Manchester Square | ?m | 2s | 76 Group Co | Gardner Architecture

What do you think of this project?

  • Total voters
    48
Platinum107 said:
That's what I was trying to get at... This project is not a great example of urban design by any means, but it is a step-up for the area and I hope it inspires better designed projects down the line.

I don't really have anything else meaningful to say here, other than as "urban development enthusiasts", we can keep picking on and on at the numerous things this project did wrong and what should've been done instead (I know I can, and I certainly don't agree with 76 Group's leader on the sentiment of “I’ll concentrate on people that love it, as opposed to people that don’t.” -Global News), but have you guys wondered recently about what other normal people think about this? If you didn't that's fine because I'll tell you: A ton of people are loving the look of this project and are eating up every photo opportunity they can get, and I can't blame them! Just search up Manchester Square Edmonton as a Place in Instagram and you'll see countless pictures of people using the place as a photo-op or nighttime shoot. (none of the pics face the parking lot, mind you).

It's fine that we can see all the flaws with this one project, but if we want to see real and effective change, other people besides us have to get involved and demand that projects in our city have great quality and create a strong voice, and I believe that we can set the spark on here! Manchester Square is done already, but with future projects we need people that can be the first voices to demand better urban design, and we can be those people.
Click to expand...
That is just the COVID effect of people not being able to/or wanting to travel to the actual Netherlands. ;)
 
kcantor said:
^
one doesn’t need to “like” this project for its architecture to bring a smile to your face regardless of whether you think it is whimsical or cute or kitschy... regardless of how well it works or not, it works because it is standalone in its attempt to take you somewhere else. trying to do that on whyte or even 109th would be too out of place for the design aesthetic/purpose to work and the setbacks dictated by it being a renovation of an existing building wouldn’t work there anyway.
Click to expand...

so, you’re telling me that whyte ave could not host a single one of these on an empty/dilapidated lot
F883122B-6360-4EB1-B0D6-E3B2BE082B29.jpeg


when stuff like this has recently been approved and built and fits into the community fine?:
ABB57DB4-04DA-47D0-AC05-D252C0DCCDED.jpeg
 
^
sorry - i took your post to be positing the project itself (which sits on a small parcel in relative terms) for white or 109. an individual faux dutch storefront could quite possibly be inserted as successfully as faux edwardian or brutalist or mid-century modern...
 
kcantor said:
i wish we could get as outraged about main floor windows turned into billboards courtesy of vinyl wrap on everything from enterprise square to the edmonton tower to the new arena to our neighborhood banks and dental clinics and massage therapists and drug store and fast food outlet...
Click to expand...

...I think a lot of us are?

kcantor said:
every cannabis store in the city occupies space that has secured development permits and building permits calling for clear storefront and then we say "you can't go in there because the windows are transparent and somebody might see your customers or your product"
Click to expand...

That's not voluntary, it's due to municipal or provincial regulations (I can't recall which exactly at the moment); and there actually is a call to change it as it is making the stores less safe for their staff.
 
Okay, folks, what I take from reading everyone`s opinion on this project, over the past few days, is:
1 - I agree with all of you that believe this is tacky and not a particularly inspired piece of architecture, especially for a central and prominent area of the city.
2 - I don`t agree that it would`ve been better if we had left it as it was. As @Platinum107 said, I`ll take this development over that old Brick warehouse 11 out of 10 times.
3 - I honestly believe that it being just another strip mall with more parking area than retail/amenities area is just sad, for that part of town and, linking into the previous point, it`s kind of bittersweet, as it`s an improvement, but a really poor one, compared to what could`ve been done, even if the developer wanted to keep the faux-Amsterdam look.

Now, I don`t like car oriented developments at all and I personally believe Edmonton would be better off if years ago we`d moved away from it, as we would be seeing the fruits of this change now. The more we delay such change in our way of developing, in the city, the harder it`s going to be to change in the future. The results of having this mindset are discussed all around this forum: our ~dead downtown core, the dozens of "for lease" signs in storefronts all over the city... Not to mention how the spread made planning and executing good public transportation alternatives hard and expensive, thus making the Transit system costlier and the fares higher than they needed to be.
That said, I don`t think that this particular location would be welcoming to a retail development without parking, just because as of now (and for the foreseeable future), density and foot traffic in the area don`t provide enough support for a business to be successful thereby themselves.
My biggest quarrel with this project, as a matter of fact, is how it intends to look European but captures absolutely nothing of what actually makes European cities and their streets so attractive and there would`ve been ways to actually have a bit more of an European feel to it without giving away parking spaces:
I) Underground parking with a big plaza on top, with landscaping, space for tables live performances, etc...(and I understand that this would be extremely expensive).
II) Less parking, placed behind the building, with lateral storefronts facing 120th street and a small plaza in the front on the stores facing 107 avenue.
II) Inverted the L shape of the building to have all of the storefronts facing 107th av. and 120th street, with large sidewalks and landscaping, and all of the parking space they have in the back, hidden.

All of these would`ve made it feel more integrated to the street, more pedestrian oriented and a lot more "European", even if the goofy architecture isn`t convincing, at least it would be a 'good' kind of goofy, like the ones we have on Disneyland or something, not this Frankenstein of a project, that doesn`t accomplish anything it`s meant to.
 
