Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 101 to 200 of 445

Thread: Clifton Place (High Street) | Residential | 16-25 stories | Proposed

  1. #101

    Default

    I want to disagree with someone about something... ;-P

    I disagree with NIMBYS

  2. #102
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    32,305

    Default

    Is 124 St succeeding? Every time I drive down there, I hardly see anyone on the street. I think it still has a way to go.
    “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

  3. #103
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Holyrood
    Posts
    4,846

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^It is already succeeding. I think condo high rises should be just off 124 street, not on it - as long as it is close enough, the residents will walk there. Leave 124 street for pure commerical, or those mixed use things IanO likes, with commerical and a little bit of living above (like there is between 108 and 109 on 124, only more modern). Big podiums will just overpower the charm.
    I hate it when we agree.

    Exactly. The character of 124 would be disrupted by a mid- or high-rise condo placed right on it. Set them back a block or so, sure, but 124 itself should remain low-rise.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonic Death Monkey View Post
    Is 124 St succeeding? Every time I drive down there, I hardly see anyone on the street. I think it still has a way to go.
    It does have a long way to go, but it can get there without towers right on the street.
    Strathcona City Separatist

  4. #104

    Default

    WHen does low rise become High Rise?

  5. #105
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    12,869

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonic Death Monkey View Post
    Is 124 St succeeding? Every time I drive down there, I hardly see anyone on the street. I think it still has a way to go.
    it will be a success when you start to walk down there rather than driving down there...

    as for "still having a way to go", i don't know a single street that statement wouldn't apply to. darn... i think i just posted something andy8244 wishes he did although probably for different reasons (i happen to think most of them are starting to get better). .
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  6. #106
    Plug C2E into my veins!!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Westwood
    Posts
    16,518

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    WHen does low rise become High Rise?
    Anything above 6 floors I believe.

  7. #107

    Default

    I'm okay with that then...

    I'm okay with that... Washington DC is capped at around that hight.. It feels built up but not inhuman

  8. #108
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    48,640

    Default

    General rule of thumb

    2-5 - low-rise
    6-11- mid-rise
    12+ - high-rise

    ...obviously location dependent.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  9. #109
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    32,305

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonic Death Monkey View Post
    Is 124 St succeeding? Every time I drive down there, I hardly see anyone on the street. I think it still has a way to go.
    it will be a success when you start to walk down there rather than driving down there...

    as for "still having a way to go", i don't know a single street that statement wouldn't apply to. darn... i think i just posted something andy8244 wishes he did although probably for different reasons (i happen to think most of them are starting to get better). .
    Not sure what you're trying to say here, Ken. What I'm saying is that many of us see 124th as another Whyte Ave. But unlike Whyte, the streets of 124th are almost always devoid of pedestrian activity. More infill residential north of 104 Ave/124 St would greatly remedy this state of affairs. They don't need to be Pearls or Icons, but something along the lines of Clifton Place (even if on a smaller scale) would be acceptable. Anyway, I apologize for veering this off-topic.
    “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

  10. #110

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    ...obviously location dependent.
    That infill guidline gives 9 floors for high rise.

  11. #111
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton (belevedre)
    Posts
    6,525

    Default

    this project should be moved to 102 ave to jasper ave between 106 ave and 107 ave area
    Edmonton Rocks Rocks Rocks

  12. #112
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    here and there
    Posts
    210

    Default

    ^d'oh!

  13. #113
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    11,396

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    General rule of thumb

    2-5 - low-rise
    6-11- mid-rise
    12+ - high-rise

    ...obviously location dependent.
    And dependent on whether you're talking about labels just for easy identification vs. building classifications and code requirements vs. zoning.

  14. #114

    Default

    I had a quick look at this location this morning. I think it is a good one for a high rise, it is bang on an area with rich commercial activity, just a moments walk to various bars, restaurants and cafes. I would live in it (if I could afford it). The houses on Clifton don't look anything special.

    In saying that, it is not far from the wealthiest parts of Glenora, like Wellington Crescent - I wonder if that proximity was influential in previous Council decisions to not approve?

  15. #115
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton (belevedre)
    Posts
    6,525

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    I had a quick look at this location this morning. I think it is a good one for a high rise, it is bang on an area with rich commercial activity, just a moments walk to various bars, restaurants and cafes. I would live in it (if I could afford it). The houses on Clifton don't look anything special.

