Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 101 to 200 of 563

Thread: Falcon Towers | 175 m and 145 m | Proposed

  1. #101

    Default

    Lots and lots of land available in the core that needs development first.
    www.decl.org

  2. #102

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EdmTrekker View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    Structured parking is important in a Downtown.
    "Structured"? If the owner wants to tear it down or sell thats owners business. If the bureaucrats at the City thinks the City should be in the business of developing parking lots or parkades in the core - Councillors will be eaten alive.
    I believe cities that own parkades are quite common in North America.


    A quick search on Google turned up quite a few such cities. This was more interesting though and I was surprised to see WEM lead the article:


    Lots to lose: how cities around the world are eliminating car parks

    https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2...-parks-parking
    Last edited by KC; 04-06-2018 at 06:45 PM.

  3. #103

    Default

    The one thing that downtown Edmonton most emphatically does not need is parking.

    All existing lots should be punitively taxed at twenty times their present rates.

    All new lots should be taxed at one hundred times that rate.

  4. #104

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AShetsen View Post
    The one thing that downtown Edmonton most emphatically does not need is parking.

    All existing lots should be punitively taxed at twenty times their present rates.

    All new lots should be taxed at one hundred times that rate.

    Why?

    What would you use the tax money for?

  5. #105

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AShetsen View Post
    The one thing that downtown Edmonton most emphatically does not need is parking.

    All existing lots should be punitively taxed at twenty times their present rates.

    All new lots should be taxed at one hundred times that rate.
    Obviously you're not a business owner.

  6. #106
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    47,002

    Default

    Bingo. Parking is routinely the #1 or #2 issue for our members/visitors.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  7. #107
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,847

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    Bingo. Parking is routinely the #1 or #2 issue for our members/visitors.
    Well the parkade is sold. Who knows what the new owner chooses to do with it.

    Parking rates are bound to go up as surface lots continue to disappear.
    Last edited by nobleea; 05-06-2018 at 11:34 AM.

  8. #108
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,847

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    Bingo. Parking is routinely the #1 or #2 issue for our members/visitors.
    Is that not the case in virtually every downtown?

  9. #109
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    47,002

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nobleea View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    Bingo. Parking is routinely the #1 or #2 issue for our members/visitors.
    Is that not the case in virtually every downtown?
    Essentially. Similar to taxes and lawyer charges for staples.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  10. #110
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    47,002

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nobleea View Post
    Parking rates are bound to go up as surface lots continue to disappear.
    Perhaps, but with LRT to Millwoods/Lewis Estates coming, it may relieve a certain amount of pressure as well.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  11. #111

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AShetsen View Post
    The one thing that downtown Edmonton most emphatically does not need is parking.

    All existing lots should be punitively taxed at twenty times their present rates.

    All new lots should be taxed at one hundred times that rate.
    How thoughtful and wise for you to know exactly what others need. It is not downtown Edmonton or Edmonton that "needs" parking, it is people who work and visit the area that need it. Now we can debate about how much parking is optimal, but it is very dismissive to say we do not need parking. Really? Every city has some amount of parking in the downtown areas. Larger, denser, older cities with better transit systems may get by with less, but you will find parking even in downtown New York.

    You may be correct to say you do not need parking or you do not want (more?) parking, but you might want to restrain yourself from imposing that on everyone one else.

  12. #112

    Default

    You know, most of you guys are such prigs.

    Make up what's left of your minds (I know most of your blood routinely engorges other organs, mostly exterior ones).

    If yegdt has too many parking lots, do something about it. Taxation is as good a place to start as any, and the exact rate can be fine tuned.

    Or keep on living as you have been for decades, with a wasteland full of gravel holes in your core.

    Yadda yadda, it's so much better than it has been. Visit a real city for a change, not Calgary, and see the difference. It's still depressing.

    Or you can keep being all pious about everything.

    Like the uptight and humorless prigs you are. From where flows your foolishness, hypocrisy, and ability to lie to yourselves. And boycott.

  13. #113
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    4,565

    Default

    ^Dave’s response was well thought out and logical. Enough said.
    “Canada is the only country in the world that knows how to live without an identity,”-Marshall McLuhan

  14. #114

    Default

    On new taxation powers for surface parking lots, I know this is on City Council's radar but there's nothing proposed in the new Big City Charter. Also not sure that would work, as taxation is based on current use and value. Anything else could be challenged in court. I love the idea, but not sure if it's feasible or not.

