Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 201 to 300 of 491

Thread: BMO Building (101 St. & 102 Ave.) | Discussion

  1. #201
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    6,791

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ctzn-Ed View Post
    It was mentioned their plans were for mix-used. Ok, 20 story office, 10 stories for hotel, 10 stories for on-site for short-term rentals, 35+ for condos. Voila and not far fetched for me.
    How about a Trump Tower. We won't mind him so much once Oprah takes over.

  2. #202
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,850

    Default

    I wonder if the Fire Department would approve.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  3. #203
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    6,791

    Default

    Ok, bad idea. How about a Transamerica Pyramid style of building. 1000 ft. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transamerica_Pyramid Amazing to think that our own Stantec Tower will be the same height as the tip of this San Francisco building, the tallest there for the last 44 years
    Last edited by Drumbones; 08-01-2018 at 11:38 PM.

  4. #204

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Drumbones View Post
    Ok, bad idea. How about a Transamerica Pyramid style of building. 1000 ft. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transamerica_Pyramid Amazing to think that our own Stantec Tower will be the same height as the tip of this San Francisco building, the tallest there for the last 44 years
    Does the height matter? The same office views could be attained by better placed shorter buildings. Other short towers might not have the greatest 360 degree views, but most buildings don’t seem to design for optimizing such views anyway.
    Last edited by KC; 09-01-2018 at 08:49 AM.

  5. #205

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^lol, more likely a gravel parking lot. In fairness it is a good location, but with the market the way it is, I’d be surprised if it ends up more than a twenty story office tower (which would still be nice).
    That won't be happening. Regency is going ahead with plans on this site and they won't sit on it.

  6. #206

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Interesting reading:

    The Subordination of the Local State: Development Politics in Edmonton
    http://ocwtest.freeculture.ca/bitstr...=1&isAllowed=y
    .
    Fascinating, KC, and not for the first time... Where do you find this stuff?
    I am in no way entitled to your opinion...

  7. #207
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    30,995

    Default

    BMO demolition could pave way for Edmonton's tallest tower
    'You're seeing a lot less opposition to density and height than you used to a decade ago,' developer says

    Plans for the site are far from finalized but Regency has a vision of what will replace the old building.

    The company is planning a mixed-use tower with commercial space on the main level, and a hotel and residential condominiums on top.

    "Everybody knows it's one of the premier corners in the core of our city," Dhunna said. "So to bring density and height and shaping that corner, a lot of people are really excited."
    If approved, the new tower would be 45 to 50 storeys high, making it the tallest condo building in Edmonton.
    Regency aims to complete the demolition by April and then build an underground parkade.
    While this work is going on, Dhunna said the company will look at designs and reach out to potential commercial tenants.
    The company aims to start building the tower in mid- to late 2019.
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmont...ency-1.4485756
    Last edited by Sonic Death Monkey; 15-01-2018 at 07:17 AM.
    “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

  8. #208
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,543

    Default

    Exciting times.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  9. #209
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    6,791

    Default

    Yup

  10. #210

    Default

    "Trump" may become "Dump" once he is finished in the Oval lol.

    Is it the tallest tower or tallest condo tower? The headline and report seem to contradict here. This and Encore should change that stretch quite drastically.
    " The strength of a man is in the stride he walks."

  11. #211
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    6,791

    Default

    Tallest condo, can't beat the Stantec

  12. #212

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonic Death Monkey View Post
    BMO demolition could pave way for Edmonton's tallest tower
    'You're seeing a lot less opposition to density and height than you used to a decade ago,' developer says

    Plans for the site are far from finalized but Regency has a vision of what will replace the old building.

    The company is planning a mixed-use tower with commercial space on the main level, and a hotel and residential condominiums on top.

    "Everybody knows it's one of the premier corners in the core of our city," Dhunna said. "So to bring density and height and shaping that corner, a lot of people are really excited."
    If approved, the new tower would be 45 to 50 storeys high, making it the tallest condo building in Edmonton.
    Regency aims to complete the demolition by April and then build an underground parkade.
    While this work is going on, Dhunna said the company will look at designs and reach out to potential commercial tenants.
    The company aims to start building the tower in mid- to late 2019.
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmont...ency-1.4485756
    Is this title misleading? Tallest tower >Stantec? Or tallest Condo as suggested above?

  13. #213
    C2E Posting Power
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    St. Albert, AB
    Posts
    641

    Default

    Yes, CBC's title is definitely misleading.

  14. #214
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,543

    Default

    Indeed. I believe they forgot about Stantec.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  15. #215
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,477

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by S3RI3S View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonic Death Monkey View Post
    BMO demolition could pave way for Edmonton's tallest tower
    'You're seeing a lot less opposition to density and height than you used to a decade ago,' developer says

    Plans for the site are far from finalized but Regency has a vision of what will replace the old building.

    The company is planning a mixed-use tower with commercial space on the main level, and a hotel and residential condominiums on top.

    "Everybody knows it's one of the premier corners in the core of our city," Dhunna said. "So to bring density and height and shaping that corner, a lot of people are really excited."
    If approved, the new tower would be 45 to 50 storeys high, making it the tallest condo building in Edmonton.
    Regency aims to complete the demolition by April and then build an underground parkade.
    While this work is going on, Dhunna said the company will look at designs and reach out to potential commercial tenants.
    The company aims to start building the tower in mid- to late 2019.
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmont...ency-1.4485756
    Is this title misleading? Tallest tower >Stantec? Or tallest Condo as suggested above?
    it might not be misleading but it is poor headline writing and almost as poor reporting...

    the article however, does clearly say "the company is planning a mixed-use tower with commercial space on the main level, and a hotel and residential condominiums on top." so clearly, while it would be a welcome addition to the core either way, either way it would not be the tallest tower or the tallest condo tower.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  16. #216
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,477

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    Indeed. I believe they forgot about Stantec.
    they - and you - also forgot about the jw marriott (55 floors).

    and also forgot about manulife and possibly some others as well.

    at 45 stories and 10 feet per floor, the proposed tower would be approximately 450 feet tall (give or take some podium floor height) while manulife is 480. fewer floors perhaps at 36 but 12 feet floor to floor along with some podium height as well makes a big difference in overall tallness.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  17. #217
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,596

    Default

    Surprising comments in the CBC story from Councillor Scott McKeen:

    Coun. Scott McKeen lamented council didn't have much recourse to save the structure.