    In saying that, it is not far from the wealthiest parts of Glenora, like Wellington Crescent - I wonder if that proximity was influential in previous Council decisions to not approve?

    2 guys who are from groat estates assocation is making big impact to convinced people from the area to oppose taller and higher density tower ever to built in that area. that is why previous council not to approve the project. in 20 yrs time , 3 different developers did try to get it approved but all have failed because of this Groat Estates Assocation.
    Edmonton Rocks Rocks Rocks

  16. #116
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    5,169

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jagators63 View Post
    this project should be moved to 102 ave to jasper ave between 106 ave and 107 ave area

    Jagastor63 you have posted something like this before on the Procura thread "Procura Tower should move to....."
    It doesn't work that way, the owners of this site are going to develop it on 102 Ave at Clifton Place BECAUSE THEY OWN THAT PIECE OF LAND not some property they DO NOT own in another part of the core.

    This proposal is for this particular piece of land, nowhere else.

  17. #117
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    5,169

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    I had a quick look at this location this morning. I think it is a good one for a high rise, it is bang on an area with rich commercial activity, just a moments walk to various bars, restaurants and cafes. I would live in it (if I could afford it). The houses on Clifton don't look anything special.

    In saying that, it is not far from the wealthiest parts of Glenora, like Wellington Crescent - I wonder if that proximity was influential in previous Council decisions to not approve?
    In some ways it's typical Nimbyism. Everyone is for development if is somewhere else.

  18. #118
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton (belevedre)
    Posts
    6,525

    Default

    developers is having trouble getting it approved for this lot there because of the group. what choice do developers have right now ?? developer should sell the land and find other land somehere here in edmonton , hoping that proposed towers can get it approved without any objection by public
    Last edited by jagators63; 10-04-2010 at 08:03 PM.
    Edmonton Rocks Rocks Rocks

  19. #119
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    5,169

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jagators63 View Post
    developers is having trouble getting it approved for this lot there because, then sell the land there and find other land where proposed towers can get approved.
    Kiddo, life and real estate just don't work that way!

  20. #120
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    411

    Default

    Was on BKA's website today and found the following new renderings. They were used in the presentation for the public consultation that was held a while ago.

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/retroki...ch/5210013618/
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/retroki...ch/5210013648/
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/retroki...ch/5209414111/
    Last edited by Megatron; 26-11-2010 at 01:58 PM.

  21. #121

    Default

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

  22. #122
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    edmonton, alberta
    Posts
    2,278

    Default

    Is there a time line for this development to begin? Would be great for that area.

  23. #123
    Plug C2E into my veins!!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Westwood
    Posts
    16,518

    Default

    Looks like a lot of stucco to me.

  24. #124

    Default

    Wooo more beige & brick-colored stucco. PERFECT!

    Bleh!
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  25. #125

    Default

    Looks like red brick and glass to me. Kind of like that building on Saskatchewan drive. I think it looks nice.

  26. #126
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    5,169

    Default

    The towers look pretty clean designwise, Unsure about the townhome/podiums possibly a tad cluttered

  27. #127
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    7,731

    Default

    Given the location of these towers, the developer behind it (WAM) and the demographic it'll be marketed to (mid and high income households), chances are it'll be brick.

  28. #128
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    48,640

    Default

    Podiums still are very weak and dated, towers are decent.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  29. #129
    You registered but never posted. username to be deleted.
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Edmonton since 2009
    Posts
    533

    Default

    Clifton Place has its formal presentation to the EDC on March 1st.

  30. #130
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    48,640

    Default

    I wonder if the townhouse/podium components are still laughable.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  31. #131

    Default

    The townhouses look like most new strip malls do today. The designs are pretty ugly.

  32. #132
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    7,731

    Default

    ^Yup, how [email protected] hard can it be to design a townhome podium, come on.

  33. #133
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    7,731

    Default

    Here is the example from Yaletown on the Park....simplicity doesn't cost more...

    http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&sourc...313.69,,0,0.84

    http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&sourc...33.88,,0,-7.36

  34. #134
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,223

    Default

    Just an update, the presentation to EDC was moved to the 15th of March.

    The finish appears to be brick, not Stucco, based on some renderings you haven't seen.

