Offworld
Active Member
Yeah sure, whatever. If you like suburban development downtown...
|
|
|
Lilac Park | 20.2m | 6s | Westrich Pacific | J+S Architect
- Thread starter IanO
- Start date
TAS
Senior Member
It's a tradeoff, and I'm glad for the student housing as we want more people living downtown - but are we continuing to cement our downtown's fate as not being a living option for families? I was listening to a podcast about the difference between Seattle and Vancouver. The former had primarily studio and 1 bedroom units in its developments downtown versus Vancouver that provided a much higher percentage of larger 2 and 3 bedroom units that were mandated and which resulted in attracting so many other kinds of business and amenities. When a large majority of units are studio and 1 bedroom in developments, it's gameover for ever attracting families to live downtown and the benefits that brings.
Yeggy
Active Member
Markyeg
Active Member
I’m indifferent on this. Sure, I would’ve liked to have seen some height, but these are lots that might’ve sat vacant for another 10+ years if Westrich hadn’t come and built their 6 storey walkups.
As long as they don’t replicate this on the old BMO site..
As long as they don’t replicate this on the old BMO site..
thommyjo
Senior Member
That challenge is that in Vancouver, a 2-3bdrm condo is forced on many families due to costs of semi detached or detached housing. In Edmonton, almost no one is going to live in a 3bdrm condo with kids when a 700k house gets you so much more.
Our traffic, types of jobs, real estate, climate, etc all make it a tough comparison.
Townhomes in Whikwentowin, keeping riverdale vibrant for families, ensuring westmount/Queen Mary/old Strathcona all stay family friendly….are realistic targets for Edmonton. But 3bdrm condos in the CBD sorta areas isn’t going to work.
northlands
Senior Member
Member Bio
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2019
- Messages
- 2,782
- Reaction score
- 11,756
- Location
- The trenches (Downtown)
10+ years is probably heavily undershooting it. In the thirty years before The Parks was erected, this section of downtown from 105-109 and north of Jasper saw what, Monaco 1 & 2 be built? And if you go above 103 ave, I guess you can count Quest and Jefferson Lofts+whatever Dub resi conversions from the 90s. Thirty years to get ~5 residential projects and that included the 00s condo boom.I’m indifferent on this. Sure, I would’ve liked to have seen some height, but these are lots that might’ve sat vacant for another 10+ years if Westrich hadn’t come and built their 6 storey walkups.
As long as they don’t replicate this on the old BMO site..
Reality is not enough people want to live downtown, and even fewer want to pay a premium to do so. I wish we could get better quality designs and height as well, but man the value proposition for downtown living just isn't there. Endless forever construction everywhere, few amenities beyond overpriced coffee and restaurants, terrible retail options, borderline zero nightlife, social disorder and continued rampant open drug use, and there aren't even that many good jobs here either unless you want to work in gov't or brokerage.
inclusion
Active Member
I would probably laugh, then say, "That's so Edmonton," if it happened.I’m indifferent on this. Sure, I would’ve liked to have seen some height, but these are lots that might’ve sat vacant for another 10+ years if Westrich hadn’t come and built their 6 storey walkups.
As long as they don’t replicate this on the old BMO site..
thommyjo
Senior Member
We really need to attract more jobs DT to help fill residential units.
We are lucky to have our unis so central.
Can we just make the quarters an urban townhome sort of district and get rid of the high density ambitions? Somebody buy up the whole place and masterplan it like west district or uni district in Calgary please.
No investment will make sense in the current patchwork of lot owners. It all needs to be rebuilt at once to make the area desirable.
davcocom
Active Member
SMayo
Active Member
They don't have huge setbacks from the street and half the property as surface parking. They might not be concrete and glass but I don't get how they are "suburban" developments.
ADob
Active Member
Honestly, I don't have a problem with the height or massing, mainly the ubiquitous patchwork of several types of cladding, which looks cheap.
Jspr
New Member
Yes - enough with the ground-floor retail! People living in homes will add as much or more vibrancy to the street than a bunch of CRUs that sit empty for years because of oversupply. They are a great option for accessible units as well.
Jspr
New Member
People love to rag on architectural controls in the suburbs, but there's long-term value to both community and individual property values in setting minimum quality standards. Not that every suburb gets it right. Setting a minimum number of materials doesn't translate to quality outcomes and actually stifles creativity. There are plenty of great buildings that use only one type of cladding. This aspect of the LUB is terrible, and a great example of how the City didn't really get rid of the MNO so much as water it down and apply it everywhere. If we must regulate materials, I'd much prefer to see requirements for high-quality, durable materials that reflect some kind of vernacular or terroir.