    Built in 1984, the building had no historic designation but was still unique for the city, he argued.

    "It's a majestic building," McKeen said. "You might love it or hate it but it's that kind of design that makes it stand out."
    Me thinks Scott needs to pick his battles more carefully.

    The Tegler building was worth fighting to save. But the BMO building which replaced it is nothing special. Good riddance.

  18. #218
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,543

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    Indeed. I believe they forgot about Stantec.
    they - and you - also forgot about the jw marriott (55 floors).

    and also forgot about manulife and possibly some others as well.

    at 45 stories and 10 feet per floor, the proposed tower would be approximately 450 feet tall (give or take some podium floor height) while manulife is 480. fewer floors perhaps at 36 but 12 feet floor to floor along with some podium height as well makes a big difference in overall tallness.
    Potential for this site is 200m, hence why I didn't include the JW, but yes that is true... depending on floor to floor.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  19. #219
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,477

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    Indeed. I believe they forgot about Stantec.
    they - and you - also forgot about the jw marriott (55 floors).

    and also forgot about manulife and possibly some others as well.

    at 45 stories and 10 feet per floor, the proposed tower would be approximately 450 feet tall (give or take some podium floor height) while manulife is 480. fewer floors perhaps at 36 but 12 feet floor to floor along with some podium height as well makes a big difference in overall tallness.
    Potential for this site is 200m, hence why I didn't include the JW, but yes that is true... depending on floor to floor.
    isn't the maximum permitted height 150 metres and the maximum discretionary height 200 metres for every core commercial arts zoned site in downtown, not just this one?
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  20. #220
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,543

    Default

    Correct.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  21. #221

    Default

    With this particular lot, anywhere from 170- 200 m would be great. It is a prominent corner, so an imposing tower would be fitting.
    ..
    " The strength of a man is in the stride he walks."

  22. #222

    Default

    On the other hand, a that location is absolutely perfect for a new tallest! But it all depends on how large the below ground parkade will be, I wouldn't be surprised if they decide to have some parking levels above grade. I have no problems with that as long as there are retail bays facing the street.
    Edmonton first, everything else second.

  23. #223
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,557

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ThomasH View Post
    On the other hand, a that location is absolutely perfect for a new tallest! But it all depends on how large the below ground parkade will be, I wouldn't be surprised if they decide to have some parking levels above grade. I have no problems with that as long as there are retail bays facing the street.
    That's a lot tougher to achieve on that lot than at the Foxes/Icons/Century/Emerald, given that it fronts streets/avenues on three sides instead of just one or two. But also, I believe a larger, more square lot so maybe that makes it more workable in that regard.

  24. #224
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    7,511

    Default

    I just want a great design, particularly on the ground floor. I could care less it's 35 or 50 storeys.

  25. #225

    Default

    I agree with you in most parts. Im nit all concern with height. We just need a few more imposing towers as I don't know if we will go through this type of construction boom in the future scene; I just want to take advantage of the steroid boom we're on while it last as we need more imposing glass towers to contrast the sea of concrete from the last boom. The more the change to the skyline, the better attention we will get nationally and internationally.

  26. #226
    Plug C2E into my veins!!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Westwood
    Posts
    16,285

    Default

    It doesn’t need to be the tallest tower in the city to be noticeable. Something in between Manulife and the new Marriott would be perfect for the skyline view from the south side. Most important is the way it is used and fits into its surroundings at street level. It has a beautiful new neighbour to the south and the new facade on Scotia Place too. I can’t wait to see what they come up with.

  27. #227

    Default

    I think a mix-used tower with condo balconies would appear out of place in our small financial district.

  28. #228
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    453

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by K364 View Post
    I think a mix-used tower with condo balconies would appear out of place in our small financial district.
    Really, Encore will literally be down the street from this.... well, 2 small streets away.

  29. #229
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,477

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nick5150 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by K364 View Post
    I think a mix-used tower with condo balconies would appear out of place in our small financial district.
    Really, Encore will literally be down the street from this.... well, 2 small streets away.
    and epcor tower's balconies are only "3 small streets away"...
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  30. #230

    Default

    I laughed about them when I saw the renderings but I gotta say the balconies are one of the things I miss from working in Epcor Tower & it's a pretty short list.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  31. #231

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by nick5150 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by K364 View Post
    I think a mix-used tower with condo balconies would appear out of place in our small financial district.
    Really, Encore will literally be down the street from this.... well, 2 small streets away.
    and epcor tower's balconies are only "3 small streets away"...
    That's why I said "our small financial district" - which I would consider as centered on 101st from Jasper to 104 ave: buildings like Scotia Place, Commerce and Manulife, the towers of Edmonton Centre, Bell tower, etc.

  32. #232

    Default

    Balconies will look fine. If they use the same glazing colour for the building it would create an illusion of a seamless wall.

