Emerald Tower | 153.61m | 45s | Regency Developments | DER + Associates

[Edward Skira]

I like the base but am not sure about the tower. Looks like a lot of different ideas going on at the same time.

 

[archited]

Are there new and different design releases?

 

[Daveography]

@archited Not likely at the point.

I have opinions but I'm holding myself back a bit because reasons.

 

[Daveography]

EDC Aug. 15:

B.2. Emerald Tower
Der + Associates - Jimmy Amichandwala
P. Spearey read the comments of the Development Planner.
MOVED: C. Craig Motion of Non-support
The Committee has noted the following:
● No lighting plan has been provided. This is of particular importance given the requirement in the DC2 text for decorative lighting to accentuate tower elements, and to highlight the development at night time and winter months (5.5.a).
● There is a lack of clarity regarding the architectural treatment of the undersides of balconies.
● Weather protection required in the DC2 text (5.4.c) should be provided continuously along main floor retail frontages.
● Poor resolution of rear loading area with sufficient means to service the CRUs
● A lack of direct pedestrian access from the rear loading / parking area to the CRUs. Most importantly, it is the opinion of the Committee that certain elements of the architectural design as illustrated in the DC2 appendix need to be carried forward to improve this design:
● Greater integration of colour and materials (eg. coloured glass) between the base, podium and tower.
● Greater articulation of main floor commercial entrances, providing increased variety and interest in the overall streetscape.
● Greater architectural relief within the podium facade to reduce visual mass.
● Greater emphasis on vertical elements (ie. vertical rather than horizontal glass panels) to reduce the apparent length of podium.
● Greater variation in glass colour.
SECONDED: T. Antoniuk
CARRIED
FOR THE MOTION: C. Craig, A. Zepp, M. Figueira, D. Deshpande,W. Sims, T. Antoniuk, S. Kaznacheeva

https://www.edmonton.ca/city_government/documents/PDF/EDCMinutesAug15.pdf

 

[Jarodsc17]

What does this mean?

 

[Daveography]

@Jarodsc17 It means EDC does not support the Development Permit. That doesn't mean it won't be issued, but the opinion is weighed by the Development Officer when deciding to issue or not.

 

[Jarodsc17]

Okay, I really like this project, so I hopped that it would still get built.

 

[Daveography]

Looks like it got a bit of refinement.

(Regency via http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/bank-of-montreal-edmonton-regency-1.4485756)

 

[quit]

A bit?? Lol.

 

[Daveography]

Certainly looks cleaner, though I suspect it will be more spandrel than it appears in that render. And that weird "missing mass" 2/3 of the way up is just odd. But the issue was always more the ground-level than the tower.

 

[tele75]

Well, for what its worth, it's better.

 

[quit]

Certainly looks cleaner, though I suspect it will be more spandrel than it appears in that render. And that weird "missing mass" 2/3 of the way up is just odd. But the issue was always more the ground-level than the tower.

Indeed. Only thing I think of is an amenities floor. Glad they got rid of the crazy colour scheme going all the way up the tower.

 

[cpnfantstk]

Certainly looks cleaner, though I suspect it will be more spandrel than it appears in that render. And that weird "missing mass" 2/3 of the way up is just odd. But the issue was always more the ground-level than the tower.

I like the cleaner look. Felt the original was too busy and the upper portion looked like it flaired out which I don't like. Did they get a development permit for this to go forward yet ?

 

[Daveography]

@cpnfantstk Not yet, haven't seen a reapplication to EDC yet.

 

[Airboy]

Devlin has an Excavator sitting on the Emerald Site this morning.

The back alley is marked quite heavily for utilities as well.