Connect Centre | 56.3m | 16s | ONE Properties | DIALOG

What do you think of this project?

  • Total voters
    59
Reference ID: Job No 234919092-007
Description: To amend the approved Development Permit number 234919092-001 by reducing the Height from 141.3 m to 137.65 meter high mixed Use Tower; and reducing the Commercial podium from 3 to 2 Storeys including a common lobby, twelve (12) General Retail Stores, three (3) Restaurants (60% of total Floor Area as Public Space), one (1) Professional, Financial and Office Support Services, with accessory Residential Amenity Area including accessible outdoor rooftop area on the rooftop podium; with an Apartment Housing Tower (adding a floor of Residential and increasing Dwelling units from 568 to 582 from the 3rd to 41st floors); with mechanical rooms on the 42nd floor; and to construct exterior and interior alterations. (Block BG Tower)
Location: 10324 - 103 STREET NW
Plan 1722545 Blk 2 Lot 7
10305 - 104 AVENUE NW
Plan 1722545 Blk 2 Lot 12
10324 - 103 STREET NW
Plan 1722545 Blk 2 Lot 10
Applicant: DIALOG
Status: In Development Review
Create Date: 6/18/2018 10:17:49 AM
Neighbourhood: DOWNTOWN

New thread title:
Ice District Tower B | 138m | 42s | ONE Properties | DIALOG
 
Something happening...

P6270667.jpg


Plaza:

P6270668.jpg
 

Attachments

  • P6270667.jpg
    P6270667.jpg
    314.6 KB · Views: 631
  • P6270668.jpg
    P6270668.jpg
    319.9 KB · Views: 585
Things are slowly happening...

PERMIT_DATE July 09, 2018
PERMIT_NUMBER
JOB_CATEGORY Commercial Final
ADDRESS 10305 - 104 AVENUE NW
NEIGHBOURHOOD DOWNTOWN
JOB_DESCRIPTION To construct temporary FENCE HOARDING along 104 AV ONLY for Block BG: a 43-storey mixed-use building project (S side 104 AV: 58 lin m from alley to 103 ST.) 4 July 2018 - 4 January 2020.
BUILDING_TYPE Temporary Structures (999)
WORK_TYPE (01) New
FLOOR_AREA 1
CONSTRUCTION_VALUE 4,999
ZONING AED, AED
 
From EDC June 19:

C.2. ICE District Block BG (Development Permit)
10324 103 Street NW
Dave Moore - Dialog Design

MOVED: D. Brown Motion of Non-support

● The design intends to lift the mass of the building off the ground plane; however, the perceived mass of the building has visually increased. Similarly, reducing the transparency and articulation and variation in materiality on the second and third floor of the building negatively impacts the interface with the plaza and adjacent streets.
● Generally, the tower lacks articulation adequate to its scale and size. In particular, greater variation of materials should be considered on the west and east side of the small tower and on north side of the tall tower.
● Loss of public access to roof and programming opportunities on rooftop area is a great detriment to the project and diminishes the overall public realm of Ice District.
● The extent of the third floor interior mechanical space is not clearly delineated in the drawing package. Futhermore, the exterior rooftop mechanical space is not sufficiently screened from view by residents of the tower or adjacent developments.

SECONDED: A. Zepp
CARRIED
FOR THE MOTION: W. Sims, A. Zepp, T. Antoniuk, D. Deshpande, S. Kaznacheeva, C. Holmes, D. Brown, B. Nolan

https://www.edmonton.ca/city_government/documents/EdmontonDesignCommittee_June_19_2018_Minutes.pdf
 
Daveography said:
From EDC June 19:

C.2. ICE District Block BG (Development Permit)
10324 103 Street NW
Dave Moore - Dialog Design

MOVED: D. Brown Motion of Non-support

● The design intends to lift the mass of the building off the ground plane; however, the perceived mass of the building has visually increased. Similarly, reducing the transparency and articulation and variation in materiality on the second and third floor of the building negatively impacts the interface with the plaza and adjacent streets.
● Generally, the tower lacks articulation adequate to its scale and size. In particular, greater variation of materials should be considered on the west and east side of the small tower and on north side of the tall tower.
● Loss of public access to roof and programming opportunities on rooftop area is a great detriment to the project and diminishes the overall public realm of Ice District.
● The extent of the third floor interior mechanical space is not clearly delineated in the drawing package. Futhermore, the exterior rooftop mechanical space is not sufficiently screened from view by residents of the tower or adjacent developments.

SECONDED: A. Zepp
CARRIED
FOR THE MOTION: W. Sims, A. Zepp, T. Antoniuk, D. Deshpande, S. Kaznacheeva, C. Holmes, D. Brown, B. Nolan

https://www.edmonton.ca/city_government/documents/EdmontonDesignCommittee_June_19_2018_Minutes.pdf
Click to expand...
Thank god.
 