  33. #233

    Default

    Taken by friend:


  34. #234
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    jasper east
    Posts
    1,548

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisD View Post
    I just want a great design, particularly on the ground floor. I could care less it's 35 or 50 storeys.
    a lot of people still don't understand that the height or size of a "downtown" does not make a city. i'd take a bunch of 20 storeys and fill every empty lot instead if i could

  35. #235

    Default

    As a side note, the BMO building had potential to be a lot more interesting if it wasn't a bank. The big opening in the middle, the high ceilings, and the interior balconies make for a pretty cool space. I could imagine a hotel/restaurant on the main floor and spilling out on to the streets on the north and west sides. In the winter they throw on some removable glass walls. I know it's challenging in the winter here, but I'd love to see some more buildings downtown that better connect inside and outside environments.
    Go down a few dark alleys.

  36. #236

    Default

    The focus on street level versus height (they are not mutually exclusive) is my sentiment as well. While I like the superficial rush that comes from looking at great skyline (I really do), the real kick is a being in a city with vital street level design, with interesting nodes. As I noted in a post several years ago, I think Epcor is a great looking tower (I like it) but a gong show for street interaction and urban design. I am downtown today (at a bar awaiting a friend for drinks), and as I look around, I realize that there is only a couple of spaces in the entire place that are ''urban": civic square (imperfect, but I would argue best of all Canadian cities), a stretch of 104th street, half a street by Mercer Tavern, a pocket around the leg (turning into a nice urban space), a tiny spot by rail-town, and that is about it. Another 9 Epcors and Jasper House (I am relieved its dead - a nice tower, but a Medici like fortress off the street) popping up not only don't address the problem of vitality, but it actually undermines it. Denver and Dallas are pretty, nice, well kept down-towns with some nice high rises but bloody boring to walk around. I can't even drive on 104 by City Hall, Epcor and the new Museum (my kids make fun of me) because it reflects Richler's 1980s statement about Edmonton looking as if someone unpacked some buildings and left them in the parking lot. How ill conceived and ugly and no one expresses distaste for this because at least there are (tall) buildings there. And the parking lot purgatory by the Boston Pizza on Jasper and 106th is simply urban cancer. Anticipating grumpy responses from some of you, I think we can have height and street level. I have been to Melbourne a bunch (terrific) and finally got to Philadelphia (I was so impressed) and they both do it. We can do it. And no, I don't hate Edmonton. I love it as my own and feel a fierce, insecure, pride in the place. I just want to live in as vibrant city as possible. Not a big Grande Prairie with tall buildings. Enough with 'incrementalism' without a vision. What does a vibrant downtown look like with both great streets, interesting nodes, and some nice street level design? I want better not just what is feasible. I want Edmonton to have higher expectations of itself. We ARE CLUMSILY headed in the right urban direction, like a car fish-tailing out an old Edmonton parking lot, and happy with that. I just hope that Regency's development of BMO gets us out of the parking lot. We should all respect their need to make money AND do right by Edmonton.There ..... that feels better.
    Last edited by Back in Town; 14-02-2018 at 05:14 PM.

  37. #237
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    1,418

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Back in Town View Post
    The focus on street level versus height (they are not mutually exclusive) is my sentiment as well. While I like the superficial rush that comes from looking at great skyline (I really do), the real kick is a being in a city with vital street level design, with interesting nodes. As I noted in a post several years ago, I think Epcor is a great looking tower (I like it) but a gong show for street interaction and urban design. I am downtown today (at a bar awaiting a friend for drinks), and as I look around, I realize that there is only a couple of spaces in the entire place that are ''urban": civic square (imperfect, but I would argue best of all Canadian cities), a stretch of 104th street, half a street by Mercer Tavern, a pocket around the leg (turning into a nice urban space), a tiny spot by rail-town, and that is about it. Another 9 Epcors and Jasper House (I am relieved its dead - a nice tower, but a Medici like fortress off the street) popping up not only don't address the problem of vitality, but it actually undermines it. Denver and Dallas are pretty, nice, well kept down-towns with some nice high rises but bloody boring to walk around. I can't even drive on 104 by City Hall, Epcor and the new Museum (my kids make fun of me) because it reflects Richler's 1980s statement about Edmonton looking as if someone unpacked some buildings and left them in the parking lot. How ill conceived and ugly and no one expresses distaste for this because at least there are (tall) buildings there. And the parking lot purgatory by the Boston Pizza on Jasper and 106th is simply urban cancer. Anticipating grumpy responses from some of you, I think we can have height and street level. I have been to Melbourne a bunch (terrific) and finally got to Philadelphia (I was so impressed) and they both do it. We can do it. And no, I don't hate Edmonton. I love it as my own and feel a fierce, insecure, pride in the place. I just want to live in as vibrant city as possible. Not a big Grande Prairie with tall buildings. Enough with 'incrementalism' without a vision. What does a vibrant downtown look like with both great streets, interesting nodes, and some nice street level design? I want better not just what is feasible. I want Edmonton to have higher expectations of itself. We ARE CLUMSILY headed in the right urban direction, like a car fish-tailing out an old Edmonton parking lot, and happy with that. I just hope that Regency's development of BMO gets us out of the parking lot. We should all respect their need to make money AND do right by Edmonton.There ..... that feels better.
    Boston Pizza at 106 Street. I absolutely agree. It's the worst part of downtown and completely wrecks Jasper Avenue.