    The townhouse-trixples in the renderings I have are much better clearer than what you've seen I think. They actually look A LOT like those that ChrisD has posted above. The one rendering I have makes them look good. Rooftop patio/garden space good.

    edit: Too add, some of the renderings are not really different from what Ian posted in July last year. I just think that those renderings are poor.

    I also do not like the "rounded" windows on the third floor either.
    Last edited by Channing; 10-03-2011 at 01:17 PM.

  35. #135
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    7,731

    Default

    ^Good to hear, thanks for the update Channing.

  36. #136
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    32,305

    Default

    http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/...239/story.html

    EDMONTON - The controversial Clifton Place redevelopment was approved in principle by city council Tuesday, but a final vote won’t be held for another two weeks.
    Last edited by Sonic Death Monkey; 30-08-2011 at 07:13 PM.
    “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

  37. #137
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,475

    Default

    City council isn't going to please everybody. If you want more people near downtown, and a more dense city then you're going to annoy residents who's view you block.

    I think they did the right decision, but I guess we need to wait 2 more weeks for final approval.

  38. #138

    Default

    These developers have bent over BACKWARDS for the surrounding community. This will be a great project. VERY exciting.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  39. #139
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    48,640

    Default

    ^concur except the very mediocre podium designs from 1989 Vancouver (unless i have not seen the updated version).

    250 new units there will bolster west jasper and 124st.

    Killer views... might be tempted.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  40. #140
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,223

    Default

    The only thing that is trying to be approved here is the zoning. It will all have to go through EDC again to help improve those podiums further during the development permit process. The DC2 zoning wasn't 100% prescriptive on some of the design I believe.

  41. #141
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    11,396

    Default

    What has been discussed in terms of car access? The intersections by OJ's and High Street can be a mess as it is currently some days.

  42. #142
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    48,640

    Default

    Advanced light? But lets hope many consider non auto movement.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  43. #143
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    What has been discussed in terms of car access? The intersections by OJ's and High Street can be a mess as it is currently some days.
    The parkades all access Clifton Place Road. The laneway is not a through road anymore, so there will be no shortcutting. (There will be some visitor parking on it, and it'll be upgraded visually to be a pedestrian type pathway as well)

    They've apparently talked to transportation about the project, but we did not discuss at EDC vehicular access onto Clifton Place Road from 102nd Avenue. (We did discuss parkade ramp access quite a bit onto Clifton Place Road)

  44. #144
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton (belevedre)
    Posts
    6,525

    Default

    the real reason community have lost the chance to have this development be cut down to 125 from 250 and taller tower be cut down because they have been complaining for too long time, that is why, they lost the chance. I believe that in 2 weeks from now and developers will get rubber stamped approval very easily !!
    Edmonton Rocks Rocks Rocks

  45. #145
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    I just want to address this quote from the project architect, from one of the journal articles:

    "And decreasing the amount of units, Preiksaitis said, would make the project uneconomical."

    This is complete and utter BS that has been used for several developments. It actually costs more to add more levels of parking, and if the 16store building is will be profitable, there's no reason that 3 buildings each 16 floors wouldn't be profitable too. Unless they overpaid for the land, in which case they expect the city to upzone to make up for the fact that they gambled the land on the bet that they would get the density they wanted. While I think that significant density is fine for this site. They made a gamble and if they lose, then boohoo.


    In general, I hate these DC2 rezones, where additional height or density is granted as a boon from the city pretty much automatially. I'd much prefer that they purchase the addtional density either from the city or from land owners who are underbuilt and don't intend to use the additional density. That's what's done in new york, and it's a powerful way to preserve heritage buildings.

  46. #146
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Oliver
    Posts
    3,194

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    What has been discussed in terms of car access? The intersections by OJ's and High Street can be a mess as it is currently some days.
    It's because the 126st intersection has a pedestrian-demand light, that is synced to the main traffic lights, but is on something like a 1 1/2 cycle pattern.

    The lights at 124st/102, 124/104 and 121st/Jasper are all synced. When they change:

    The 125st light changes (with or without pedestrians)
    The 123st light changes (only with pedestrians)
    The 126st light may or may not change (and only with pedestrians). It generally will. But it might not. And even if it does, there's a weird delay that the lights at 123 and 125 don't have.