    The real issue is that we are in a regulated environment, meaning City Council determines the zoning, and thus value of land is reflective of this. As buildings creep taller, land gets more expensive. And since our multifamily real estate demand is relatively constant, it means not every project will get built, or we might end up with 50 storey residential towers next to surface parking lots for a long, long time. I'm not talking about parking in general, but eliminating gravel surface parking lots should be the goal of City Council, thus they need to review their strategy in terms of DC2 approvals and better understand the economics around these project, and how they affect the Edmonton market as a whole.
    www.decl.org

  15. #115
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    9,152

    Default

    Do we still have any gravel surface parking lots in the city? I'm speaking mainly about downtown. I think there is one gravel surface parking lot left downtown behind BP's on Jasper.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  16. #116

    Default

    ^Tons. Look at Google Earth. Acres and acres. I also use gravel/surface parking lots interchangeably.
    www.decl.org

  17. #117
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Castledowns, Edmonton
    Posts
    221

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AShetsen View Post
    You know, most of you guys are such prigs.

    Make up what's left of your minds (I know most of your blood routinely engorges other organs, mostly exterior ones).

    If yegdt has too many parking lots, do something about it. Taxation is as good a place to start as any, and the exact rate can be fine tuned.

    Or keep on living as you have been for decades, with a wasteland full of gravel holes in your core.

    Yadda yadda, it's so much better than it has been. Visit a real city for a change, not Calgary, and see the difference. It's still depressing.

    Or you can keep being all pious about everything.

    Like the uptight and humorless prigs you are. From where flows your foolishness, hypocrisy, and ability to lie to yourselves. And boycott.
    You know kings and queens had their heads chopped off for this attitude. You can not tax more than what the assessed value of the property is. The City can't decide to tax one type of property more because it is taxed by value assessment and is determined by market and that is the law.

  18. #118
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,732

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AShetsen
    Like the uptight and humorless prigs you are. From where flows your foolishness, hypocrisy, and ability to lie to yourselves. And boycott.


    There you go again, shet'sing your sanctimony all over the forum. Give it a rest. Nearly all of your posts are knee deep in it.

    And for what it's worth, I don't even disagree with you on taxing surface lots more. I just don't think it's possible given current legislation.

  19. #119
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    47,002

    Default


    @ianoyeg
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  20. #120
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    7,130

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AShetsen View Post
    You know, most of you guys are such prigs.

    Make up what's left of your minds (I know most of your blood routinely engorges other organs, mostly exterior ones).

    If yegdt has too many parking lots, do something about it. Taxation is as good a place to start as any, and the exact rate can be fine tuned.

    Or keep on living as you have been for decades, with a wasteland full of gravel holes in your core.

    Yadda yadda, it's so much better than it has been. Visit a real city for a change, not Calgary, and see the difference. It's still depressing.

    Or you can keep being all pious about everything.

    Like the uptight and humorless prigs you are. From where flows your foolishness, hypocrisy, and ability to lie to yourselves. And boycott.
    I thought you were going to Burnaby to join the protesters.

  21. #121
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    31,314

    Default

    ^^ Missed one! Just thought it should be included...

    “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

  22. #122
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    7,130

    Default

    Can hardly wait to see renders. Exciting.

  23. #123

    Default

    lets hope this development isn't going to be a white tower with a blank wall on one side with punched windows. oh and let's not forget a vertical strip of curtain wall....

  24. #124

    Default

    Fox 3 & 4!!!!!

  25. #125
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    9,152

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GreenSPACE View Post
    ^Tons. Look at Google Earth. Acres and acres. I also use gravel/surface parking lots interchangeably.
    Ok, so that's cleared up.

    I'm against taxing surface parking lots. Isn't getting cozy with Socialism/Communism or something?
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  26. #126

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Axb View Post
    lets hope this development isn't going to be a white tower with a blank wall on one side with punched windows. oh and let's not forget a vertical strip of curtain wall....
    I believe some folks had mentioned that this will be a step up in quality but time will tell...I'd be really dissapointed if we get another Icon or Fox.

  27. #127
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    7,592

    Default

    I think we'll see something different.

  28. #128

    Default

    They have no choice really... every competitor that came after them have offered nicer qualities for relatively the same price poinrs as theirs. They either catch up or become mid-end builders. Luxury and stucco dont go together. IMO, They have a lot to prove with their next project; a do or die if you ask me.
    " The strength of a man is in the stride he walks."