  38. #238
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    1,423

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Back in Town View Post
    The focus on street level versus height (they are not mutually exclusive) is my sentiment as well. While I like the superficial rush that comes from looking at great skyline (I really do), the real kick is a being in a city with vital street level design, with interesting nodes. As I noted in a post several years ago, I think Epcor is a great looking tower (I like it) but a gong show for street interaction and urban design. I am downtown today (at a bar awaiting a friend for drinks), and as I look around, I realize that there is only a couple of spaces in the entire place that are ''urban": civic square (imperfect, but I would argue best of all Canadian cities), a stretch of 104th street, half a street by Mercer Tavern, a pocket around the leg (turning into a nice urban space), a tiny spot by rail-town, and that is about it. Another 9 Epcors and Jasper House (I am relieved its dead - a nice tower, but a Medici like fortress off the street) popping up not only don't address the problem of vitality, but it actually undermines it. Denver and Dallas are pretty, nice, well kept down-towns with some nice high rises but bloody boring to walk around. I can't even drive on 104 by City Hall, Epcor and the new Museum (my kids make fun of me) because it reflects Richler's 1980s statement about Edmonton looking as if someone unpacked some buildings and left them in the parking lot. How ill conceived and ugly and no one expresses distaste for this because at least there are (tall) buildings there. And the parking lot purgatory by the Boston Pizza on Jasper and 106th is simply urban cancer. Anticipating grumpy responses from some of you, I think we can have height and street level. I have been to Melbourne a bunch (terrific) and finally got to Philadelphia (I was so impressed) and they both do it. We can do it. And no, I don't hate Edmonton. I love it as my own and feel a fierce, insecure, pride in the place. I just want to live in as vibrant city as possible. Not a big Grande Prairie with tall buildings. Enough with 'incrementalism' without a vision. What does a vibrant downtown look like with both great streets, interesting nodes, and some nice street level design? I want better not just what is feasible. I want Edmonton to have higher expectations of itself. We ARE CLUMSILY headed in the right urban direction, like a car fish-tailing out an old Edmonton parking lot, and happy with that. I just hope that Regency's development of BMO gets us out of the parking lot. We should all respect their need to make money AND do right by Edmonton.There ..... that feels better.
    I love your post man. Very passionate and reminds me of how I used to feel when I first purchased downtown.
    There was no need to change that plaque. We are the City of Champions.

  39. #239

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DTrobotnik View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisD View Post
    I just want a great design, particularly on the ground floor. I could care less it's 35 or 50 storeys.
    a lot of people still don't understand that the height or size of a "downtown" does not make a city. i'd take a bunch of 20 storeys and fill every empty lot instead if i could
    What the downtown looks like from a distance vs what it feels like walking through it are two completely different things and not mutually exclusive. So there's no need to pick a side or debate about which is more important. They're both important in their own way.

    So when somebody says "I hope it's gonna be tall" there's no need to immediately jump in and retort "I'd rather have great street interaction" as though we have to choose, or we can only want one and not the other. It's like arguing about whether we should get hot chocolate or a white mug. We don't have to choose. We can have both.

  40. #240
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    6,791

    Default

    Exactly correct.

  41. #241

    Default

    I so concur Vincent. Street integration is vital, but so is height. For those two elements to work, we need the most vital component which is people. How do we do that? It would take a lot more than just street integration podiums. While we have an opportunity to have a new structure at the very core of the core, what is wrong with wanting height there? Here are my reasons for wanting the height between 170m-200:

    1. The biggest factor for me is that our past skyline was associated with a negative image of Edmonton nationally. Terms like "Deadmonton" is not recieved well by me. I have heard from many people why they prefer Calgary over Edmonton. Cal is cleaner than Ed were the general expoundations. Why i asked myself when both cities are primarily carbon copies? The only conclusion is our nasty gravel/dirt lots prevalent in the core- and there are so many. That is our image. How do we change such thoughts? Give them world class structures which we have slightly; let's show them more. One can talk, but eventually, one has to walk.

    2. A refreshed skyline of heights is an image that tells to foreign investors, visitors, and our neighbors we are prospered now, come and invest! Why do we think Calgary is most often chosen over us? The physical image played a Hugh part in that.
    3.We need to capture an opportunity while the opportunity exists as we don't know what tommorrow brings.
    4. A balance skyline.
    " The strength of a man is in the stride he walks."

  42. #242

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Back in Town View Post
    The focus on street level versus height (they are not mutually exclusive) is my sentiment as well. While I like the superficial rush that comes from looking at great skyline (I really do), the real kick is a being in a city with vital street level design, with interesting nodes. As I noted in a post several years ago, I think Epcor is a great looking tower (I like it) but a gong show for street interaction and urban design. I am downtown today (at a bar awaiting a friend for drinks), and as I look around, I realize that there is only a couple of spaces in the entire place that are ''urban": civic square (imperfect, but I would argue best of all Canadian cities), a stretch of 104th street, half a street by Mercer Tavern, a pocket around the leg (turning into a nice urban space), a tiny spot by rail-town, and that is about it. Another 9 Epcors and Jasper House (I am relieved its dead - a nice tower, but a Medici like fortress off the street) popping up not only don't address the problem of vitality, but it actually undermines it. Denver and Dallas are pretty, nice, well kept down-towns with some nice high rises but bloody boring to walk around. I can't even drive on 104 by City Hall, Epcor and the new Museum (my kids make fun of me) because it reflects Richler's 1980s statement about Edmonton looking as if someone unpacked some buildings and left them in the parking lot. How ill conceived and ugly and no one expresses distaste for this because at least there are (tall) buildings there. And the parking lot purgatory by the Boston Pizza on Jasper and 106th is simply urban cancer. Anticipating grumpy responses from some of you, I think we can have height and street level. I have been to Melbourne a bunch (terrific) and finally got to Philadelphia (I was so impressed) and they both do it. We can do it. And no, I don't hate Edmonton. I love it as my own and feel a fierce, insecure, pride in the place. I just want to live in as vibrant city as possible. Not a big Grande Prairie with tall buildings. Enough with 'incrementalism' without a vision. What does a vibrant downtown look like with both great streets, interesting nodes, and some nice street level design? I want better not just what is feasible. I want Edmonton to have higher expectations of itself. We ARE CLUMSILY headed in the right urban direction, like a car fish-tailing out an old Edmonton parking lot, and happy with that. I just hope that Regency's development of BMO gets us out of the parking lot. We should all respect their need to make money AND do right by Edmonton.There ..... that feels better.
    Well said, couldn't agree more.

