erudyk_29
Active Member
Thank you! Some sensibility here.Does it provide housing for a lot of people?
Is it located near transit?
This project checks all the boxes for me.
Last edited by a moderator:
Falcon Towers | 170m | 44s | Langham Developments | Arc Studio
- Thread starter Daveography
- Start date
Clearshades
Senior Member
This is why I hear "Deadmonton" quite often.
ChazYEG
Senior Member
Honestly, I've never heard anyone say that because of how our skyline looks. On the flip side, that's pretty much how people define Edmonton from a street level perspe, which hopefully these buildings are going to contribute significantly in changing.
Aaron_Lloyd
Active Member
Imagine the density we could get around transit stations if we just legalize slums! 
I don't think its some horrible thing to want the city to use a modicum of its leverage to impose a higher standard of design and aesthetics on developers like Langham who'll always be looking to save a buck by shortchanging the city on curb appeal.
I don't think its some horrible thing to want the city to use a modicum of its leverage to impose a higher standard of design and aesthetics on developers like Langham who'll always be looking to save a buck by shortchanging the city on curb appeal.
erudyk_29
Active Member
Imagine the density we could get around transit stations if we just legalize slums!
I don't think its some horrible thing to want the city to use a modicum of its leverage to impose a higher standard of design and aesthetics on developers like Langham who'll always be looking to save a buck by shortchanging the city on curb appeal.
Classic example of the slippery slope fallacy
Aaron_Lloyd
Active Member
Classic example of a joke I thought. If all you say you care about is density around transit stations I'd say you're setting the bar too low in my opinion is all I meant by it.
erudyk_29
Active Member
It doesn't matter if it was a joke, you're still trying to justify your position using the slippery slope fallacy. Just because we allow a couple developments that are less than spectacular doesn't mean there is going to a spiral of increasingly awful looking buildings.
_urbanite
Senior Member
Imagine the density we could get around transit stations if we just legalize slums!
I don't think its some horrible thing to want the city to use a modicum of its leverage to impose a higher standard of design and aesthetics on developers like Langham who'll always be looking to save a buck by shortchanging the city on curb appeal.
I personally don't mind the way this one is looking so far. Sure, it's a bit chunky and a bit stark, but the balcony railings havn't been installed yet, and that's going to be a big component of the exterior aestethics. So I think it's a little premature to be writing this one off
Last edited:
You're right. Edmonton went down that path long ago... I jest, I jest. However, the period of stagnant development in the 80s and 90s didn't help the City look less tired, combined with our terrible track record of knocking down historical buildings. It left Edmonton with a lot of buildings from a single era of style.
KreationYEG
Active Member
Would I rather have a building with better aesthetics yes I won't deny that, I don't think theres any one here that would. But this is the option over a vacant parking lot at best I'll take it, and I say that as someone who can see the FOX, ICON, and FALCON towers from my condo. I want more density in the core as with more people comes more amenities. Which is better for the DT core in the in the long run, which should be the goal. There's also a lot more worrying buildings DT to deal with, the condo's that are already 50 years old with a $1200 condo fee's for example.
Last edited:
SMayo
Active Member
I'd bet that the Venn diagram of people who call it Deadmonton, and the people who know this building exists and have an opinion on how it looks is almost two completely separate circles
erudyk_29
Active Member
@westcoastjos Agreed, the glut of modernist / brutalist style architecture is far worse than the Falcon. But still, empty parking lots and pits in the ground are contributing far more to the "Deadmonton" image than a couple meh looking towers
erudyk_29
Active Member
If Falcon was genuinely ugly that would be a different story, but it's not. It's just not particularly interesting, and the idea that everything has to be innovative, cutting edge and fit some high standard of architectural beauty is counter to solving the housing crisis and increasing affordability and consequently the attractiveness of living downtown and in denser areas. Likewise it would also be a different story if there wasn't a desperate need for more housing right now.
Garneau2Go
Active Member
I don't know, I'll stick up for the towers design, they look fine and I want to see what it looks like when it's done and isn't half finished. I like the podium in the render, I like that chevron window thing they've got going, and I imagine the amenities would be nice inside. The design is bland but I much prefer it to some of the alternatives around town...
Moderne
Active Member
I agree with this 100%. Our building boom time was in the 70s, the Brutalist era, and historically it reflected in our skyline a lot. We've got three high rise examples of the post modern era of the 80s (Manulife Place, Commerce Place and Scotia Place), and then absolutely nothing until Epcor Tower came around 20 years later. I know the reality of our market makes it difficult to achieve "world class" developments and design, I just don't like seeing that used as an excuse. Especially when you see Encore and Ultima literally one block east and it makes you go "hmmm", is it our market or is it what the developer is willing to put forth?