  29. #129

    Default

    I think they're priced right. Looking at MLS now, a $450k place at the Fox will fetch you a 900 sf unit. A $450k place at the Ultima will fetch you a 800sf unit with nicer finishes.

    Personally, I'd take the space, but ultimately, the Icons and Foxes are slotted below the newest glass towers already.

    I'm expecting similar product here (but yes...no more stucco please) - but with spandrel galore - like the Hendrix.

  30. #130

    Default

    langham is do or die on their next project yet westrich is the one that may not be completing their third building in ambleside.

    Why is it westrich can fail on delivering and get defended but somehow its do or die for these guys.

  31. #131
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,160

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Axb View Post
    lets hope this development isn't going to be a white tower with a blank wall on one side with punched windows. oh and let's not forget a vertical strip of curtain wall....
    Dollars to donuts that's what it'll be.
    Don't feed the trolls!

  32. #132
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Westmount
    Posts
    3,294

    Default

    ^^Needless to say, there is no evidence that Langham is in a "do or die" position, whatever that's supposed to mean. Most people on here don't even bother responding to such nonsense because it's exactly that: nonsense.
    “Son, one day this will be an iconic structure shaping Edmonton’s skyline.”

  33. #133
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Royal Gardens
    Posts
    1,694
    My antidepressent drug of choice is running. Cheaper with less side effects!

  34. #134
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    31,314

    Default

    Edmonton Journal:

    “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

  35. #135
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,160

    Default

    The amount of glass looks different between the two renders on the left and the one on the right.

  36. #136

    Default

    They really like the idea of having a strip of window wall running from top to bottom. It looks better than the icons and fox and it reminds me of the One Bloor in Toronto.

  37. #137
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Westmount
    Posts
    3,294
    “Son, one day this will be an iconic structure shaping Edmonton’s skyline.”

  38. #138
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton Downtown Core
    Posts
    4,861

    Default

    Concept with devil being in the details. I am not a fan of those balconies maybe it’s concrete or plastic? The punched out windows are being hidden and that may result in very dark spaces ... looks like precast from eons ago.

  39. #139
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    YEG
    Posts
    1,519

    Default

    Looks better than the Brad Lamb proposed development.

  40. #140
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    87

    Default

    I hope they sell studios too.

  41. #141
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton (belevedre)
    Posts
    6,502

    Default

    This proposed towers did not say how many storey tall ??
    Edmonton Rocks Rocks Rocks

  42. #142

    Default

    Very nice.

  43. #143
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,847

    Default

    Looks like they're around 38 stories tall. Floor plate might be a bit fat for that kind of height, but they look ok. Lots of glass if the renderings are to be believed.
    Podium looks decent.

  44. #144
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    47,002

    Default

    Very Toronto. Looking forward to that lot being developed.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  45. #145

    Default

    The tall one looks to be closer to 48 stories tall (but it's hard to count those little lines).

  46. #146

    Default

    Looks like they're sticking with Kennedy.

    If you're counting right off the render, there's just under 40 stories. There'll be a lot of 1 bedroom/studios and small units to get the 600 unit quota. Market trend though (smaller units with higher quality finishes).

  47. #147

    Default

    This is so meh. If you put money into this at the pre-construction stage you're not very smart. Just look at the ugly Fox towers. They look like refurbished towers (punched windows, stucco, very mehhh finishes, ugly design).

    If the renders look like this, then the final project is going to be very much another Fox.

  48. #148
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    47,002

    Default

    Gotta disagree with you on that.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  49. #149

    Default

    Looks like some influence from The One in Toronto.
    www.decl.org

  50. #150

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Abii View Post
    This is so meh. If you put money into this at the pre-construction stage you're not very smart. Just look at the ugly Fox towers. They look like refurbished towers (punched windows, stucco, very mehhh finishes, ugly design).

    If the renders look like this, then the final project is going to be very much another Fox.
    The Fox towers look exactly like their renders. These look nothing like Fox so your comparison is pointless.

  51. #151
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Parkview
    Posts
    316

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GreenSPACE View Post
    Looks like some influence from The One in Toronto.
    SOME hey?
    Edmonton is a very exciting place to be right now.

  52. #152
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton (belevedre)
    Posts
    6,502

    Default

    This proposed tower looks much like one Bloor east tower on Bloor and Yonge st Toronto.

    Edmonton Rocks Rocks Rocks

  53. #153
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    47,002

    Default

    Bingo.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  54. #154
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    351

    Default

    I like it; distinctive yet understated

  55. #155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gwill211 View Post
    langham is do or die on their next project yet westrich is the one that may not be completing their third building in ambleside.

    Why is it westrich can fail on delivering and get defended but somehow its do or die for these guys.
    Leave Westrich out if this. Langham has quite a lot to prove as competitors are doing gorgeous towers, and they were/are doing acceptable tastes but claimed "luxurious."

    This tower, on the other hand, achieved the standard so far. As per the accentuated balconies, that is just personal tastes. I like it, and it will add flavor to the skyline.
    " The strength of a man is in the stride he walks."

  56. #156
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    115

    Default

    Well it looks like a massive step up from the typical Langham offering. Pretty happy with what is being shown for the most part.

    A more historic looking podium could have been cool, but what they're showing still isn't bad.

  57. #157

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ctzn-Ed View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gwill211 View Post
    langham is do or die on their next project yet westrich is the one that may not be completing their third building in ambleside.

    Why is it westrich can fail on delivering and get defended but somehow its do or die for these guys.
    Leave Westrich out if this. Langham has quite a lot to prove as competitors are doing gorgeous towers, and they were/are doing acceptable tastes but claimed "luxurious."

    This tower, on the other hand, achieved the standard so far. As per the accentuated balconies, that is just personal tastes. I like it, and it will add flavor to the skyline.
    Leave westrich out of it? You brought westrich into the conversation when your comparing the 2. Westrich may not be completing one of their projects as intended yet it's do or die for Langham? What good is a shiny new tower when the builder can't complete it.

    Who cares what we promise to build right?

    Langham built and finished icon in the worst recession ever while westrich is potentially bailing in a far better economy.

    If it's do or die for a certain builder I wouldn't think it's langham.

  58. #158

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by buildings View Post
    I like it; distinctive yet understated
    Understated? It’s huge and dominating.

  59. #159

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gwill211 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ctzn-Ed View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gwill211 View Post
    langham is do or die on their next project yet westrich is the one that may not be completing their third building in ambleside.Why is it westrich can fail on delivering and get defended but somehow its do or die for these guys.
    Leave Westrich out if this. Langham has quite a lot to prove as competitors are doing gorgeous towers, and they were/are doing acceptable tastes but claimed "luxurious." This tower, on the other hand, achieved the standard so far. As per the accentuated balconies, that is just personal tastes. I like it, and it will add flavor to the skyline.
    Leave westrich out of it? You brought westrich into the conversation when your comparing the 2. Westrich may not be completing one of their projects as intended yet it's do or die for Langham? What good is a shiny new tower when the builder can't complete it.Who cares what we promise to build right?Langham built and finished icon in the worst recession ever while westrich is potentially bailing in a far better economy. If it's do or die for a certain builder I wouldn't think it's langham.
    Which Westrich project is that?

  60. #160
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,160

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EdmontonsKindaGuy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gwill211 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ctzn-Ed View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gwill211 View Post
    langham is do or die on their next project yet westrich is the one that may not be completing their third building in ambleside.Why is it westrich can fail on delivering and get defended but somehow its do or die for these guys.
    Leave Westrich out if this. Langham has quite a lot to prove as competitors are doing gorgeous towers, and they were/are doing acceptable tastes but claimed "luxurious." This tower, on the other hand, achieved the standard so far. As per the accentuated balconies, that is just personal tastes. I like it, and it will add flavor to the skyline.
    Leave westrich out of it? You brought westrich into the conversation when your comparing the 2. Westrich may not be completing one of their projects as intended yet it's do or die for Langham? What good is a shiny new tower when the builder can't complete it.Who cares what we promise to build right?Langham built and finished icon in the worst recession ever while westrich is potentially bailing in a far better economy. If it's do or die for a certain builder I wouldn't think it's langham.
    Which Westrich project is that?

    He's going on about Signature tower 3 again. He seems to think that the project has stopped when it hasn't.
    Don't feed the trolls!

  61. #161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by buildings View Post
    I like it; distinctive yet understated
    Understated? It’s huge and dominating.
    I think he meant understated in design, not scale.