  43. #243

    Default

    I also like your post, Back in Town (and welcome back!). You sum up my own view to a large degree. The city is richer for having you back!
    "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits" - Einstein

  44. #244

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ctzn-Ed View Post
    Why do we think Calgary is most often chosen over us? The physical image played a Hugh part in that.
    Marketing. Nothing else. Calgary goes to town to attract businesses. Edmonton doesn't. Calgary attracts international attention do to the proximity to the rocky mountains more than the look of their skyline. Until recently, Edmonton via the EEDC didn't even bother trying to get on lists like "Top 100 cities" etc, where as Calgary always made sure it was on lists.... Edmonton is a greener/cleaner city than Calgary already, we just fail to market ourselves at all. We were/are so focused we competing with St Albert, and ignoring the rest of the world.

  45. #245

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ctzn-Ed View Post
    Why do we think Calgary is most often chosen over us? The physical image played a Hugh part in that.
    Marketing. Nothing else. Calgary goes to town to attract businesses. Edmonton doesn't. Calgary attracts international attention do to the proximity to the rocky mountains more than the look of their skyline. Until recently, Edmonton via the EEDC didn't even bother trying to get on lists like "Top 100 cities" etc, where as Calgary always made sure it was on lists.... Edmonton is a greener/cleaner city than Calgary already, we just fail to market ourselves at all. We were/are so focused we competing with St Albert, and ignoring the rest of the world.
    Edmonton is a greener city than Calgary. It is not a cleaner city. Our city core is pretty shabby and unkempt compared to Calgary's. On things like landscaping and maintenance of roadsides and medians, Calgary does a way better job. Not to mention Calgary long ago did away with most of their gravel/mud surface parking lots...

    Even the landscaping around private business premises in Edmonton is typically inferior to efforts in Calgary.

  46. #246

    Default

    Edmonton is a greener city than Calgary. It is not a cleaner city. Our city core is pretty shabby and unkempt compared to Calgary's. On things like landscaping and maintenance of roadsides and medians, Calgary does a way better job. Not to mention Calgary long ago did away with most of their gravel/mud surface parking lots...

    Even the landscaping around private business premises in Edmonton is typically inferior to efforts in Calgary.[/QUOTE]


    I agree 100 percent. For all the talk and bravado regarding new developments downtown the downtown falls far short of where it needs to be in terms of cleanliness and safety. The sidewalks and gutters are dirty and covered with gravel through most of the year. The odd building pressure washes its adjacent side-walk once or twice a year but this is relatively rare. The City needs to invest in a crew tasked throughout the year (not just in July and August) with keeping the downtown core clean. Additionally, there need to a be a walking police presence on the streets daily and frequently. I often walk around the downtown during my lunch break and am almost always aggressively targeted by panhandlers. Ladies in my office feel unsafe walking around the downtown in broad daylight (never mind after dark). Truthfully, I feel safer walking around New York City than I do walking down Jasper Ave.

  47. #247

    Default

    Agreed. Edmonton has a messy room. Calgary keeps things neat and tidy. All part of how we market ourselves.

  48. #248
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    [QUOTE=Concrete Jungle;873264]
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ctzn-Ed View Post
    Why do we think Calgary is most often chosen over us? The physical image played a Hugh part in that.

    Even the landscaping around private business premises in Edmonton is typically inferior to efforts in Calgary.
    You only need to check out the Tim Hortons on 104 ave and 110 st and compare it to any other Tim’s in any other community in Canada. The one on 104 does the bare minimum landscaping with half dead trees and weed infested grass and garbage all over the place. You just don’t find that anywhere else.
    “Canada is the only country in the world that knows how to live without an identity,”-Marshall McLuhan

  49. #249

    Default

    Further to my last post, also taken yesterday..taken by my buddy out of Commerce:


  50. #250
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    5,566

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Back in Town View Post
    ... And the parking lot purgatory by the Boston Pizza on Jasper and 106th is simply urban cancer... [snip] ... We ARE CLUMSILY headed in the right urban direction, like a car fish-tailing out an old Edmonton parking lot, and happy with that. I just hope that Regency's development of BMO gets us out of the parking lot. We should all respect their need to make money AND do right by Edmonton.There ..... that feels better.
    Great post - so welcome back, err Back. Good news on the BP parking hell - it's being expropriated by the city for a central park, so there's hope yet.

    Like your list of good urban spaces - hopefully someday the Galleria project goes ahead to fill that awful gap behind city hall on 104 ave - and why the city agreed to a design for city hall that literally put it's backside to 104 ave is a mystery. (That said, from 3 of 4 sides, Edmonton City Hall is one of my favourite buildings anywhere).

    Yep, clumsy, but from someone who moved DT 10 years ago - oh so much better. If we can keep up that pace - we'll have something special.
    ... gobsmacked

  51. #251

    Default

    As for City Hall - and its back end. When City hall was designed, 104th avenue wasn't the avenue it is today.

  52. #252
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Downtown YEG
    Posts
    150

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    As for City Hall - and its back end. When City hall was designed, 104th avenue wasn't the avenue it is today.
    And regardless of timing, we'd hardly want the "backside" facing SWC square, would we ?

  53. #253

    Default

    Marketing alone won't do that. The are various elements involved. A bustling skyline vs a non bustling... from a business perspective, I chose a centre that shows economic clout. So far the image winner is Calgary hence why we list offices to them. So you're telling me that if we start marketing properly, we'll attract businesses and corporates?
    " The strength of a man is in the stride he walks."

  54. #254

    Default

    Skylines don't bustle.


    Sidewalks bustle.
    There can only be one.