    Sync that light automatically to 124st/125st, and put a redlight on the exit from Original Joes and the problem goes away.

    (the ~2 parking stalls along the OJs patio could also be removed, because they just narrow the entrance and make people stupider)

  47. #147
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    11,396

    Default

    There would also be a concern about westbound traffic at the end of the day that is turning left to either get to High Street or Clifton backing things up. I don't think there's any huge problems, but some thought does need to be given to light sequencing and possibly some other minor changes.

  48. #148

    Default

    ^ We can't stop progress because of Traffic!
    and when would it back up? at rush hours... we can't design our road systems for 3-4 hours out of the day... or else we would have massive roads that are extreamly under used.

    Congestion and slower traffic flow has benefits believe it our not.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  49. #149
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Oliver
    Posts
    3,194

    Default

    From 121st to 124st there's something like 700 condo units with access directly onto the southside of Jasper. The Top-of-the-Valley towers share a single driveway and must be close to 200 units, and the Gainsborough and Athabascan share 123st and must have close to 250 units. And no one even notices.

    The Clifton Place traffic isn't unique or unprecedented, and is a non-issue.

  50. #150
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    48,640

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    I just want to address this quote from the project architect, from one of the journal articles:

    "And decreasing the amount of units, Preiksaitis said, would make the project uneconomical."

    This is complete and utter BS that has been used for several developments. It actually costs more to add more levels of parking, and if the 16store building is will be profitable, there's no reason that 3 buildings each 16 floors wouldn't be profitable too. Unless they overpaid for the land, in which case they expect the city to upzone to make up for the fact that they gambled the land on the bet that they would get the density they wanted. While I think that significant density is fine for this site. They made a gamble and if they lose, then boohoo.


    In general, I hate these DC2 rezones, where additional height or density is granted as a boon from the city pretty much automatially. I'd much prefer that they purchase the addtional density either from the city or from land owners who are underbuilt and don't intend to use the additional density. That's what's done in new york, and it's a powerful way to preserve heritage buildings.
    That is not how things work, nor should they.

    Plus, 16 storey towers are not wonderfully economical.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  51. #151
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    11,396

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edp
    ^ We can't stop progress because of Traffic!
    And where did I say we should? I simply said there are already some concerns about traffic going in and out of high street, that this might exacerbate them somewhat, and I was curious if anything was being considered to perhaps alleviate things a bit.

    Quote Originally Posted by newfangled
    The Clifton Place traffic isn't unique or unprecedented, and is a non-issue.
    I agree it's not unique, however the comparables you mention are somewhat spread out over several blocks. All of the traffic from Clifton will be at a single intersection that is directly adjacent to an already very busy commercial area.

    Again I'm not saying there's any huge concern here. I was simply asking if there was any discussion about changes that might alleviate things somewhat.

  52. #152

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    I agree it's not unique, however the comparables you mention are somewhat spread out over several blocks. All of the traffic from Clifton will be at a single intersection that is directly adjacent to an already very busy commercial area.
    I think most people would be surprised at how small of an issue this is. The alley between 104/105, north of Jasper handles traffic from the Icon, Icon II, Century, The Ten, and deliveries to retail and Coast Edmonton Plaza Hotel. People manage just fine and it's an alley where you have no right of way to get into or out of.

    Also, I use to live in very large apartment compounds in Toronto (Pemberton in North York, Concord City Place downtown) and you would barely see any local traffic.

  53. #153
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    48,640

    Default

    ^exactly... but most people think 250 people, huge traffic. I live downtown Vancouver with 4 towers of say 600 people and rarely passed another car when going in or out.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  54. #154

    Default

    Traffc is a lost leader... and parking is an easy thing to go to SDAB on...

    Its all a bunch of.. stinky brown stuff.

    I love the people that think their street is going to be overrun with visitors at 2 in the afternoon... when everyone is at work..... *mark gives blank look* -blink- blink-

    I love people who are so out of touch they don't understand that we dt condo people meet our friends 9normally) at LIT and a coffee shop. not out 800 sqr foot open concept pads. oooo and we walk there...
    Last edited by edmonton daily photo; 01-09-2011 at 03:44 PM.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  55. #155
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles; Athens
    Posts
    4,401

    Default

    Exactly. Parking and traffic is such a defunct point when it comes to downtown condos.