  62. #162

    Default

    ^Agreed, I think he means design but won't assume.

    In terms of units and density, it is quite a lot more than the current zoning allows. Langham will have to convince City Council the extra density bonusing is necessary and size of the development overall contributes to the neighbourhood.
    www.decl.org

  63. #163

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vincent View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by buildings View Post
    I like it; distinctive yet understated
    Understated? It’s huge and dominating.
    I think he meant understated in design, not scale.
    Converting signatures 3rd building to rentals and selling it off as its been rumoured is not finishing your project.

    If langham can finish icon in one of the worst recessions we have ever seen why cant westrich finish their current project?? If we want to compare langham to westrich then let's look at the track record before saying langhams in a do or die position.

  64. #164

    Default

    ^I can't speak to Westrich, but Langham had a significant amount of pre-sales for both Icon I and II from 2006/2007 at the very height of the market. In fact, in terms of a condo project like that they timed things perfectly, so the downturn didn't have as much affect on that project.
    www.decl.org

  65. #165

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gwill211 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Vincent View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by buildings View Post
    I like it; distinctive yet understated
    Understated? It’s huge and dominating.
    I think he meant understated in design, not scale.
    Converting signatures 3rd building to rentals and selling it off as its been rumoured is not finishing your project.

    If langham can finish icon in one of the worst recessions we have ever seen why cant westrich finish their current project?? If we want to compare langham to westrich then let's look at the track record before saying langhams in a do or die position.
    I think the companies have different markets and different approaches, but I don't know if that makes one all good and the other all bad. I think the location for the Langham project is very good and it would be nice to see something built there, rather than have it remain the surface parking lot it has been for years.

    I'm not sure if I care so much about stucco vs. glass - aesthetically the later may be nicer, but we need to have a variety of housing downtown, including some that is more affordable. I think it might be more important to focus on what is at street level and how the building interacts with the street.

  66. #166
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    7,130

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ctzn-Ed View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gwill211 View Post
    langham is do or die on their next project yet westrich is the one that may not be completing their third building in ambleside.

    Why is it westrich can fail on delivering and get defended but somehow its do or die for these guys.
    Leave Westrich out if this. Langham has quite a lot to prove as competitors are doing gorgeous towers, and they were/are doing acceptable tastes but claimed "luxurious."

    This tower, on the other hand, achieved the standard so far. As per the accentuated balconies, that is just personal tastes. I like it, and it will add flavor to the skyline.
    Eddy, I was just curious, are you related to or in business with Rich Lam ?

  67. #167

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GreenSPACE View Post
    ^I can't speak to Westrich, but Langham had a significant amount of pre-sales for both Icon I and II from 2006/2007 at the very height of the market. In fact, in terms of a condo project like that they timed things perfectly, so the downturn didn't have as much affect on that project.
    The liquidity crisis was a major issue. People were walking away from deals. People unable to close. Appraisals were coming in way less the original sale price.

    There were significant issues that they over came with icon.

    That's what makes me laugh when I see someone say langham is in a do or die scenario. Especially when its compared to another builder who may be not finish one of their projects as planned...

  68. #168

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Drumbones View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ctzn-Ed View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gwill211 View Post
    langham is do or die on their next project yet westrich is the one that may not be completing their third building in ambleside.

    Why is it westrich can fail on delivering and get defended but somehow its do or die for these guys.
    Leave Westrich out if this. Langham has quite a lot to prove as competitors are doing gorgeous towers, and they were/are doing acceptable tastes but claimed "luxurious."

    This tower, on the other hand, achieved the standard so far. As per the accentuated balconies, that is just personal tastes. I like it, and it will add flavor to the skyline.
    Eddy, I was just curious, are you related to or in business with Rich Lam ?
    Im not in development, and i have never met these folks.
    " The strength of a man is in the stride he walks."

  69. #169
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    9,152

    Default

    I heard on the news last night that there are ~ 10,000 houses listed on the Edmonton market. Stress test that one.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  70. #170

    Default

    What are you guys talking about? Langham is not do or die on this project. They just completed fox 1 and 2 this is their next project. They have successfully completed all their projects.

  71. #171

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Oilers99 View Post
    What are you guys talking about? Langham is not do or die on this project. They just completed fox 1 and 2 this is their next project. They have successfully completed all their projects.
    Of course their not... it seems ctzn thinks westrich is the standard we want to hold other builders to. You know promise a project only to potentially bail on it mid way through construction.

