LibraLibro
New Member
Does anyone know why the city insists on using red brick pavers every chance they get? Is it more economically viable? Because it sure as hell isn’t aesthetically pleasing to the eye.
|
|
|
Edmonton City Centre Mall (Renovations) | ?m | 2s | LaSalle Investment Management
- Thread starter Daveography
- Start date
kcantor
Senior Member
^
Because they deteriorate so badly and so quickly in our climate that they make the rest of our infrastructure look good in comparison?
Because they deteriorate so badly and so quickly in our climate that they make the rest of our infrastructure look good in comparison?
IanO
Superstar
What
David A
Senior Member
I suppose it is better than unpainted boarded up plywood, but it does still give a sort of permanently abandoned vibe.
Paradoxically, more people walking on the street in front here now with the Valley Line LRT line finally in operation, but I suppose to late to save this store location.
Although to be fair, I feel the Bay has its own serious problems that extend way beyond downtown Edmonton. Hopefully something else will fill this space eventually.
Greenspace
Senior Member
There's some murals going on.
Offworld
Active Member
When I spoke to a planner back in the early days of Eaton Centre being open and operational, that person told me that ZERO infrastructure for towers, multi-res or office, had been built when the mall was first built. There were acknowledgments from this person that the grand scheme proposed by 555 was just that, a scheme. It was just another mall.
David A
Senior Member
The way the Delta is built strongly leads one to believe it was intended to be a base for a much larger building. Maybe that is actually not the case, but it sure looks like it.
However, maybe after 40 years the point is somewhat moot. There doesn't ever seem to have been much interest in a tower here, other than the initial scheme which did seem to have a bait and switch feel to it.
However, maybe after 40 years the point is somewhat moot. There doesn't ever seem to have been much interest in a tower here, other than the initial scheme which did seem to have a bait and switch feel to it.
archited
Senior Member
A simple look at the roof suggests that columns have been capped for future superstructure development -- I doubt that it is in any way "fake".
Coprolite
Active Member
The downtown location was a bit more poorly run than others. I was genuinely surprised when I went to the Southgate location and staff were actually present and helpful, and their inventories weren't terrible. But they've certainly been taking the axe to locations across the country and their attempts to "revive Zellers" and "go online" have been weird and disjointed. That they never had a strategy for the latter until it was at the "OH SHIT WE HAD BETTER DO THIS" point is especially weird given that they were one of those companies with a long history of catalog order fulfilment.
IanO
Superstar
I've inquired about this with many folks over the years and have a variety of opinions and beliefs; this included folks who worked for the previous owner.
My general understanding is that no considerations were made for any of the 'planned' 40 storey towers. I like to think there is, but have no substantive evidence to say otherwise.
SarcasticMarmot
Active Member
Are there any Edmonton examples of returning years later to actually build a proposed tower on top of a completed development where infrastructure was put in place? I know Canada Place was planned similarly, any other uncompleted ones? With so many empty lots it seems unnecessarily expensive and disruptive to actually follow through on. It's this reason I doubt we will ever see the 3rd Ice District tower.
northlands
Senior Member
Station Lands
IanO
Superstar
^I would take that bet given that the 'expensive' bits are already in place and ready to receive it.
Bentall V in Vancouver added 11 storeys to an existing tower.
The little blue building with the mural on 100 Avenue and 105st was a single storey and added 4.
Manulife 2 has the infrastructure and code in place for the second tower...
---
Also, for reference:
The Jasper/104st building was designed for an unrealized tower.
Bentall V in Vancouver added 11 storeys to an existing tower.
The little blue building with the mural on 100 Avenue and 105st was a single storey and added 4.
Manulife 2 has the infrastructure and code in place for the second tower...
---
Also, for reference:
The Jasper/104st building was designed for an unrealized tower.
David A
Senior Member
There are a few examples. I recall years ago the Coast Hotel being a smaller building with floors later being added above, but it is not common here. Probably less so than in other places without as many lots available for development.
kcantor
Senior Member
^
The annex on the legislative grounds should be on this list. The original structure - the first true curtain wall building in western Canada if not in Canada - was expanded from 6 stories to 12.
This being Edmonton of course, it was also prematurely demolished by the provincial government for lack of vision and with deferred maintenance snd poor performance being cited as the rationale.
The annex on the legislative grounds should be on this list. The original structure - the first true curtain wall building in western Canada if not in Canada - was expanded from 6 stories to 12.
This being Edmonton of course, it was also prematurely demolished by the provincial government for lack of vision and with deferred maintenance snd poor performance being cited as the rationale.