Massey Ferguson Building Redevelopment | ?m | 6s | Rise Real Estate | WZMH

What do you think of this project?

  • Total voters
    38
northlands said:
Something that I think *could* possibly work here is the common area balconies, akin to the City's supportive housing units.

Below isn't a spectacular looking building either with small punched windows (and this one is actually modular!), but at least the central balconies with their slatted covers adds a degree of colour and visual interest. Don't think many students are smokers now but an area to get some quick fresh air in between bouts of studying would probably be a positive amenity, and it wouldn't take up substantial amounts of precious site space.

View attachment 717404
Click to expand...
The Canora Supportive housing is this concept but MUCH nicer
Its Wrapping up Right Now (It's the Building North of the Burnt Down Klondiker/Jasper Place hotel)
 
archited said:
Where to start... 1. Better street interaction would be a big one. This is student housing (term used reservedly) so that which benefits students in the realm of "off-hours" -- retail and hospitality that appeals to students' relaxation times -- reference the UofA border goings-on -- casual eateries, coffee houses, grab-'n-go market, entertainment venues... also UofA HUB, 2. reduction in disparate facade treatments (a sickness that seems to have caught Edmonton by the throat), 3. more variation in elevational heights of buildings and more in-and-out relief of facades (the two kind of go together), 4. better sense of entry/arrival points to each of the four buildings, 5. More functional use of outdoor common space -- meeting areas, games areas, quiet reflection areas, 6. more street-side breathing space -- mini-pocket parks, 7. Roof-top common space... gardens for example (gawd this place is so lacking in imagination -- it is hard to even conceive of a worse solution, architecturally and functionally). Of course better windows -- not just bigger but with more variety -- currently looks like an ill-conceived army barracks; maybe Juliet balconies. The more I try to critique this solution the more I feel like the current solution should just land in the waste basket -- start over with a new design team.
Click to expand...
I just sent my response. I used a lot of these points but did not copy.
 
scyeg said:
This is what Guelph gets?! Guelph?!

I’m convinced developers have 0 respect for Edmonton.
Click to expand...
It’s because we accept mediocrity and constantly speak negatively about our own city. How can we expect others to respect a city that doesn’t respect itself? One of the biggest mistakes we made was allowing neighbouring municipalities like Fort Saskatchewan and St. Albert to avoid paying their fair share, while still benefiting from the city. At the same time, some criticize us while contributing to the very social challenges we’re trying to manage downtown.
 
scyeg said:
This is what Guelph gets?! Guelph?!

I’m convinced developers have 0 respect for Edmonton.
Click to expand...
Now that is a good example of how to do it much better despite the challenging current economic environment in Canada and Guelph is a much smaller city, fewer people than Kelowna I believe.

I had hoped the era of developers pushing crap on us here ended decades ago, but apparently it seems to be trying to make a come back now.

Maybe Guelph gets more respect because it is an older city with some nice historic buildings and also is close to the GTA. Developers from far away don't seem to understand or get our city well, although some of the local ones are not so great either now.
 
David A said:
Now that is a good example of how to do it much better despite the challenging current economic environment in Canada and Guelph is a much smaller city, fewer people than Kelowna I believe.

I had hoped the era of developers pushing crap on us here ended decades ago, but apparently it seems to be trying to make a come back now.

Maybe Guelph gets more respect because it is an older city with some nice historic buildings and also is close to the GTA. Developers from far away don't seem to understand or get our city well, although some of the local ones are not so great either now.
Click to expand...
We had historic buildings and tore them down, so that's that.
 
David A said:
Now that is a good example of how to do it much better despite the challenging current economic environment in Canada and Guelph is a much smaller city, fewer people than Kelowna I believe.

I had hoped the era of developers pushing crap on us here ended decades ago, but apparently it seems to be trying to make a come back now.

Maybe Guelph gets more respect because it is an older city with some nice historic buildings and also is close to the GTA. Developers from far away don't seem to understand or get our city well, although some of the local ones are not so great either now.
Click to expand...
Guelph is about the same size as Kelowna, but it is very close to the GTA. In fact, close enough that there is a significant number of people who live there and commute to places in the GTA daily, so that does make a difference.
Doesn't mean that Edmonton should keep getting crap, considering that even Kelowna (which is smaller and relatively isolated from any major cities, with a much lower disposable income) gets much nicer things
 
ADob said:
We had historic buildings and tore them down, so that's that.
Click to expand...
Yes, I feel that sort of goes back to the if we don't respect our city part of this discussion. Although, Guelph is an older city with many more historic buildings and no where near the same growth pressures as we had.
 
It comes down to property values, rate of return and cost of construction. Here, property values are lower, rate of return is also lower and cost of construction is higher than Southern Ontario, Lower Mainland, the Okanagan and even Calgary. That, plus the lack of an architecture school/program, results in the architectural quality of projects we get. That won't likely change unless we see one of those three things I mentioned change.
 
Avenuer said:
It comes down to property values, rate of return and cost of construction. Here, property values are lower, rate of return is also lower and cost of construction is higher than Southern Ontario, Lower Mainland, the Okanagan and even Calgary. That, plus the lack of an architecture school/program, results in the architectural quality of projects we get. That won't likely change unless we see one of those three things I mentioned change.
Click to expand...
What makes the cost of construction higher? Is it mostly labor or materials/other capital?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top