  72. #172
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Downtown YEG
    Posts
    178

    Default

    ^ just like a dog with a bone...

  73. #173
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    9,152

    Default

    This thread is about Lanham. Westrich is a whole other thread.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  74. #174
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton (belevedre)
    Posts
    6,502

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    This thread is about Lanham. Westrich is a whole other thread.

    you should say Langham but not Lanham lol
    Edmonton Rocks Rocks Rocks

  75. #175

    Default

    Re: Langham
    I know many of you seem to think their exterior work is ugly but the market seems to think it is appropriate. Langham is under no requirements to build a product that suits some fanciful dreams of what towers look like. If the product was ugly, it wouldn't sell. I would not doubt that Langham will build these towers and have another successful project.

  76. #176

    Default

    So carbon copies of the Icons would be OK with you? They sold.

  77. #177

    Default

    That is not entirely accurate. The design does get reviewed by the Edmonton Urban Design Committee, and if they want changes the applicant usually has to show some improvements before the application can move forward. Also City Council may also have some say about finishing, especially if it is a DC2
    www.decl.org

  78. #178

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Oilers99 View Post
    Re: Langham
    I know many of you seem to think their exterior work is ugly but the market seems to think it is appropriate. Langham is under no requirements to build a product that suits some fanciful dreams of what towers look like. If the product was ugly, it wouldn't sell.
    Ha okay well then I'd like you to explain the thousands of objectively hideous condo units that have presumably at some been sold in Edmonton.

    The market also thinks unending suburban development, tailings ponds, and cigarettes are appropriate. Left unregulated I'm certain the almighty market would also produce buildings without adequate fire protection, accessibility, etc. Which is why we have building code, zoning bylaw, EDC, rezoning process, etc., which Langham is in fact obligated to conform with: to (attempt to) ensure that these things, as well as some basic level of urban and aesthetic design, are provided.

    All that being said, this does look to me like an improvement design-wise from the fox (although it's hard to tell from that little picture).

  79. #179

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bleppers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Oilers99 View Post
    Re: Langham
    I know many of you seem to think their exterior work is ugly but the market seems to think it is appropriate. Langham is under no requirements to build a product that suits some fanciful dreams of what towers look like. If the product was ugly, it wouldn't sell.
    Ha okay well then I'd like you to explain the thousands of objectively hideous condo units that have presumably at some been sold in Edmonton.

    The market also thinks unending suburban development, tailings ponds, and cigarettes are appropriate. Left unregulated I'm certain the almighty market would also produce buildings without adequate fire protection, accessibility, etc. Which is why we have building code, zoning bylaw, EDC, rezoning process, etc., which Langham is in fact obligated to conform with: to (attempt to) ensure that these things, as well as some basic level of urban and aesthetic design, are provided.

    All that being said, this does look to me like an improvement design-wise from the fox (although it's hard to tell from that little picture).
    That's pretty much what I'm saying, they have complied with all development and building requirements. The market has absorbed their product, therefore their product is just fine. If you think it's ugly, don't buy it.

  80. #180
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    7,592

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Abii View Post
    This is so meh. If you put money into this at the pre-construction stage you're not very smart. Just look at the ugly Fox towers. They look like refurbished towers (punched windows, stucco, very mehhh finishes, ugly design).

    If the renders look like this, then the final project is going to be very much another Fox.
    You obviously aren't in development. It's the pre-construction phase where the key decisions are made.

    So far I like what I'm seeing with this design. I think it is very Toronto and not 'over done' with architectural wingdings and add-ons.

  81. #181
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    9,152

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jagators63 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    This thread is about Lanham. Westrich is a whole other thread.

    you should say Langham but not Lanham lol
    Sticky keyboard. I need to press abt 4 times to get the Windows 10 start menu up. New computer coming in a few days.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  82. #182
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    9,152

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisD View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Abii View Post
    This is so meh. If you put money into this at the pre-construction stage you're not very smart. Just look at the ugly Fox towers. They look like refurbished towers (punched windows, stucco, very mehhh finishes, ugly design).

    If the renders look like this, then the final project is going to be very much another Fox.
    You obviously aren't in development. It's the pre-construction phase where the key decisions are made.

