This is the south view of building #2. Leaving this here for future reference. While not anything special, it wouldn't be terrible to get this in built form. I should add that the low-rise 6 storey appears to be pretty close to the renders.
East Junction | 86m | 25s | Regency Developments | DER + Associates
- Thread starter Daveography
- Start date
Edmontonian
Active Member
I don't mean to sound naive but why is the city still giving the green light to Regency after 2 holes in the ground (Emerald and Tower 101) and the horror that is 121 West. The only good they have to show is the Pearl which finished I believe 8 years ago. We need to be holding a higher standard.
Stevey_G
Active Member
northlands
Senior Member
LMAOO
Clearshades
Senior Member
How many drums will you bring for we need lots to drown out the current pain and future psychological issues? I'm not a drinker, but I will take one for the team.
itom987
Active Member
They should have scrapped the balconies and used the savings to install large windows.
Gronk!
Senior Member
I highly doubt Regency will be allowed to build anything in this city anymore.
There are plenty of sub-par developers in Edmonton and other cities for that matter. We are only talking about this one since it is so prominent.
I mean, look at this bizarre looking thing. At least Regency can put the windows in a line down the building. Much of their development since the Pearl has been marginal at best from a design perspective, yet they continue building. I know a few people that live in their buildings and most have nothing to really complain about from a living point of view.
EtoV
Active Member
I see so many of these kinds of architecturally questionable houses on realtor listings, and they clearly have trouble selling them as they stay for up months on end (this one has been up for half a year unsurprisingly). I wonder how many of these developers blame this on Edmonton's real estate market, and refuse to see that even if architecture isn't the most important thing to most people, very few people want to live in a home that looks that ugly/cheap on the outside. If this is what they think is presentable to the public, imagine the shortcuts and questionable choices they've made in places you can't see.
Member Bio
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2015
- Messages
- 10,218
- Reaction score
- 23,095
- Location
- Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
My ears were apparently burning for a reason.
I never expected much from this building architecturally speaking, especially after seeing how 121 West turned out. Even with that in mind, though, I'm actually still shocked at how comically tiny those windows are.
But while Holyrood Development Committee did harp on the importance of good architecture and design, our focus was always on the later as there are limits to how much you can legislate the former. And despite Regency's attempts to undo much of what we fought for, the original DC2 still stands. (For the record, I left the community league and HDC in April, in large part due to burn-out thanks to Regency's BS.)
The midrise sections of this building don't look nearly as bad, though, which is way more important than how the tower looks.
On balance, I'm actually still OK with what we're getting. But that said, I hope Regency sells the development as I'm super done with them.
davcocom
Active Member
I think we should do some kind of award for the completed developments of the year. Make a vote for different categories and have one for worse/ugliest.
And call the media, at least try to media shame them. It would also be interesting for the good developments, showing recognition for the ones that are doing a good job.
And call the media, at least try to media shame them. It would also be interesting for the good developments, showing recognition for the ones that are doing a good job.
EtoV
Active Member
^ That angle really highlights the similar "design" choices/materiality between this and 121 West, but even that has more windows:
To be honest, it's not even the lack of windows that is that upsetting, there's plenty of architecturally sound buildings that lack in windows, especially in older European centres where windows had a lot of downsides before modern heating and insulation methods. However, the lack of windows needs to be compensated for in the design in some way, which wasn't done here, like at all.
To be honest, it's not even the lack of windows that is that upsetting, there's plenty of architecturally sound buildings that lack in windows, especially in older European centres where windows had a lot of downsides before modern heating and insulation methods. However, the lack of windows needs to be compensated for in the design in some way, which wasn't done here, like at all.
northlands
Senior Member
Thanks for the reply. You nailed it with that simpsons gif
occidentalcapital
Senior Member
Prison tower...
David A
Senior Member
Exactly! Windows are one component - you can have a nice design that offsets smaller windows and no just a few different colours of paint randomly applied does not cut it. That is like putting lipstick on a pig.