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

[archited]

@Daveography -- a couple of further thoughts: 1.Planners seem to miss altogether the fact that viability of retail/hospitality in the base of such towers is greatly enhanced with density of the structure above. 2. Parking becomes more of a static concern if you can walk to your shopping/entertainment venues (a counter-argument for increasing parking in core buildings -- or any main street development for that matter). I here you on the <100%. In today's architectural meme, there are many more exciting possibilities, but Regency seems to be taking steps (baby steps) in the right direction. For a rental structure this solution is not bad at all.

 

[Daveography]

Via @IanO:

You have expressed an interest in receiving a summary of the input/comments collected at the March 3, 2016 Public Open House for LDA15-0459, proposes to amend the Oliver Area Redevelopment Plan and Rezone 11350-Jasper Avenue NW to allow for the development of a 160 metre tall mixed-use tower. Enclosed is the summary report for your information.

I would also like to take this opportunity to provide a quick update on file status.

The applicant has made a number of changes to the proposed DC2 provision after the March 3 Public Open House to address some of the comments received, including:
1. allowing only 1 Bar and Neighbourhood Pub establishment within the development, with a maximum of 250 occupants and 300 sq m of Public Space;
2. limiting the Restaurant and Specialty Food Services uses to a maximum of 250 occupants and 300 sq m of Public Space;
3. adding a clause to required articulation at the tower top to provide visual interest and reduce massing effects;
4. increasing the minimum amount to be directed towards the design and construction of the glass art wall on the podium facade from $ 50,000 to $150, 000;
5. revising the appendices to show the location, size and the concept design of the art glass wall.

 

[Daveography]

Rezoning for this one is up at Council on June 13: http://sirepub.edmonton.ca/sirepub/mtgviewer.aspx?meetid=1683&doctype=AGENDA

The 0.29 hectare subject site is located at the northeast corner of 114 Street NW and Jasper Avenue NW within the Oliver Area Redevelopment Sub Area 4. It is currently vacant and zoned Oliver ARP Direct Development Control Provision (DC1 Area 8). The proposed DC2 Provision will facilitate the development of a 160 metre mix-use building with commercial/retail uses at grade, an above grade parkade within the podium and residential uses above the podium. A maximum of 273 dwelling units, maximum FAR of 12.4, and maximum floor plate of 650 square metres are proposed.

The Administration is recommending refusal on the basis that: - the podium frontage on 2nd and 4th floor that face onto Jasper Avenue and 114 Street do not provide an active frontage - the DC2 Provision does not contain development regulations to ensure the illuminated podium façade is sensitive and in character to surrounding Development in the area - the public contributions are inadequate for the size and scale proposed - the proposed DC2 Provision is not supported by the Edmonton Design Committee and the Oliver Community League - and that the DC2 is not refined to an acceptable level

Latest plans and elevations from the agenda:

153m | 46s

 

[archited]

is there any definition of the colored panels on the podium -- are they glass?

 

[Daveography]

@archited Coloured glass, yup. Not unlike Colors condos in Calgary (Uggggghh, only just noticed they spell it the incorrect "American" way, haha), which they actually provided as an example in their application.

Reference:

(Source)

 

[archited]

@Daveography -- I am at fault there, too! Computer set up to discourse with 'Mericans -- so I have to keep a wary eye out for 'mericanisms ;-)

 

[archited]

You know what, @Daveography the coloured glass kinda suits the Mondrian-esque character of the building design -- there is a good rhythm to the colour progression and far better control than the Calgary example. Far better than staring at parking garage voids, IMHO.

 

[archited]

@Daveography -- I filled out the same survey and suggested that the required parking density be dramatically lowered in the core (including Oliver) -- small eateries typically service the local market to a large extent which obviates the need to drive, so much of the regulation governing restaurants underscores redundancy -- same for service outlets and retail. I also suggested getting parking off of the main street to the effect of increasing sidewalks and providing transit and bike lanes.

 

[Daveography]

@archited See Also: Imagine Jasper Avenue:
http://skyrisecities.com/forum/threads/jasper-avenue-new-vision-imagine-jasper-avenue.24692/
http://www.edmonton.ca/transportation/road_projects/imagine-jasper-avenue.aspx

 

[archited]

Thanks for the links @Daveography -- will check them out!

 

[Daveography]

Edmonton city planners oppose 45-storey Oliver tower because it is out of scale for the area
City officials are for the second time this year saying no to a massive residential tower.

The Emerald Tower, planned for Jasper Avenue and 114 Street, would soar 45 storeys and cast a thin shadow all the way to the north end of 104 Avenue’s Oliver Square in the winter.

That’s three times the height currently allowed on the empty lot and double the height of most towers in the residential Oliver neighbourhood. It soars above the four- to six-storey condos north of the site that make this already one of the most dense areas of the city. The rezoning application goes to council June 13 for debate.

Full Story (Edmonton Journal)

 

[AnthonyB]

Is there any chance this will happen?

 

[archited]

Ridiculous… this group at the City is about thirty years behind the times. I am sure that council will pass the proposed plan as is.

 

[Daveography]

Planning is a very much by-the-books department, and as it is, the books have the zoning on that part of Jasper Ave set way too low. I can't fault them for that, council needs to hunker down and make some more sweeping zoning changes in the inner city overall if they want their vision of a more dense and vibrant city to come to fruition.

That said, the city should definitely work with the developer to get some trade-offs if they want this approved: Some larger family-friendly suites, a commitment to some affordable housing, reduced parking requirements (as much on council to allow a relaxed minimum as the developer to be willing to part with some more), and more welcoming retail (as it is it feels a bit like an afterthought).

To answer @AnthonyB's question, I think it could go either way. Honestly I'm on the fence myself - would be ok if approved as-is, but would rather see it come back with some improvements for the benefit of the neighbourhood.

 

[AnthonyB]

We need more projects like this to continue to expand our skyline.

From an economic perspective, why would you turn it down? You've got people willing to invest into our city. Revitalizing downtown is heavily dependent on approving projects like this. More foot traffic more means more money spent which in turn attracts more corporate investments. I'm really hoping they can find a way to make this work.