Falcon Towers | 170m | 44s | Langham Developments | Arc Studio

What do you think of this project?

  • Total voters
    62
1000003038.jpg
 
It will cover mostly, but, at our rate basing from since the oil boom, that might take -at minimal- another 30 years. On a former site 'C2E', I championed a reduction of this proposal to a maximum 35 floors for the reason you stated. I'm not claiming any credits for it, but thank God it changed this developer's mind with the initial 176 m for the taller tower to 37 floors.
 
There are easily 20 lots that need mid-high rise towers tomorrow to get Downtown to a more 'complete' state. Unfortunately, this will likely require another generation before that is accomplished.
 
I think what's being missed here is that even though this building isn't the most compelling looking (and some might even say ugly), it is still a net positive for the city. It's adding a significant amount of new housing downtown, it's getting rid of a parking lot eyesore, it's something that's actually getting built... (often a lot to ask for in Edmonton).

The reason cities like Vancouver, Toronto, Calgary, etc are able to build so many nice new residential buildings downtown is because the pressure on the housing market there is through the roof. Developers can charge significantly more per square meter for rent, condo prices, etc. So naturally are able to use more expensive, higher quality materials and have a greater degree of architectural experimentation in their projects.

It is a good thing that developers can still build a project like this in the city. Even though some of us (including me) might think it looks a little dull. It means the city hasn't fallen to the housing crunch (yet), and that the city, even downtown is still generally affordable, which is something that can't be said for those other three.

It's not going to be tall enough that it will significantly impact the skyline too much, and as @Seamusmuldrew says, it's likely going to become less prominent as the area around it fills in.

Positives:
- New housing downtown, and all the other positive externalities that come with it
- Gets rid of a parking lot
- Helps downtown fill in more

Negatives:
- Its boring looking and somewhat ugly

I'm not sure what else there is to say...

We can all agree it's not exactly the most attractive building, but anyone arguing it shouldn't have been built because its not a looker is missing the forest for the trees. Likewise, for if we start sending developers back to the drawing board every time they propose a slightly subpar building, pretty quickly projects will start to dry up.

We don't need to rehash this, we all known that certain people really hate this building because it's kind of ugly. I hate to break it to you, but it's getting built whether you like it or not, so try to look on the bright side and see the good it's doing for the city.
 
@erudyk_29 wait until the building is finished before passing judgement -- don't be misled by some of the wannabe critics on this site who pipe off without much accreditation to their names.
 
erudyk_29 said:
I think what's being missed here is that even though this building isn't the most compelling looking (and some might even say ugly), it is still a net positive for the city. It's adding a significant amount of new housing downtown, it's getting rid of a parking lot eyesore, it's something that's actually getting built... (often a lot to ask for in Edmonton).

The reason cities like Vancouver, Toronto, Calgary, etc are able to build so many nice new residential buildings downtown is because the pressure on the housing market there is through the roof. Developers can charge significantly more per square meter for rent, condo prices, etc. So naturally are able to use more expensive, higher quality materials and have a greater degree of architectural experimentation in their projects.

It is a good thing that developers can still build a project like this in the city. Even though some of us (including me) might think it looks a little dull. It means the city hasn't fallen to the housing crunch (yet), and that the city, even downtown is still generally affordable, which is something that can't be said for those other three.

It's not going to be tall enough that it will significantly impact the skyline too much, and as @Seamusmuldrew says, it's likely going to become less prominent as the area around it fills in.

Positives:
- New housing downtown, and all the other positive externalities that come with it
- Gets rid of a parking lot
- Helps downtown fill in more

Negatives:
- Its boring looking and somewhat ugly

I'm not sure what else there is to say...

We can all agree it's not exactly the most attractive building, but anyone arguing it shouldn't have been built because its not a looker is missing the forest for the trees. Likewise, for if we start sending developers back to the drawing board every time they propose a slightly subpar building, pretty quickly projects will start to dry up.

We don't need to rehash this, we all known that certain people really hate this building because it's kind of ugly. I hate to break it to you, but it's getting built whether you like it or not, so try to look on the bright side and see the good it's doing for the city.
Click to expand...
I agree whole heartedly that the tower has contributions. I am just perturbed that simple minor articulations, AT NO EXTRA COSTS, due to lack of creativity or foresight prevented a tower from looking more than the presently dull offerings. This was mine concern when it was finalized for exteriors prior to hard construction.
 
MacLac said:
View attachment 553923

Is it weird that Falcon 2 has been "cropped" out of this rendering on the Falcon website? I'm sure it's just to "highlight" Falcon 1 as some potential renters might be confused......
Click to expand...
Could be to avoid confusion, or maybe they have been reading all the constructive criticism here and are redesigning Falcon 2?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top