Daveography said:
From EDC June 19:
● Loss of public access to roof and programming opportunities on rooftop area is a great detriment to the project and diminishes the overall public realm of Ice District.
Click to expand...
This is the first thing I'm really disappointed about. Now whenever I see a commercial project promising a lavish non-commercial public space, I'll wonder "How are they planning to shut that down?" Certainly if there's any economic pressure on a project, the public portions will be the first things cut back. I wonder if these projects start out with true intentions of providing public space, or if they think "We'd like to do that and we'll get to it if we can," or if it's really just "It's just there to sell it to the City, then it's cut."

"The podium was also meant to include a rooftop garden – those plans have also been taken off the table. Halliwell told officials that detail was not considered to be “economically viable.”" -- https://edmonton.ctvnews.ca/upcomin...s-movie-theatre-rooftop-green-space-1.3981716
So was it economically viable before, and something changed, or did they purposefully ignore economic viability in the approval stages? I can't imagine any developer ever considering a public space on their private project to be economically viable.
 
What are they trying to get away with? They came up with a world-class arena design adjoined by a world-class hotel/condo design and a better than average Edmonton Tower and exceptional podium on the east have of the plaza. Did Katz lose interest in quality design? Is the development game too strenuous for him? Is he used to making more money peddling pills? This building, podium and all is an absolute dog and I'm glad that the EDC called One out on the negative transformation away from what was an excellent design in the first incarnation. "One" now stands for the rating that this design gets on a scale of ten.
 
It seems so weird that Katz seemed so intent on creating the centerpiece for our downtown, but once he got to the final piece of the puzzle he decides to cheap out. Doesn't he realize that in doing so he will detract from the rest of his development?
 
You know, the more I think about this, the possibility exists that this is a very sage move on behalf of Katz. He has gone back to the City to try to garner funds for the plaza. Would it be a stretch to think that this less-than-mediocre effort for the tower B project might figure into that strategy. Maybe he is trying to get the City engaged in all "public amenities" for the project... maybe the public roof garden is part of that push. Maybe the theaters haven't gone away. Maybe for the sake of creating a (do I have to acknowledge) "rendering" and spending, say, $10,000.00 or so to push this at the City, he has no intention of building this at all. Maybe it is just a card in his hand for dealing with the City. Remember "back when" he took a trip to Seattle hinting at the notion that he might move the Oilers there -- that was a strategic move to engage the City re investing in the arena. I am thinking that this might be a similar ploy -- spend a few bucks to make the City think that the public amenities are going away, just to get them engaged in an investment mode.
 
archited said:
You know, the more I think about this, the possibility exists that this is a very sage move on behalf of Katz. He has gone back to the City to try to garner funds for the plaza. Would it be a stretch to think that this less-than-mediocre effort for the tower B project might figure into that strategy. Maybe he is trying to get the City engaged in all "public amenities" for the project... maybe the public roof garden is part of that push. Maybe the theaters haven't gone away. Maybe for the sake of creating a (do I have to acknowledge) "rendering" and spending, say, $10,000.00 or so to push this at the City, he has no intention of building this at all. Maybe it is just a card in his hand for dealing with the City. Remember "back when" he took a trip to Seattle hinting at the notion that he might move the Oilers there -- that was a strategic move to engage the City re investing in the arena. I am thinking that this might be a similar ploy -- spend a few bucks to make the City think that the public amenities are going away, just to get them engaged in an investment mode.
Click to expand...

hopefully
 
Daveography said:
Reference ID: Job No 234919092-007
Description: To amend the approved Development Permit number 234919092-001 by reducing the Height from 141.3 m to 137.65 meter high mixed Use Tower; and reducing the Commercial podium from 3 to 2 Storeys including a common lobby, twelve (12) General Retail Stores, three (3) Restaurants (60% of total Floor Area as Public Space), one (1) Professional, Financial and Office Support Services, with accessory Residential Amenity Area including accessible outdoor rooftop area on the rooftop podium; with an Apartment Housing Tower (adding a floor of Residential and increasing Dwelling units from 568 to 582 from the 3rd to 41st floors); with mechanical rooms on the 42nd floor; and to construct exterior and interior alterations. (Block BG Tower)
Location: 10324 - 103 STREET NW
Plan 1722545 Blk 2 Lot 7
10305 - 104 AVENUE NW
Plan 1722545 Blk 2 Lot 12
10324 - 103 STREET NW
Plan 1722545 Blk 2 Lot 10
Applicant: DIALOG
Status: In Development Review
Create Date: 6/18/2018 10:17:49 AM
Neighbourhood: DOWNTOWN

New thread title:
Ice District Tower B | 138m | 42s | ONE Properties | DIALOG
Click to expand...

Reducing the height again? Come on Katz. The early renderings had this thing looking almost as tall as the JW Marriott. What a shame. I sure hope this isn't the final design... it's far too plain. The original design was far more attractive than this lego block.
 

Attachments

  • Tower B (new).jpg
    Tower B (new).jpg
    285.2 KB · Views: 485
  • Tower B (original).jpeg
    Tower B (original).jpeg
    87.4 KB · Views: 466
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top