    Crazy as it sounds the Cambridge's lobby is usually the most busy at about 2am.
    LA today, Athens tomorrow. I miss E-town.

  56. #156

    Default

    ^ Thats too late... How wil I sleep and where will I park my car if I want to go for a midnight drive...... which i will never due because of the crime.... THE CRIME!!

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

  57. #157
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    48,640

    Default

    Integrity absent in Clifton Place planning debate

    Re: "Apartments plan approved in principle," The Journal, Aug. 31.

    City of Edmonton policy for infill is less than 18 months old and already city planners and city council have, this week, proved it is meaningless. Developers have asked for and, without any difficulty, have had Clifton Place rezoned for three towers, 25, 23 and 16 storeys. Guidelines for development across the road from a single-family residential neighbourhood would have restricted new buildings to around 15 storeys.

    http://www.edmontonjournal.com/opini...912/story.html
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  58. #158
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Oliver
    Posts
    3,194

    Default

    I'm going to copy what I said a year ago:

    Describing it as "single-family residential neighbourhood" is a bit disingenuous. If it went ahead, it would be closest to: a strip-mall, a 12 storey tower, a freeway, and a 100 year old heavy mechanics school/bar/salon. Further away you have 1 block of houses, which just happen to be next to an office tower, etc. I like Groat Estates a lot, but describing a community that is extremely multi-use as SFH is blatant BS.

  59. #159

    Default

    ^it raises an interesting point though, doesn't it? I mean, why have guidelines, in the case which suggest 15 floors, if they are never followed?

    Its just pointless. Its disrespectful to the people who contributed to and drafted the guidelines, and its disrespectful to the neighborhood. I have never understood why in Edmonton, if its a high rise of any height, it automatically gets approved. It doesn't make sense, a well planned city sets zones so that the tallest buildings are in the best locations for the tallest buildings. IMO, they should be right in the CBD, with lower scale in other locations.

    As to it having to be tall to be economic, I just don't believe it. Take a trip around Calgary for example, and there are multiple buildings in "good" parts of downtown (e.g. Eau Claire), around the 10 to 15 story mark. These are premium condos, in fact, many realtors recommend them, they often say the best condos are small ones, because they can remain more exclusive with fewer ever on the market at any one time.

    Density automatically = good in Edmonton, just a shame nobody cares enough to implement plans that will allow that density to fill in different scales so that the area that needs it most, e.g. around the Icon, becomes more desirable / unique for the really tall stuff. The unplanned, un-thought out, ad-hoc mismatch that makes up Edmonton will continue unabated.

    I don't think this development will be a disaster, I actually think the edge just behind 124 is a good place for mid to high rise condos. I just think, it would be nice to see a bit more thought given to guidelines. If they aren't ever going to be followed / can easily be ignored, be it a downtown plan, or an infill guideline, don't waste money and peoples time developing them.
    Last edited by moahunter; 04-09-2011 at 09:00 PM.

  60. #160
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton (belevedre)
    Posts
    6,525

    Default

    city planners in most cities across the countries have different opinions about guidelines involving taller towers.

    there is nothing I can do about it.
    Edmonton Rocks Rocks Rocks

  61. #161

    Default

    Which condos by eau Claire are you referring to?

    I agree about the height thing though... Examples here in Edmonton where height isn't needed to make a project viable -- Mayfair. Also cascadia across the street when built.

    In regards to clifton place... The height is reasonable for this area. The arp is outdated and does not reflect the changes in the area already taken place

  62. #162
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    12,869

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Which condos by eau Claire are you referring to?

    I agree about the height thing though... Examples here in Edmonton where height isn't needed to make a project viable -- Mayfair. Also cascadia across the street when built.

    In regards to clifton place... The height is reasonable for this area. The arp is outdated and does not reflect the changes in the area already taken place
    mayfair isn't market condos (technically it's not even "market" rental either) and cascadia isn't even in the ground yet... they were both also designed with some airport overlay restrictions that no longer apply so one certainly has to wonder if more height might have been advantageous.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  63. #163

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Which condos by eau Claire are you referring to?
    Two 11 floor ones in Eau Claire, very new, are the Oscar:

    http://www.condolivingonline.com/cal...-in-eau-claire



    And churchil estates:



    I like Oscar better, but both are high end, well finished (note stone, brick and glass, not stucco), buildings that would be perfect set back a block or so from 124 st. Here's part of the "blurb" for Oscar, which is around 500k for a two bedroom:

    “Oscar is more of a boutique building than just a regular residential condo tower, and you can hardly call it a high-density building because we have only 30 units in a space that would typically accommodate more than double the amount. It is spacious, executive living in the downtown core at a new more affordable price that will likely never be seen again,” Gow points out. “Prices will no doubt rise over the course of the next six to 12 months and people should not miss this chance.”
    Last edited by moahunter; 04-09-2011 at 09:13 PM.

