the exception of some that were essentially destroyed in the wars.

    We don't have the luxury of losing that many. Particularly when we replace them with strip malls and big box retailers.

  72. #72

    Default

    I seriously would hate to see this place go. It is one of the most unique spots in Downtown. Does it have a a grand staircase, no but it has a great amount of greenery and courtyard. It has a character that is not seen anywhere else Downtown. It's the one building in Downtown Edmonton that PIXAR would strap a million balloons to and let float UP on a new adventure.

  73. #73
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,996

    Default

    Facadism does not apply here, the value is the collective design, courtyard, uniqueness and history.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  74. #74
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    115

    Default

    I'm not usually the type to really be interested in preserving buildings, but I gotta say it'd be a real shame to lose the Mirador.

  75. #75
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    4,565

    Default

    The 1930's California style architecture reminds me of scenes from the movie "Mulholland Drive"
    “Canada is the only country in the world that knows how to live without an identity,”-Marshall McLuhan

  76. #76
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    7,592

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mAD~mOD View Post
    I seriously would hate to see this place go. It is one of the most unique spots in Downtown. Does it have a a grand staircase, no but it has a great amount of greenery and courtyard. It has a character that is not seen anywhere else Downtown. It's the one building in Downtown Edmonton that PIXAR would strap a million balloons to and let float UP on a new adventure.
    I would say that's the case for the minority of people out there. I am sure if you asked most people about the El-Mirador Apartments many wouldn't know anything about it, unlike Glenora B&B, Philips Lofts, and various other buildings that have more prominence.

  77. #77
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Sherwood park
    Posts
    2,526

    Default

    What does how many people know about the El Mirador have to do with how 'unique' it is?

  78. #78

    Default

    Any renders?

  79. #79
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    7,592

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SP59 View Post
    What does how many people know about the El Mirador have to do with how 'unique' it is?
    I guess I was commenting on the fact that the El-Mirador is unique to only a small number of people. I am sure the majority of the people that pass by it don't think twice about it.

  80. #80
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    7,129

    Default

    Look to the east on GoogleEarth and its a sea of parking lots. Use some of that land instead. City council get some gonads please.

  81. #81
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    7,592

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Drumbones View Post
    Look to the east on GoogleEarth and its a sea of parking lots. Use some of that land instead. City council get some gonads please.
    That doesn't help when the land is owned by a different land owner.

    And Council can only work within their legal means.

  82. #82
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    7,129

    Default

    They can have an influence if interested. Help to swing some deals etc. They can do something, believe it or not, but won't of course.

  83. #83
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    7,592

    Default

    So if you were the adjacent land owner and the City came by and said, we'd like to buy your land so we can save this historical building and allow the developer to build a high density development on it. Would dollar signs not pop up in your head. Of course they would. Someone would have to be prepared to pay over market value for it and it would not be the developer.

  84. #84
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    7,129

    Default

    I'm sure something could be worked out with a bit of effort from several people.

  85. #85
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Windermere
    Posts
    1,998

    Default

    Had no idea the Mirador existed until I saw it in this thread. Now that I've seen how unique it is, I'd like to see it saved.

  86. #86

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheGreatestX View Post
    Had no idea the Mirador existed until I saw it in this thread. Now that I've seen how unique it is, I'd like to see it saved.
    This is exactly the wrong reason to save a building. Oh look a building 99% of edmonton has never seen or driven by but let's save it now that I've seen a picture of it. How can you argue with such logic.

  87. #87
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    7,129

    Default

    What does that have to do with it gwill. Just because it wasn't a popular hangout it should be demolished? That's pure pawltry I say

  88. #88

    Default

    It's setting the bar so low in terms of requirements to keep a building that every building will end up with the same argument.

    Never seen the building before but now that I have seen a picture we have to keep it.... What?!?! I hope a silly arguement like that wouldn't get in the way of such a large development.

  89. #89

    Default

    It's actually apartments, not really a hang out spot so to speak.

    El Mirador is a funky building, and I think it should be saved because of its uniqueness. The problem is that isn't usually enough to save something. And just because a lot of people don't know about something doesn't mean it's of value. Lots of people like taylor swift concerts or think vaccines cause autism, just because they do doesn't mean you should drink the cool-aid. Conversely just because a lot of people don't know something exists doesn't mean it isn't of value. Most people don't know that any of you exist or that this city exists or that things you find interesting don't exist, just because that is the case doesn't lessen the value of that thing. Lets not place the number of people knowing something as the equivalence of its importance. That is some seriously bad false dichotomy and makes for a terrible terrible argument (I know a lot about boltzman machines and optimization algorithms used for tuning neural nets, how many people here know anything about that? I am guessing 1 or 2 lurkers. Not a lot of people, but it's super important).

