Grandin 4 | 23m | 6s | Westrich Pacific | J+S Architect
- Thread starter Daveography
- Start date
Kaizen
Senior Member
Are those new renders @thommyjo - thank you. This proposal does look nice and will suit the neighbourhood well. The boxed-in balconies add some design interest, plus a lot of privacy for sure. I like this current offering, but admittingly do wish that it was still a tower. Big cities vista nerd in me is still waiting for the skyline south of the river to pop!
Member Bio
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2015
- Messages
- 10,217
- Reaction score
- 23,092
- Location
- Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
thommyjo
Senior Member
Yeah, sorry, this is what was proposed as condos for cx grandin, which is now a rental tower.
But I shared to show what I'd love grandin 4 to be instead. Mass timber is so great. If we build under 12 stories, id love it to be projects like this
strata
Active Member
It got approved. And it launched with significant marketing behind it. But the sales were very slow and they needed to pivot because there were not enough presales to go through with the project.
For all the talk of people saying "we need more Missing Middle" and stacked townhomes downtown, there weren't a lot of people lining up to actually purchase one when a project like this came along.
TAS
Senior Member
I showed up to their sales launch and I really loved this project and location. It came down to the cost and price per square foot that I didn't buy.
Platinum107
Senior Member
@strata The reason why that specific project didn't have much initial interest is more complex than "there isn't interest in missing middle", such as what TAS said with the price per square foot and probably other reasons like the market at the time. Edmonton is still in the process of trying to escape the suburban "curse" it feel into for a long time due to lazy and lackluster city planning and which has left a mark on what many people view as a "good place to buy", and while at the moment people might not be turning out in droves for projects like these, more interest will build over time me thinks!
thommyjo
Senior Member
Ya. I visited their city center presentation center. It was great. The location was mixed. Grandin is beautiful and the shopping center accross the street is convenient. But most condos within a few blocks sell 180-300. So the price point was a big leap ahead. That area doesn't quite command that value yet sadly.
Makes me wonder...do we need more master planned large developments? I'm think of the work concord did in Vancouver and Toronto. Individual towers are less exposed to the uncontrolled realities of their settings and more so become a small part of a huge overhaul of an entire area. The hat or quarters tower makes me think of this. Boyle/quarters will still be what it is, even with 2 or 3 new towers. But a developer coming in and building 12 towers and a park and school...that changes everything and gives them better control over the value.
I'm assuming no one wants to risk big developments here though. Ice district was the only attempt at that really and they've done average if not struggled.
Makes me wonder...do we need more master planned large developments? I'm think of the work concord did in Vancouver and Toronto. Individual towers are less exposed to the uncontrolled realities of their settings and more so become a small part of a huge overhaul of an entire area. The hat or quarters tower makes me think of this. Boyle/quarters will still be what it is, even with 2 or 3 new towers. But a developer coming in and building 12 towers and a park and school...that changes everything and gives them better control over the value.
I'm assuming no one wants to risk big developments here though. Ice district was the only attempt at that really and they've done average if not struggled.
strata
Active Member
@Platinum107
I think what we both would like to see is the same thing, but I am not sure continuing to blame the suburbs makes a lot of sense.
People continue to pay over $700K for a skinny in Westmount even though that $700K would get them a LOT more in the suburbs. Here is an idea: if we want more people to live in the core, let's focus on the housing products they actually want to purchase instead of telling them what they REALLY want is to live in a townhouse
I think what we both would like to see is the same thing, but I am not sure continuing to blame the suburbs makes a lot of sense.
People continue to pay over $700K for a skinny in Westmount even though that $700K would get them a LOT more in the suburbs. Here is an idea: if we want more people to live in the core, let's focus on the housing products they actually want to purchase instead of telling them what they REALLY want is to live in a townhouse
cmd uw
Active Member
Absolutely agree. Blaming the suburbs is easy. But at the end of the day 'consumers' make their own choices. If there's a specific housing product that is not available in the neighbourhood they like they'll seek alternatives either sacrificing location or housing type.
Platinum107
Senior Member
@strata @cmd uw
^I'm saying that that the "normal" suburbs (single houses, cul-de-sacs, etc.) are a symptom of bad city planning, not the cause of it. I'm not blaming the symptoms for getting the illness, per say.
^You're right about people having the freedom of choice, and if the burbs is truly what they want at heart then all power to them. However, I just personally think that what most people want is conditioned over time through their own life experience and what viable options are available. For example, If 95% of the housing market in your town and city is single-detached homes, and you live in one that your parents bought who lived under one which your grandparents bought and so on, then you've most likely been conditioned to believe that's the only right option for you and your future family. Now, if more options are available to someone (and good options) for living in a more compact and urban space, and if that person is close to people who live in these spaces or were raised in one themselves, then their experience is broadened and they can contemplate different options for themselves and/or their future family. If they are still set on the suburbs then that's fine, but at least they can make an educated choice. If that's right or wrong is up to you, but isn't that train of thought logical nonetheless?
^I'm saying that that the "normal" suburbs (single houses, cul-de-sacs, etc.) are a symptom of bad city planning, not the cause of it. I'm not blaming the symptoms for getting the illness, per say.
^You're right about people having the freedom of choice, and if the burbs is truly what they want at heart then all power to them. However, I just personally think that what most people want is conditioned over time through their own life experience and what viable options are available. For example, If 95% of the housing market in your town and city is single-detached homes, and you live in one that your parents bought who lived under one which your grandparents bought and so on, then you've most likely been conditioned to believe that's the only right option for you and your future family. Now, if more options are available to someone (and good options) for living in a more compact and urban space, and if that person is close to people who live in these spaces or were raised in one themselves, then their experience is broadened and they can contemplate different options for themselves and/or their future family. If they are still set on the suburbs then that's fine, but at least they can make an educated choice. If that's right or wrong is up to you, but isn't that train of thought logical nonetheless?
Platinum107
Senior Member
About the whole skinny homes thing: Of course it's more expensive there than in the burbs! In a nice old area of the city like Westmount an alright quality 1950's-60's bungalow will go for around 300-400k (with good market conditions). Now take a narrow-lot home, a brand-new build with more square-footage and you can start to see how it compares. It's even more clear if you realize that same 700k skinny home would go for around 1.2-1.4 mil if it were doubled into a full-size two-storey house (with good market conditions). In the end it all comes down to what you want, right? A 2 storey home or duplex unit on the periphery of the city with similar square footage to a skinny home in the core would probs be around 200-300k, and if someone values that price over the location then there you go 
thommyjo
Senior Member
I'm a bit confused by this sorry. I might have misread. But are you saying "if we want people to live in the core, we need to give them things they want, but what they don't want is a townhouse"? Are you thinking people want condos over townhouses? Or the other way, bigger detached homes? Cause the core will never have big detached homes, that's what causes the sprawl.
Which housing product do you think people want? Or are you suggesting we need better quality condos to attract people to the core?
strata
Active Member
Can't say I agree with your 2nd point.
Edmonton has seen a massive amount of immigration over the past few years from Asian countries where density is very much what they are used to. And yet, you have seen the majority of those people choosing to live in the suburbs. One of the most attractive parts of immigrating to Edmonton is the ability to live in a ground oriented home. The appeal to owning a small piece of heaven in the form of a backyard is not something that is reserved for any particular family from any particular background.
And once they are settled in, and the time for the "educated choice" you refer to, they stay there more often than not.
strata
Active Member
About the whole skinny homes thing: Of course it's more expensive there than in the burbs! In a nice old area of the city like Westmount an alright quality 1950's-60's bungalow will go for around 300-400k (with good market conditions). Now take a narrow-lot home, a brand-new build with more square-footage and you can start to see how it compares. It's even more clear if you realize that same 700k skinny home would go for around 1.2-1.4 mil if it were doubled into a full-size two-storey house (with good market conditions). In the end it all comes down to what you want, right? A 2 storey home or duplex unit on the periphery of the city with similar square footage to a skinny home in the core would probs be around 200-300k, and if someone values that price over the location then there you go
Sorry if I was unclear, but the point I was trying to make was that people flocking to the suburbs solely for the affordable price is not accurate when people are willing to pay $700K for a skinny (or $1.2M for a full infill on a normal lot) in a mature neighborhood (because they still see the value in it).