Edmonton Motors Lands Redevelopment | 170.07m | 56s | Pangman

What do you think of this project?

  • Total voters
    39
I'm down the middle on this one. I see lots that I like and could turn out really nicely in the podium, but lots that I don't care as much for at the tower-level. Given this is a rezoning application, I'm not ready to trust the renders at this point anyway. Been burned by that recently (Southpark).
 
Not much change from the last look, that I can tell. The tallest is still 43s with a max 170m. From speaking with the architect, the height comes mostly from the podium levels having fairly high ceilings, as well as relatively generous ceiling heights in the tower. The city planner I spoke to expressed that he doesn't think they're properly representing the heights. So I'm not sure what to believe.

176611

176606176607176608176609176610176611176612176613176614
 
Aluminum wall panels as a glazing material will make a big difference on this design. Think some of the newer UofA buildings in terms of finishing.

This gives me a lot more confidence in the final product, which, given the height is critical as a marker for our cities built form.
 
Still insensitive from a planning perspective... makes me think of something out of the 1950s. Can anybody find the wind tunnel effect-to-be that is going to nix most uses for the common court? Can anybody imagine what kind of retail is going to land on Jasper Avenue in the non-pedestrian friendly giant wall? Materials aside, what value does this project have other than the ached for density and height? The towers seem to be pretty commonplace. Value compare this project with the one of similar scale on Jasper and 108 -- night and day difference in my books -- one is truly inspired; the other not so much.
 
Looks pretty pedestrian friendly on Jasper to me with large retail bays with room on the street.

While not truly inspired architecture, it isn't terrible either. I'm indifferent on this project. I think it will end up decent as it has good materials. Definitely not on the same level as Jasper and 108, but not worse than the Falcon Towers either.
 
Falcon Towers podium is better and more finitely thought out. Aaah but to each his own. Mixed reviews is the best this project will get. I would give it a higher rating but for the fact that so many great aspect opportunities were missed here -- and that's a shame. But, I guess, it is "good enough for Edmonton."
 
archited said:
Still insensitive from a planning perspective... makes me think of something out of the 1950s. Can anybody find the wind tunnel effect-to-be that is going to nix most uses for the common court? Can anybody imagine what kind of retail is going to land on Jasper Avenue in the non-pedestrian friendly giant wall? Materials aside, what value does this project have other than the ached for density and height? The towers seem to be pretty commonplace. Value compare this project with the one of similar scale on Jasper and 108 -- night and day difference in my books -- one is truly inspired; the other not so much.
Click to expand...

Agreed and by no means am I comparing this to the Jasper & 108 project. In my opinion, when it comes to pure play residential towers, varying degrees of quality & excellence in design is both acceptable and expected. For instance, I'd argue that Jasper & 108, Encore, & CNIB represent the top end of design/quality. I don't expect every project to hit that threshold, but what I do expect is that we maintain a minimum "hurdle" for any tower project impacting our city skyline.

For me personally, a tower project with blank walls, small punched windows and the use of stucco as a finishing material i below that hurdle. Projects like The Century 1/2, Peregine point, Icon 1/2 & Fox 1/2 are below that hurdle and actually negatively impact our skyline. What concerns me is that it seems like we are still willing to accept sub-par product in the form of Langham's next project, Falcon 1/2: Another stucco laden form but this time very much exposed as the face of our Southern skyline...

I believe this project's use of materials alone set's it well above the sub-par projects I just mentioned...
 
I value your opinion, @Hqcan, I honestly do -- but what you are describing vis-a-vis materials is akin to lipstick on a pig. I am more focused on functionality and that's where EM falls short. The finishes could be gold and silver and it still doesn't change the missed opportunity -- especially for a two-block high density site that could have been so-so-so much more.
 
archited said:
I value your opinion, @Hqcan, I honestly do -- but what you are describing vis-a-vis materials is akin to lipstick on a pig. I am more focused on functionality and that's where EM falls short. The finishes could be gold and silver and it still doesn't change the missed opportunity -- especially for a two-block high density site that could have been so-so-so much more.
Click to expand...
Don't worry, it will be a tear down in 50 years and we will fix it then. ?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top