  64. #164

    Default

    Cascadia didn't even approach the height restriction iirc...

    And height doesn't trump all in development. You need to look at the context in which it's being place. Clifton place is surrounded by taller developments to the immediate east of it...

  65. #165
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    3,713

    Default

    i dont see what the big deal is, how many "approved" towers actually get built here? like 1 per decade?
    be offended! figure out why later...

  66. #166

    Default

    Yes those towers by eau Claire are shorter... But there's many more taller examples in the area as well... Eau Claire is limited in heights because of the bow river valley shadow protection they have

  67. #167

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by richardW View Post
    i dont see what the big deal is, how many "approved" towers actually get built here? like 1 per decade?
    It's a little more than that...

  68. #168

    Default

    ^but its proof it doesn't have to be tall to be economic, I have no doubt if the Oscar or Churchill Esates was built in Clifton Hill, it would command the prices it is commanding in Eau Claire, just look at how High Street did. If it doesn't have to be tall to be economic, why not stick to the guideline? I'd rather have a half dozen or more of these buildings around 124 street over time in that 10-15 range (please, Calgary level standards though, with stone, and brick, and glass, not stucco), than two or three taller ones that end up losing their value as they age, due to too many units in the buildings.
    Last edited by moahunter; 04-09-2011 at 09:21 PM.

  69. #169
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton (belevedre)
    Posts
    6,525

    Default

    ^^ taller towers can easily bring more in property tax to the city.
    Edmonton Rocks Rocks Rocks

  70. #170

    Default

    ^I bet 6 of those 11 floor buildings would bring in more property tax, than 3 20 story ones, as they will be more premium / higher prices for longer. And, there's plenty of space for the tall stuff closer into the core. There are only so many mid / high rise condo buyers in Edmonton, does it really make sense to have all the buildings the same height everywhere, or can we decide to mix it up for different neighborhoods, with downtown/neighborhood plans, guidelines, and similar?

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Eau Claire is limited in heights because of the bow river valley shadow protection they have
    Those buildings are built well back from the Bow river away from the height restrictions. The Oscar has a taller condo between it and the river. There are still tall buildings planned for Eau Claire, but these two weren't built small due to restrictions I think. It was a choice by the developers for the market, there is a good market for smaller more exclusive condo buildings, in high value areas. Condo fees can be kept higher, to keep the building well maintained and premium over time, its harder to do with more units, which means more rentals, and more problems. As development moves from downtown further into residential neighborhoods, I think that's a better, and less controversial, approach.
    Last edited by moahunter; 04-09-2011 at 09:56 PM.

  71. #171
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,475

    Default

    Council has approved Clifton Place
    ---
    Clifton Place officially a go
    http://www.630ched.com/Channels/Reg/...spx?ID=1537795

  72. #172

    Default

    That's great. Now let's see if this actually gets built.

  73. #173
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    48,640

    Default

    Killer location, amazing views, cul-de-sac.

    Um yes.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  74. #174
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton (belevedre)
    Posts
    6,525

    Default

    they better built it because I wanted to see amazing view from the southside.
    Edmonton Rocks Rocks Rocks

  75. #175
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    12,869

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^I bet 6 of those 11 floor buildings would bring in more property tax, than 3 20 story ones, as they will be more premium / higher prices for longer. And, there's plenty of space for the tall stuff closer into the core. There are only so many mid / high rise condo buyers in Edmonton, does it really make sense to have all the buildings the same height everywhere, or can we decide to mix it up for different neighborhoods, with downtown/neighborhood plans, guidelines, and similar?