  55. #255

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ctzn-Ed View Post
    Marketing alone won't do that. The are various elements involved. A bustling skyline vs a non bustling... from a business perspective, I chose a centre that shows economic clout. So far the image winner is Calgary hence why we list offices to them. So you're telling me that if we start marketing properly, we'll attract businesses and corporates?
    Calgary has historically been the centre for oil and gas. As oil and gas goes, so goes Calgary. They are not so bustling right now as they were a few years ago and Edmonton has steadily been working on improving its downtown and filling in some of the big gaps that have been around for a long time. We are not going to ever turn into a copy of Calgary, nor would we want to. We can get to the point where both cities have a different feel but both present a more bustling image.

  56. #256

    Default

    Maybe that is why our downtown is so anemic. We were too focus on side walks alone that all our headquarters moved to a nicer core known as Calgary as we preferred the ghetto war-torn elements of design.
    " The strength of a man is in the stride he walks."

  57. #257
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Spruce Grove
    Posts
    215

    Default

    Many people judge a city based on its skyline, as most people are not urban planners who understand the street level and pedestrian experience. What makes people want to visit a city: pictures. What do pictures show? Skyline!

  58. #258

    Default

    If this has little pedestrian interaction at grade, you will find little improvement to the experience Downtown on the street, from this building. Even with all the buildings going up now, the image of our skyline to outsiders looks like any typical N. American city. Prague's skyline is definitely not tall. If you travel you will see the level of interaction characterizes a city. Edmonton needs better zoning and rules within to demand better interaction.

    So called "chicklet" CRU's wouldn't be bad along 100 A St, or even the lane.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  59. #259

    Default

    This site is surrounded by "dead frontage", mostly.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  60. #260

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ctzn-Ed View Post
    Maybe that is why our downtown is so anemic. We were too focus on side walks alone that all our headquarters moved to a nicer core known as Calgary as we preferred the ghetto war-torn elements of design.
    I'm skeptical nicer sidewalks will solve all of the problems of the world too, but I think the headquarters issue goes way back before the current discussion about changes to sidewalks came up, so I don't think the focus on one to the exclusion of the other caused the problem.

    Calgary's downtown has more density and certainly fewer surface parking lots, but it has been described by some as somewhat sterile with its head office focus. There are more people on the streets during the day because of that, so perhaps it appears bustling at certain times of the day like rush hour or noon, but there the main business area does not have a lot of retail or residential - it is definitely not so bustling after 5pm. I wouldn't try copy Calgary, I think it would be better for Edmonton to try follow Vancouver's approach with a more mixed use downtown.

  61. #261

    Default

    True regarding the lack of animation to Calgary's downtown. Due to our circumstance, we have an opportunity to do it different than Calgary. You definitely want an entity that has street integration.

  62. #262
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    5,566

    Default

    I've no issue Calgary being Alberta's "Los Angeles," and Edmonton being its "San Francisco." Last thing we need is cookie cutter cities.

    Forgot, among great urban spaces - the sidewalk leading up to RHW beside Kelley Ramsay. That space kicks butt and once retail gets into KR, I'm betting it will be one popular spot (Phat Franks anyone?)

    Actually lived in DT Calgarty, albiet years ago - at 7th ave and 8th St SW. Pretty dead after 5:00 - hopefully better now - but most residential is east of Centre St. from what I can tell.
    ... gobsmacked

  63. #263

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ctzn-Ed View Post
    Maybe that is why our downtown is so anemic. We were too focus on side walks alone that all our headquarters moved to a nicer core known as Calgary as we preferred the ghetto war-torn elements of design.
    I'm skeptical nicer sidewalks will solve all of the problems of the world too, but I think the headquarters issue goes way back before the current discussion about changes to sidewalks came up, so I don't think the focus on one to the exclusion of the other caused the problem.

    Calgary's downtown has more density and certainly fewer surface parking lots, but it has been described by some as somewhat sterile with its head office focus. There are more people on the streets during the day because of that, so perhaps it appears bustling at certain times of the day like rush hour or noon, but there the main business area does not have a lot of retail or residential - it is definitely not so bustling after 5pm. I wouldn't try copy Calgary, I think it would be better for Edmonton to try follow Vancouver's approach with a more mixed use downtown.
    Agreed.

    I also think that, in comparison to Calgary, Edmonton's downtown core has the advantage of starting from somewhat of a "blank template" what with all these empty lots. On a go-forwards basis Edmonton can apply and implement modern, best urban planning practices far easier than downtown Calgary can with its existing, dense, sterile, over-built office tower supply. I just hope Edmonton city planners/developers have the vision and forward thinking to take advantage of this opportunity. Projects like EPCOR tower are flawed, outdated examples of urban planning.

  64. #264
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,557

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Prairie Boy View Post
    Many people judge a city based on its skyline, as most people are not urban planners who understand the street level and pedestrian experience. What makes people want to visit a city: pictures. What do pictures show? Skyline!
    That's not true at all, really. New York was hardly a tourist destination in the 60's when it was a murderous cesspool. But sure, it's skyline looked great from the Hudson. And again, the most visited city in the world, Paris, hardly has a skyline other than the Eiffel Tower and Arc. Otherwise I'm willing to bet if you removed those from pictures of Paris, the vast majority of people would be unable to identify the city.

  65. #265
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    453

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Prairie Boy View Post
    Many people judge a city based on its skyline, as most people are not urban planners who understand the street level and pedestrian experience. What makes people want to visit a city: pictures. What do pictures show? Skyline!
    ^ You make a great point.

    A few years ago my S.O. booked us a trip to Panama City. I said ohh cool.

    Then I looked up photos of the city and said... hot damn!

    Skyline photos feed an unconscious bias at the very least.
    Last edited by nick5150; 15-02-2018 at 01:42 PM.

