archited
Senior Member
@IanO you have completely lost the point of your original comment that I took objection to -- Edmonton's downtown compares poorly to major U.S. cities. I have no disagreement with the centres of Toronto, Vancouver, Ottawa and Calgary (and even Saskatoon). I have simply been providing you information to refute the U.S. comment that you made. There are good U.S. examples of solid, functional urban cores, but you missed them -- here are a few -- Austin and San Antonio in Texas, Memphis and Nashville in Tennessee, Seattle, San Diego and Portland on the west coast, Atlanta, Georgia... examples. COVID has been a stress on ALL urban areas and Edmonton has not escaped that reality. Retail is in a state of flux in ALL urban areas (particularly in North America) -- reasons other than COVID include the growing predominance of internet sales; the growing cost of permits, build-out, and staffing for a bricks-and-mortar store; high and growing lease rates; and the discontinuity of a walk-able neighborhood. These are the main ones -- there are minor irksome elements facing retailers as well -- things like QR codes that are easily scan-able to find better deals than the store one is in; the simple fact that one megalith -- Amazon -- now controls more than 50% of retail sales, forcing new potential stores into subserviency (most retailers hate the grasp of Amazon while the buying public seems oblivious to their pain).
Edmonton has the makings of a good mix but when you get the City administration destroying the potential viability with a fixation on planters and benches (most recently concepts for 103 A Avenue, the south side of the downtown library and the riverside melange from rossdale to Groat Rd.), it doesn't help the prospects for an "active downtown". And yet it seems to be pretty easy to assuage Edmontonians into a lull of complacency, even on a progressive site like Skyrise Cities. That is why I have been so hard on specific developments in the form of criticism; if Edmonton keeps accepting mediocre to less-than-mediocre standards there will be no improvement. The Ice District, for example, started off as a stellar possibility for downtown revival (it even had Calgarians salivating), but since its introduction it has been sliding backwards -- loss of the entertainment potential of the dine-in theatres, loss of major retailers and hospitality entities in BG, loss of the public park roof garden, and throwing over occupancy of the prime retail space to banks. It may recover over years ahead, but the Ice District is off to a poor start. And as the realtors scratch their collective heads as to what went wrong, it bodes extremely poorly for Phase II starting anytime soon.
We can't scramble around for "good enough for Edmonton" ideas, we need exceptional players to step up in exceptional ways. So far we can only hook our "hope-wagon" to a few notables -- Beljan, Dub, Cantor... We have got, however, to be able to clearly discern "excellent", from "good", from "poor", from "bad". For starters I recommend a couple of new categories (or at least the re-naming of old ones) on the building rating systems -- a "good-enough-for-Edmonton" label, a "get this out of my town" label, and, on the positive side a "this will make Calgary jealous" label and an "envy of the world" label. We have to collectively stiffen our spines a little more. Also, I recommend adding labels to other categories so that the discernment covers more than just architectural style of buildings.
Edmonton has the makings of a good mix but when you get the City administration destroying the potential viability with a fixation on planters and benches (most recently concepts for 103 A Avenue, the south side of the downtown library and the riverside melange from rossdale to Groat Rd.), it doesn't help the prospects for an "active downtown". And yet it seems to be pretty easy to assuage Edmontonians into a lull of complacency, even on a progressive site like Skyrise Cities. That is why I have been so hard on specific developments in the form of criticism; if Edmonton keeps accepting mediocre to less-than-mediocre standards there will be no improvement. The Ice District, for example, started off as a stellar possibility for downtown revival (it even had Calgarians salivating), but since its introduction it has been sliding backwards -- loss of the entertainment potential of the dine-in theatres, loss of major retailers and hospitality entities in BG, loss of the public park roof garden, and throwing over occupancy of the prime retail space to banks. It may recover over years ahead, but the Ice District is off to a poor start. And as the realtors scratch their collective heads as to what went wrong, it bodes extremely poorly for Phase II starting anytime soon.
We can't scramble around for "good enough for Edmonton" ideas, we need exceptional players to step up in exceptional ways. So far we can only hook our "hope-wagon" to a few notables -- Beljan, Dub, Cantor... We have got, however, to be able to clearly discern "excellent", from "good", from "poor", from "bad". For starters I recommend a couple of new categories (or at least the re-naming of old ones) on the building rating systems -- a "good-enough-for-Edmonton" label, a "get this out of my town" label, and, on the positive side a "this will make Calgary jealous" label and an "envy of the world" label. We have to collectively stiffen our spines a little more. Also, I recommend adding labels to other categories so that the discernment covers more than just architectural style of buildings.
Last edited: