Horne and Pitfield Building Redevelopment | ?m | ?s | Limak Investments

IanO

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 23, 2015
Messages
5,018
Reaction score
18,476
A very talented designer (now architect) once suggested this...

storageWK- square.jpg
 

Platinum107

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 25, 2017
Messages
1,297
Reaction score
5,097
Location
Edmonton

MCXavierL

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 7, 2011
Messages
397
Reaction score
2,463
Location
Edmonton, AB
From the June 15, 2021 EDC meeting minutes (motion of support w/the following conditions):

The Committee encourages the Applicant to explore preserving, retaining and incorporating as much of the existing building into the proposed design.
● If the west facade of the existing building must be reconstructed, the Committee encourages the Applicant to relocate the reconstructed west facade in a manner that minimizes encroachment on the sidewalk frontage zone.
● If the podium incorporates a new south facade, the Committee feels that the design of this facade should not be a duplication of surrounding buildings. The design of the south facade of the podium should relate to the architectural patterns/forms, articulation and rhythm of the historic building facades and surrounding building/ facade context.
● The Committee encourages the Applicant to enhance the private driveway along the northern boundary with high quality paving materials (eg. unit pavers), pedestrian lighting, landscaping and minimal grade transitions (eg. curbs)
● While the Committee appreciates that the proponent is attempting to design a tower that is differentiated from and defers to the podium, the Committee Edmonton Design Committee encourages the proponent to revisit the mass and articulation of the tower to minimize the visual weight and dramatic variation in the appearance of the tower as it rise, and in particular the extended balconies. The Committee encourages the Applicant to consider the use of inset balconies to reduce the visual mass of the tower.
 

ChazYEG

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 17, 2020
Messages
1,396
Reaction score
6,286
Location
Edmonton
From the June 15, 2021 EDC meeting minutes (motion of support w/the following conditions):

The Committee encourages the Applicant to explore preserving, retaining and incorporating as much of the existing building into the proposed design.
● If the west facade of the existing building must be reconstructed, the Committee encourages the Applicant to relocate the reconstructed west facade in a manner that minimizes encroachment on the sidewalk frontage zone.
● If the podium incorporates a new south facade, the Committee feels that the design of this facade should not be a duplication of surrounding buildings. The design of the south facade of the podium should relate to the architectural patterns/forms, articulation and rhythm of the historic building facades and surrounding building/ facade context.
● The Committee encourages the Applicant to enhance the private driveway along the northern boundary with high quality paving materials (eg. unit pavers), pedestrian lighting, landscaping and minimal grade transitions (eg. curbs)
● While the Committee appreciates that the proponent is attempting to design a tower that is differentiated from and defers to the podium, the Committee Edmonton Design Committee encourages the proponent to revisit the mass and articulation of the tower to minimize the visual weight and dramatic variation in the appearance of the tower as it rise, and in particular the extended balconies. The Committee encourages the Applicant to consider the use of inset balconies to reduce the visual mass of the tower.
Summarizing:
Preserve more of the original building (good)
Make the tower a boring glass shoebox (typical EDC).
 

Macroman520

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 11, 2020
Messages
57
Reaction score
272
Location
Edmonton
Make the tower a boring glass shoebox (typical EDC).
Their specific advice is bad, but the tower as it looks now is like two different buildings stacked together. The transition is too jarring, as if they started from the top and then ran out of budget before reaching the bottom. I'd be much happier with it if its design were more consistent over its entire height. I actually quite like the look of the upper portion with the extended balconies, more of that please!
 

EtoV

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 6, 2019
Messages
243
Reaction score
1,205
^I agree but it's not EDC's job to comment on whether or not this project should happen, just comment on this specific design. Having EDC say "this proposal shouldn't happen and they should retain the structural components of the building" is way out of their scope, is it not?
 

IanO

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 23, 2015
Messages
5,018
Reaction score
18,476
Agreed; that's not their place... point being that the EDC comments above still leave me asking why this committee cannot have more teeth when it comes to character buildings and require more from the applicant in terms of preservation/restoration.

My comment above your post is directed at P&D and the applicant.
 

MCXavierL

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 7, 2011
Messages
397
Reaction score
2,463
Location
Edmonton, AB
Indeed @IanO, about the teeth. They are really there to provide recommendations. I sat in on the last two meetings and was the only member of the public. During a lull in the meeting they asked me for my feedback and I noted what you said - that their role could be strengthened.

I encourage others to request invites if you're interested. There isn't supposed to be any interaction with the public normally, but it's interesting to watch and listen to their recommendations.


Important changes to upcoming EDC meetings:

Until further notice, future meetings will be conducted virtually. Members of the public can take part in meetings by contacting us at edmontondesigncommittee@edmonton.ca or 780-508-9503.
 

EtoV

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 6, 2019
Messages
243
Reaction score
1,205
Agreed; that's not their place... point being that the EDC comments above still leave me asking why this committee cannot have more teeth when it comes to character buildings and require more from the applicant in terms of preservation/restoration.

My comment above your post is directed at P&D and the applicant.
Seems like a separate discussion for a Heritage Panel or other Advisory Panel. Ideally you would be getting two sets of comments for this project.

1. From a Heritage Panel indicating the importance of retaining this buildings structure, whether this development should happen at all, ways the applicant can preserve the sites heritage etc.
2. From EDC, which would essentially be the comments they gave, indicating IF this project was to go ahead in this form, what their recommendations would be, without commenting if it should happen.

Otherwise you get scope creep, and you suddenly have architects and landscape architects giving their own personal opinions on Housing issues, the validity of heritage preservation, whether we should be developing Downtown at all, etc. I think its good to make sure designers stick to design issues, and have other panels for other issues if they are necessary.

I say this because it happened in Vancouver with some Advisory Design Panel members recently being against a project happening DT Vancouver because "there's already enough people living downtown".

Edit: Although that Vancouver example is more of an issue of Council allowing designers to comment on other aspects of a project, I think the point remains that designers should stick to commenting on specific design issues.
 

Top