  66. #266
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,477

    Default

    there's not much point in "nicer sidewalks" when streets and transportation simply treat them as storage space for barricades and pylons...

    and our use of "temporary" road barricades for years on end is another joke... 102 avenue will be closed for the next 2 years - you'd think we could come up with something more attractive than sawhorse barricades with directional arrows nailed to them and orange drums on every cross street.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  67. #267
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,557

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    there's not much point in "nicer sidewalks" when streets and transportation simply treat them as storage space for barricades and pylons...

    and our use of "temporary" road barricades for years on end is another joke... 102 avenue will be closed for the next 2 years - you'd think we could come up with something more attractive than sawhorse barricades with directional arrows nailed to them and orange drums on every cross street.
    The 105 street closure at Jasper Avenue is not only ugly as hell, it's been a significant traffic bottleneck. It's been closed for close to 2 years already I believe, and will be so for another year or two. Yet the city couldn't be bothered to address it with proper signage warning that the left lane at Jasper Avenue would be left turn only. Instead, they just shut the lane off for 10 feet to force traffic to merge and then split again, for no discernible reason. It's completely idiotic, and defies all common sense. Which sadly, is par for the course.

  68. #268

    Default

    A return to a conversation I saw here several year so (and participated in) and glad its re-emerged.

    Edmonton losing up to 10 HQ in the last twenty years to Calgary and Vancouver is a problem that is larger than urban design debates. Yet, barring the possible role that height restrictions due to the airport affected some companies decision to stay (I can't think of an instance), that has nothing to do with the design debate in my opinion. I think its a red herring. Having said that, Edmonton does punch below its weight re: head offices- it would be good to have more home-grown and re-locations from other places downtown (or anywhere frankly). I have given up on trying to be Calgary - apples and oranges - and think their downtown is a snore outside of business hours (but they have some very nice urban pockets, such as Beltline). Lets go for a great mixed use downtown, mixed use being one key principle for vibrant of urban spaces.

  69. #269

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    there's not much point in "nicer sidewalks" when streets and transportation simply treat them as storage space for barricades and pylons...

    and our use of "temporary" road barricades for years on end is another joke... 102 avenue will be closed for the next 2 years - you'd think we could come up with something more attractive than sawhorse barricades with directional arrows nailed to them and orange drums on every cross street.
    The 105 street closure at Jasper Avenue is not only ugly as hell, it's been a significant traffic bottleneck. It's been closed for close to 2 years already I believe, and will be so for another year or two. Yet the city couldn't be bothered to address it with proper signage warning that the left lane at Jasper Avenue would be left turn only. Instead, they just shut the lane off for 10 feet to force traffic to merge and then split again, for no discernible reason. It's completely idiotic, and defies all common sense. Which sadly, is par for the course.
    Yeah, I hate that one too. I am generally turning left on Jasper, so I have to merge into the right lane (the only one) and then just a few feet before the intersection turn back into the left lane that was blocked further back, even thought the area where the work is being done is actually north of Jasper. I might alternatively turn left on 100 Ave, but that turning lane is blocked to, so it is difficult to turn there also. At least Jasper Ave has two lanes of traffic, so once I get past that it is ok.

  70. #270

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    there's not much point in "nicer sidewalks" when streets and transportation simply treat them as storage space for barricades and pylons...

    and our use of "temporary" road barricades for years on end is another joke... 102 avenue will be closed for the next 2 years - you'd think we could come up with something more attractive than sawhorse barricades with directional arrows nailed to them and orange drums on every cross street.

    this...THIS SO MUCH. 'specially the first point. Roadway operations always take priority over sidewalk/bike lanes. Even the new bike lanes have had barricades and signs for roadway construction put on them blocking the paths. That's not how to do it at all.

  71. #271

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Prairie Boy View Post
    Many people judge a city based on its skyline, as most people are not urban planners who understand the street level and pedestrian experience. What makes people want to visit a city: pictures. What do pictures show? Skyline!
    That's not true at all, really. New York was hardly a tourist destination in the 60's when it was a murderous cesspool. But sure, it's skyline looked great from the Hudson. And again, the most visited city in the world, Paris, hardly has a skyline other than the Eiffel Tower and Arc. Otherwise I'm willing to bet if you removed those from pictures of Paris, the vast majority of people would be unable to identify the city.
    Since I live there as well, I can attest to the fact that visitors are in awe of the NYC's skyline. It is just human nature to want to be part of the cool good looking crowd; Cities are no different. Seattle is a great example of going from obscurity to a cool city. Look at their skyline before there boom then now.
    Last edited by ctzn-Ed; 15-02-2018 at 05:47 PM.
    " The strength of a man is in the stride he walks."

  72. #272
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton (belevedre)
    Posts
    6,496

    Default

    What makes perfect sense if 80 floor tower which was proposed at east Jasper ave should be built that spot and makes downtown even more impressive next to Stantec.
    Edmonton Rocks Rocks Rocks

  73. #273

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jagators63 View Post
    What makes perfect sense if 80 floor tower which was proposed at east Jasper ave should be built that spot and makes downtown even impressive next to Stantec.
    i agree with you .. and i dont. The density standpoint , i agree with you and its why we just dont build high rises where ever we feel like. Dont , because the east side of downtown needs love, its the tip of the "black triangle" for edmonton we need new developments to spur confidence and redevelopment in the area. There is potential.

  74. #274

    Default

    BMO Building demolition


    39
    Sunday March 11, 2018 by Thomas Huizinga, on Flickr
    Edmonton first, everything else second.

  75. #275

    Default

    ^beautiful karma. Fak you BMO

  76. #276
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    6,791

    Default

    Agree

  77. #277
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    jasper east
    Posts
    1,548

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jagators63 View Post
    What makes perfect sense if 80 floor tower which was proposed at east Jasper ave should be built that spot and makes downtown even more impressive next to Stantec.
    hell no. this site will have it's own development. you're talking about moving a major project from an area that needs it just so it looks cool to you. that's silly.