    So far I like what I'm seeing with this design. I think it is very Toronto and not 'over done' with architectural wingdings and add-ons.
    I like the way you said that, "very Toronto," we need stuff like that here.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  83. #183

    Default

    I LOVE this design.

  84. #184
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    47,002

    Default

    Public engagement session - Langham 104st/100ave Towers

    June 26 - 6pm - First Presbyterian Church - 10025-105st

    -2 towers - 49 (145m) and 64 (170m)
    -At grade commercial
    -Up to 700 dwellings
    -UG parking
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  85. #185

    Default

    That's a MASSIVE development
    www.decl.org

  86. #186

    Default

    64 stories ? ... Holy cow !!

  87. #187
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    87

    Default

    is there a sales office on site?

  88. #188
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    9,152

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TRtower View Post
    64 stories ? ... Holy cow !!
    That'd make it taller them Stantec, wouldn't it?
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  89. #189

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by TRtower View Post
    64 stories ? ... Holy cow !!
    That'd make it taller them Stantec, wouldn't it?
    Stantec is 250ish meters. This is 170 meters tall.

  90. #190

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Abii View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by TRtower View Post
    64 stories ? ... Holy cow !!
    That'd make it taller them Stantec, wouldn't it?
    Stantec is 250ish meters. This is 170 meters tall.
    Yeah, Stantec is the equivalent height as an 80 story building (250 metres).

  91. #191

    Default

    Taller than Manulife anyway.

  92. #192
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    9,152

    Default

    I was looking at it in stories not meters, which is why I asked, thanks.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  93. #193

    Default

    That height is taller than the towers in the rendering.
    Edmonton first, everything else second.

  94. #194

    Default

    I like it! Being ambitious!

    Hope this one goes through.

  95. #195

    Default

    What a difference a few years makes. Not so long ago we all scoffed at the Edmontonian aiming for 70 stories. Crazy, we thought.

  96. #196
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton Downtown Core
    Posts
    4,861

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mattyw View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Abii View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by TRtower View Post
    64 stories ? ... Holy cow !!
    That'd make it taller them Stantec, wouldn't it?
    Stantec is 250ish meters. This is 170 meters tall.
    Yeah, Stantec is the equivalent height as an 80 story building (250 metres).
    You mean "residential" building. The proposed building is less than the height for residential guidelines per the attached so LOW ceilings.
    http://www.ctbuh.org/HighRiseInfo/Ta...B/Default.aspx

  97. #197
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    9,152

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vincent View Post
    What a difference a few years makes. Not so long ago we all scoffed at the Edmontonian aiming for 70 stories. Crazy, we thought.
    And Alldritt's plans for a 80 story tower. Not sure if the height on that one has been reduced, yet. In the meantime, I hope I'm around to see the finished project this proposal.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  98. #198
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,847

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EdmTrekker View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mattyw View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Abii View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by TRtower View Post
    64 stories ? ... Holy cow !!
    That'd make it taller them Stantec, wouldn't it?
    Stantec is 250ish meters. This is 170 meters tall.
    Yeah, Stantec is the equivalent height as an 80 story building (250 metres).
    You mean "residential" building. The proposed building is less than the height for residential guidelines per the attached so LOW ceilings.
    http://www.ctbuh.org/HighRiseInfo/Ta...B/Default.aspx
    Good catch. assuming the penthouse and podium floors will be very tall, that's just about 8' from floor to floor, which means 7' ceilings or less with all the mechanical and slab (or less). Sounds like they just threw the 64 floors out there fully expecting to get it knocked down a bit.

  99. #199

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Oilers99 View Post
    That's pretty much what I'm saying, they have complied with all development and building requirements. The market has absorbed their product, therefore their product is just fine. If you think it's ugly, don't buy it.
    What I'm trying to say is that market absorption isn't an arbiter of whether its a good building/good design or not. Just because people manage to sell ugly condos doesn't mean that we as a city ought to require more.

  100. #200

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bleppers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Oilers99 View Post
    That's pretty much what I'm saying, they have complied with all development and building requirements. The market has absorbed their product, therefore their product is just fine. If you think it's ugly, don't buy it.
    What I'm trying to say is that market absorption isn't an arbiter of whether its a good building/good design or not. Just because people manage to sell ugly condos doesn't mean that we as a city ought to require more.
    Companies, at least successful ones, don't build to meet one persons subjective opinion of taste - they build for the market and like the people who have bought from them before, I also think their product is just fine.

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 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
  •