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Eau Claire is limited in heights because of the bow river valley shadow protection they have
    Those buildings are built well back from the Bow river away from the height restrictions. The Oscar has a taller condo between it and the river. There are still tall buildings planned for Eau Claire, but these two weren't built small due to restrictions I think. It was a choice by the developers for the market, there is a good market for smaller more exclusive condo buildings, in high value areas. Condo fees can be kept higher, to keep the building well maintained and premium over time, its harder to do with more units, which means more rentals, and more problems. As development moves from downtown further into residential neighborhoods, I think that's a better, and less controversial, approach.
    moa, i must admit i'm struggling with how to process this one.

    you started by saying we shouldn't allow tall buildings because short ones are better at satisfying and maintaing a demand for premier spaces than tall buildings because they can provide more units for that market segment. then you finished by saying we shouldn't allow tall buildings because there is insufficient demand for more units for that market segment.
    Last edited by kcantor; 17-09-2011 at 04:13 PM.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  76. #176

    Default

    any word on this?

  77. #177
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    7,731

    Default

    My guess is that WAM is likely focusing on the arena district development. But then again, I don't know.

  78. #178
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,161

    Default

    The before and after of what is proposed here

    Before:



    After:

    Don't feed the trolls!

  79. #179
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    7,731

    Default

    Apparently they are demolishing the houses on Clifton Pl.

  80. #180
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,161

    Default

    I drove by just a few minutes ago, I can confirm.
    Don't feed the trolls!

  81. #181

    Default

    I think I like the lines better on the old one, especially the roof. I do like how the front changes half way up on the new one, good to see someone designing two floorplates instead of one and extruding them up 28 floors...
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  82. #182
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,161

    Default

    So why did they demolish the homes in there? Sales centre coming soon?
    Don't feed the trolls!

  83. #183
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    5,169

    Default

    Maybe a sales centre and a site prep???? Perhaps since the Sylvancroft site on SPR and 126 St has been cleared as well that area of Glenora and Groat Estates will fill up with the new developments soon.

  84. #184
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,223

    Default

    I thought this project only had the DC2 zoning approved, but not a development permit yet.

  85. #185

    Default

    Don't neeed a DP to demo

    From an insurance standpoint having vacant homes is EXPENSIVE! I am sure the developer is much better off having baron land.
    Last edited by edmonton daily photo; 16-07-2012 at 09:17 PM.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  86. #186
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,223

    Default

    Yeah but they won't be doing much site prep or sales without a DP I'd think.

  87. #187
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    48,640

    Default





    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  88. #188

    Default

    Three towers now? I must've missed something. Suddenly this looks like a major development.

  89. #189
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Parkdale - Goldbar - Downtown
    Posts
    5,371

    Default

    ^ that proposal has been around for a few years.

  90. #190
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    11,396

    Default

    Might be confusing it with the land at the end of 124th right as it swerves East.

  91. #191

    Default

    I know the Clifton Place plan has been around for a few years, but hasn't it evolved quite a bit? I don't remember it being this elaborate.

    EDIT: Never mind.. I just went back to page 1 and saw the plans. I must've slept in that day.
    Last edited by Vincent; 30-11-2012 at 01:50 PM.

  92. #192
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    48,640

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vincent View Post
    Three towers now? I must've missed something. Suddenly this looks like a major development.
    Were you confusing it with the ski lodge that is now a single tower by Concert?


    (http://i151.photobucket.com/albums/s...K20D2010-1.jpg)
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  93. #193

    Default

    No, I just thought it was a single tower as per the original rendering in the OP. That's the only rendering I remember ever seeing on this project.

  94. #194

    Default

    I think it was to be 4 towers when it started out!
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  95. #195

    Default

    I wonder if the project will do well, personally I love the location, great views and I really enjoy the shops/restaurants in the 125/124 area right there (lots of dining options right next door!)

  96. #196

    Default

    I think it's a great area. I'm sure there'll be a lot of interest.

  97. #197

    Default

    There has been a lot of interest for a decade... This has been way toooo long coming
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  98. #198

    Default

    Don't you mean waaaaay too long?

  99. #199

    Default

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

  100. #200
    You registered but never posted. username to be deleted.
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    800

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    I'm okay with that then...

    I'm okay with that... Washington DC is capped at around that hight.. It feels built up but not inhuman
    From someone who grew up there I can tell you that that is not true, commercial buildings typically stop at 12 floors, but some residential building manage to fit in as many as 14

Page 2 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
  •