Until we agree on some basic precepts, I think arguments pro and con will be elusive to central agreement.
1. On traffic solutions there needs to be an understanding that automobiles are not going away. For my profession and all forms of engineering, design, and construction (not to mention many other professional forms of service) we need the "luxury" of being able to go to site meetings that are (most often as not) not served by public transportation. Very often meetings are called on short notice and need a rather speedy resolution to some problem or other. Tech is resolving some of that concern, but not all -- I could recite copious examples where being without a command vehicle would be greatly disadvantageous. So thinking that the primacy of automobiles is going to fade is self-delusion. Rather a more equitable balance is called for that includes -- as we are now beginning to see in great profusion -- all manner of two-wheeled vehicles, whether self-propelled or motorized; a comfortable and efficient mass transportation system that expresses a great and tremendous delineation in forms and types -- some related to local use, some characterized by cross-city use, and some regional and long-range types, and other forms that are related simply to relaxation and self-enjoyment.
2. On architecture and design we should always be looking for "better" solutions. The very fact that projects such as choke-choke Manchester and Churchill Library are so contentious in the extreme means that we might have found better solutions and they therefore deserve to be criticized for their failures. Certainly location and relevance are factors in the urban landscape. But -- and this is not a generalization -- poor solutions should be called out and dragged to the town square for due punishment (chuckle, chuckle) so that they are less frequently repeated. Can I get an "AMEN!"
 
^^
I’m not much into “amens” but there’s not much to argue about in your post overall. other than your equating two projects that are not at all similar. ignoring their scale and their location and their ownership they are still polar opposites despite their both being contentious here there are two major differences. (1) is the public response (only one is widely contentious) and (2) one is felt to be flawed in its design architecture but is acknowledged as at least being well executed while the other is flawed in both its architecture and its execution. the library is receiving some kudos for the execution of its interiors, assessing manchester square for its interiors will need to wait for its tenants to be secured and their execution of their premises.
 
Last edited:
archited said:
Until we agree on some basic precepts, I think arguments pro and con will be elusive to central agreement.
1. On traffic solutions there needs to be an understanding that automobiles are not going away. For my profession and all forms of engineering, design, and construction (not to mention many other professional forms of service) we need the "luxury" of being able to go to site meetings that are (most often as not) not served by public transportation. Very often meetings are called on short notice and need a rather speedy resolution to some problem or other. Tech is resolving some of that concern, but not all -- I could recite copious examples where being without a command vehicle would be greatly disadvantageous. So thinking that the primacy of automobiles is going to fade is self-delusion. Rather a more equitable balance is called for that includes -- as we are now beginning to see in great profusion -- all manner of two-wheeled vehicles, whether self-propelled or motorized; a comfortable and efficient mass transportation system that expresses a great and tremendous delineation in forms and types -- some related to local use, some characterized by cross-city use, and some regional and long-range types, and other forms that are related simply to relaxation and self-enjoyment.
2. On architecture and design we should always be looking for "better" solutions. The very fact that projects such as choke-choke Manchester and Churchill Library are so contentious in the extreme means that we might have found better solutions and they therefore deserve to be criticized for their failures. Certainly location and relevance are factors in the urban landscape. But -- and this is not a generalization -- poor solutions should be called out and dragged to the town square for due punishment (chuckle, chuckle) so that they are less frequently repeated. Can I get an "AMEN!"
Click to expand...
Amen! A-MEN!
 
archited said:
Until we agree on some basic precepts, I think arguments pro and con will be elusive to central agreement.
1. On traffic solutions there needs to be an understanding that automobiles are not going away. For my profession and all forms of engineering, design, and construction (not to mention many other professional forms of service) we need the "luxury" of being able to go to site meetings that are (most often as not) not served by public transportation. Very often meetings are called on short notice and need a rather speedy resolution to some problem or other. Tech is resolving some of that concern, but not all -- I could recite copious examples where being without a command vehicle would be greatly disadvantageous. So thinking that the primacy of automobiles is going to fade is self-delusion. Rather a more equitable balance is called for that includes -- as we are now beginning to see in great profusion -- all manner of two-wheeled vehicles, whether self-propelled or motorized; a comfortable and efficient mass transportation system that expresses a great and tremendous delineation in forms and types -- some related to local use, some characterized by cross-city use, and some regional and long-range types, and other forms that are related simply to relaxation and self-enjoyment.
2. On architecture and design we should always be looking for "better" solutions. The very fact that projects such as choke-choke Manchester and Churchill Library are so contentious in the extreme means that we might have found better solutions and they therefore deserve to be criticized for their failures. Certainly location and relevance are factors in the urban landscape. But -- and this is not a generalization -- poor solutions should be called out and dragged to the town square for due punishment (chuckle, chuckle) so that they are less frequently repeated. Can I get an "AMEN!"
Click to expand...

i mean, people need to get to meetings quickly in manhattan and central london and hong kong and so forth. obviously, edmonton is not either of those cities. saying we need to get places quickly and public transit doesn‘t always work for this is true. but saying these things and then just doubling down on cars does nothing to fix the situation..

for some things, cars are absolutely useful and far more so than any other mode of transport, but we simply don’t need them for 99% of activities we partake in except for the fact that they have been so strongly prioritized for decades and our built environment reflects this. because of this failure of transportation policy, driving isn‘t even a choice people make; people simply look at the options available and realize driving is the only convenient way for traversing most of edmonton or like cities. we still have a very long way to go before our streets are more equitable and able to be designated as complete streets in most cases.
 
Some individual elements of quality are beginning to show up in this development -- sad to say that my vote is going up a notch (like my vote is SO important). And it could go up another notch if the developer used some imagination on the broad sidewalk fronting the shops.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top