  78. #278

    Default

    I think he was referong to the height factor as we all know the two sights have different developers. Who Knows what Regency have in mind; it could well be 280+ m.
    " The strength of a man is in the stride he walks."

  79. #279
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    187

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ctzn-Ed View Post
    I think he was referong to the height factor as we all know the two sights have different developers. Who Knows what Regency have in mind; it could well be 280+ m.
    Regency isn't rezoning from the CCA zone on this, we just got the EDC package. CCA max height is 150m with discretion up to 200m.

  80. #280

    Default

    While im cognizant of Regency's current plan, l never exclude anything until the elevator/core commence. We know engeering plays a big factor in constructing, so once the pouring for foundation is in place then we can be sure as it is hard to change what was engineered- if even possible. We cant be absolute as we dont know if there are potential interest for offices or so on that may change this course of direction. Until the fat lady sings...
    " The strength of a man is in the stride he walks."

  81. #281
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    1,423

    Default

    Bye bank.


  82. #282
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,895

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adamantium View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ctzn-Ed View Post
    I think he was referong to the height factor as we all know the two sights have different developers. Who Knows what Regency have in mind; it could well be 280+ m.
    Regency isn't rezoning from the CCA zone on this, we just got the EDC package. CCA max height is 150m with discretion up to 200m.
    So how many storey's would 150m be?
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  83. #283

    Default

    Manulife PLace is 146 metres.

  84. #284
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,477

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmcowboy11 View Post

    So how many storey's would 150m be?
    Somewhere around 46 at 3 metres per typical floor with something higher at the podium and crown but probably something less depending on how generous ceiling heights are meant to be.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  85. #285

    Default

    EDC - March 20, 2018

    PRE-CONSULTATION PRESENTATIONS (Closed to the Public)

    Tower 101​ ​(Development Permit)
    10199 101 Street NW
    Jimmy Der - Der Architects

  86. #286

    Default

    No one has ever thanked you for uploading all that you have sonicboom, so thank for your effort!
    " The strength of a man is in the stride he walks."

  87. #287
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,791

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sonicboom View Post
    EDC - March 20, 2018

    PRE-CONSULTATION PRESENTATIONS (Closed to the Public)

    Tower 101​ ​(Development Permit)
    10199 101 Street NW
    Jimmy Der - Der Architects
    Der architects has not shown they have the vision for a prominent location like this.
    Who knows, maybe it's Regency that doesn't have the vision and Der is just following the paycheque.

  88. #288

    Default

    Normally, that is how it is. Just like you go to a store and have the final say in what you purchase not the sales person.
    Last edited by ctzn-Ed; 22-03-2018 at 12:13 PM.
    " The strength of a man is in the stride he walks."

  89. #289

    Default

    Truly visionary would be recreating the Tegler facade. Another generic tall building downtown is ok, but if they want something that makes Edmonton say "wow", be bold, stretch your limits. The Kelly Ramsey building just across the way from this is an example of vision. Lets not stop there.

  90. #290

    Default

    Keep in mind that KR had the original brick and detailed accounting of placement, so they just reversed built. I agree if Teigler is manageable, it should be done. I also hope what we have kept in the archive can be resurrected in future towers also in their appropriate location or closes to the original slot.
    " The strength of a man is in the stride he walks."

  91. #291

    Default

    How we do historical preservation in Edmonton. Blow it up and then build a Main Street USA at Disneyland version to replace it.

  92. #292

    Default

    Der Architects also designed Emerald Tower as well. That may be what we'll be seeing built here too.

  93. #293
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Where ever the pilot takes me
    Posts
    2,214

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave View Post
    Truly visionary would be recreating the Tegler facade. Another generic tall building downtown is ok, but if they want something that makes Edmonton say "wow", be bold, stretch your limits. The Kelly Ramsey building just across the way from this is an example of vision. Lets not stop there.
    Thirty years on and it still makes my blood boil. The Bunker lasted all of 34 years, just a little over half of the Tegler's prematurely shortened life.
    Did my dog just fall into a pothole???

  94. #294
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,543
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  95. #295
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Where ever the pilot takes me
    Posts
    2,214

    Default

    ^Farewell silly building, I shed no tears for thee.
    Did my dog just fall into a pothole???

  96. #296

    Default

    I liked the building but that corner deserves something better.

  97. #297

    Default

    The Tegler was something I never had to opportunity to witness in person, yet I'm boiled over its demise as well. That aside, I like this structure as it appealed to me also. Too bad the parkade was not done innitially, so they could just go forward after the exterior is gutted. I'm slightly nervous and excited with what is to come. Some fear an ugly design, but I think they're too smart for that as this is a supreme prime location. Fail this design in the premier address, there goes there reputation.
    " The strength of a man is in the stride he walks."

  98. #298

    Default

    I kinda had liked the interior, though hated the shell of this cement box bunker and always hoped the building would end up being "temporary", someone must have been listening, lol. Yes, let's hope that Regency really pulls off a well thought out very attractive tower.

  99. #299

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TRtower View Post
    I kinda had liked the interior, though hated the shell of this cement box bunker and always hoped the building would end up being "temporary", someone must have been listening, lol. Yes, let's hope that Regency really pulls off a well thought out very attractive tower.
    I've never stepped inside before. Anyone have pics of the interior?

  100. #300
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    1,205

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vincent View Post
    I liked the building but that corner deserves something better.
    Agreed. If this is the financial center of Edmonton it deserves a tower of such magnitude.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 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
  •