    The problem really exists with how heritage and historical properties are handled here, and how we go about allowing land owners and developers to work. We let upzonning continue to be a problem. We let gravel lots sit for ages. We allow historical structures to be razed and burned to the ground. Fire resistance tech not being integrated into old structures to prevent arson/or "accidents"/or actual accidents. Lots of things could be done but there isn't a strong legal framework in place and a look at the potential loop holes would need to be done to prevent things like Chris is talking about that allow market rates to be jacked up like crazy.

    El Mirador is too far gone I think at this point both in terms of physically saving from age and the political/legal ability. Wood frame buildings don't take kindly to mistreatment (especially cold/hot swings with lots of water).

    Could we keep the facade and relocate it somewhere in the warehouse district. Sure. But that may be the best option we've got.

  90. #90
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Alberta Ave, McCauley, St Albert and Spruce Grove
    Posts
    96

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LoebsPeugot208 View Post
    It's actually apartments, not really a hang out spot so to speak.

    El Mirador is too far gone I think at this point both in terms of physically saving from age and the political/legal ability. Wood frame buildings don't take kindly to mistreatment (especially cold/hot swings with lots of water).

    Could we keep the facade and relocate it somewhere in the warehouse district. Sure. But that may be the best option we've got.
    Agreed.
    Although the building looks cool from the front, what benefit do we have in saving this building? It has a life span and unfortunately, it may not be feasible to try to extend it. I would much rather see a responsible redevelopment of a property than see a cool old building decay until it too ends up as a surface parking lot.
    Luck is the collision that occurs when preparation and opportunity run into each other.

  91. #91
    Plug C2E into my veins!!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Westwood
    Posts
    16,330

    Default

    El Mirador was really cute 8-10 years ago, but it's been allowed to fall into disrepair. This is one building I would have loved to see saved a decade ago but it's not a must save. The building that burnt down a month ago down around 114 Street would have been a higher priority to save and keep around, and it was getting its attention before tragically burning to the ground.

  92. #92
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    1,483

    Default

    Hey first time user here. I just purchased downtown in the Monaco 2 building so projects like this keep my interest vested. What an exciting proposal! Does anyone know when we should expect some renderings?

  93. #93

    Default

    i used to see these apartments across the street from my former doctor's office exam room window. i always thought they looked pretty cool and retro, though i didn't know whether they had been kept up or not. i don't think we should be too upset if we can't save them because frankly we just can't save them all, especially if some have been let go and have fallen into a state of disrepair.

    that group of photos that IanO posted on post #20 is a good example of older buildings and empty lots that used to have buildings on it that really don't add anything to downtown and is a prime spot for development. i want to see much less of what i see in the photos Ian showed in his post and more development in it's place. that area could really be made into something very nice and eye appealing.
    Last edited by MetroEd; 14-11-2015 at 11:11 AM.

  94. #94

    Default

    In truth, When I pass by these buildings, the only thing I really think of is how poorly maintained they are. I understand people want to keep history and heritage in the city, but for such a prime location, these buildings have really fallen into disrepair.

    I am all for incorporating historical facade into new buildings when done right (Kelly Ramsey for example), but these designs don't really fit well with the overall architecture of the area and to keep these would require a lot more money then they are worth.

  95. #95

    Default

    But now that I know they exist they need to be saved. Ugh /sarcasm

  96. #96

    Default

    What is wrong with that? Sometimes people need to see the artifact to appreciate the value of it. I much rather have people change their heart when there is still enough time to salvage it than once it's gone then they speak up.

  97. #97
    You registered but never posted. username to be deleted.
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    800

  98. #98
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    31,314

    Default

    ^ No, that's the Augustana Church site next to WCB
    http://www.connect2edmonton.ca/forum...ad.php?t=36336
    “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

  99. #99

    Default

    I personally wouldn't want to save this. Most people outside of c2e wouldn't even bat an eye if it was gone. I'd rather these things be left to the public to vote on importance so we don't get another whitemud tallus dome fiasco where tax dollars went to something so garbage as that.

  100. #100
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    7,592

    Default

    The cost to accommodate such a vote would like surpass the cost of many public art installations.

Page 1 of 4 1234 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
  •