Stationlands Residential Towers | 90m | 25s | Qualico | DIALOG

What do you think of this project?

  • Total voters
    54
The_Cat said:
Given the number of people working or living there, the pedway might make better sense than hundreds of people walking by the RAM.
Click to expand...
Something that is not discussed enough is that while we do need more street level presence, we are a winter city 6 months of the year. This tower and EPCOR tower are on a downtown island on the north side of 104th ave not connected to anything in the core. If this tower goes ahead, 6 months of the year the winter conditions aren't great for hundreds (or 5,000 in the case of Sohi's count?) walking across 6 lanes of unplowed roads and sidewalks to get to the nearest LRT station or office building. When I lived in downtown Toronto, I used to take the underground pedway system from my condo to my office everyday when it was either cold or had 3 feet of snowfall which made the walk difficult, as did thousands of others...and there are less cold and snowy days there. Conversely, on nice days the rest of the year, it was nice to walk outside to the nearest office or train station and I would often skip the indoor walk. While the intentions to have more outdoor walking street presence in Edmonton are applauded, my perspective is that the reality of Edmonton is that it is cold, windy and snowy many days throughout the winter and pedways are a legitimate result of our climate.
 
Last edited:
The whole of Carleton University's campus in Ottawa is connected by underground pedway. Certainly the aesthetics of the underground system should be highlighted but not the rationale of its very existence in the first place. And it would be nice if there were more retail and hospitality projects built into the equation.
 
CaptainBL said:
Something that is not discussed enough is that while we do need more street level presence, we are a winter city 6 months of the year. This tower and EPCOR tower are on a downtown island on the north side of 104th ave not connected to anything in the core. If this tower goes ahead, 6 months of the year the winter conditions aren't great for hundreds (or 5,000 in the case of Sohi's count?) walking across 6 lanes of unplowed roads and sidewalks to get to the nearest LRT station or office building. When I lived in downtown Toronto, I used to take the underground pedway system from my condo to my office everyday when it was either cold or had 3 feet of snowfall which made the walk difficult, as did thousands of others...and there are less cold and snowy days there. Conversely, on nice days the rest of the year, it was nice to walk outside to the nearest office or train station and I would often skip the indoor walk. While the intentions to have more outdoor walking street presence in Edmonton are applauded, my perspective is that the reality of Edmonton is that it is cold, windy and snowy many days throughout the winter and pedways are a legitimate result of our climate.
Click to expand...
Everyone should love and embrace winter all the time. ;)

/s

I think a balanced approach is important and crucial in good policy development. Acknowledging that there are people that cannot traverse a winter city is important (those with mobility disabilities). Pedway development helps those people and others, yet acknowledging and encouraging good street level interaction is important too. Presenting issues as this or that is dangerous and comes off as cynical.
 
Sellig said:
In fact, work already started on the site ... nobody (unless you work there) can see it. Half the parkage on Level 3 (probably Level 4 too) was boarded. It seems that they need to re-enforce it to put the Towers over it.
Click to expand...
Don't think they need to reinforce (it was already built for that afaik), I believe that work is being done now to prep the parkade for expansion to the east.
 
EtoV said:
I agree with Salvador on all counts here.
Click to expand...
I think that is a good way to put it
CaptainBL said:
Something that is not discussed enough is that while we do need more street level presence, we are a winter city 6 months of the year. This tower and EPCOR tower are on a downtown island on the north side of 104th ave not connected to anything in the core. If this tower goes ahead, 6 months of the year the winter conditions aren't great for hundreds (or 5,000 in the case of Sohi's count?) walking across 6 lanes of unplowed roads and sidewalks to get to the nearest LRT station or office building. When I lived in downtown Toronto, I used to take the underground pedway system from my condo to my office everyday when it was either cold or had 3 feet of snowfall which made the walk difficult, as did thousands of others...and there are less cold and snowy days there. Conversely, on nice days the rest of the year, it was nice to walk outside to the nearest office or train station and I would often skip the indoor walk. While the intentions to have more outdoor walking street presence in Edmonton are applauded, my perspective is that the reality of Edmonton is that it is cold, windy and snowy many days throughout the winter and pedways are a legitimate result of our climate.
Click to expand...
Normally, we are not so snowy and slushy, but this winter might be one very similar to what Toronto gets, except of course colder too. I agree, not great to have to walk outside on the snow covered, or icy sidewalks. So, I could see the pedway as a great feature to attract people to this building. It is close to downtown, so this makes that an advantage.

Yes, we should "embrace" winter, but some days we just want to get somewhere quickly without falling or freezing.
 
David A said:
I think that is a good way to put it

Normally, we are not so snowy and slushy, but this winter might be one very similar to what Toronto gets, except of course colder too. I agree, not great to have to walk outside on the snow covered, or icy sidewalks. So, I could see the pedway as a great feature to attract people to this building. It is close to downtown, so this makes that an advantage.

Yes, we should "embrace" winter, but some days we just want to get somewhere quickly without falling or freezing.
Click to expand...

When I walk to Macewan University from my place in Oliver I sometimes do enter at the 112 street building to get over to the building on 108 Street through the pedway system. That's when the conditions outside are really bad, a few we've had this winter.

At the same time, I still have to endure the winter elements at some point in my journey, in fact for the bulk of it. So yes, it's nice to cut out a few blocks, but I still have to get outside eventually and navigate those same sidewalks and street crossings where there is no pedway.

I'm not sure I'm an advocate of using a lot of city money to continue to build more underground pedways - pretty costly.
 
Keep in mind that both Toronto and Montreal have extensive pedway systems to combat the winter months that are well used, active and provide options for people. I am not a fan of pedways, but certainly understand their appeal and the importance of buildings being connected to them (versus not). Often times that can preclude you from being included in an RFP process.

Let's continue to work on strengthening the experience at grade so that more people choose that option more often.
 
There should be a balance between indoor/outdoor access. Since the indoor connections aren't usually as direct as going outside, it's easier to head outside and get to where you're going faster. A pedway system is nice to have during poor weather but the current system generally undermines retailers in the area since the pedway usually bypasses them entirely.

This does also bring up the issue of weak pedestrian infrastructure and maintenance. Having to cross huge roads that are iced over (especially at intersections) to come up onto narrow and poorly kept sidewalks is not fun. This shouldn't be the case for the downtown core in particular. If the street is made more appealing, it would be the preferred option, with the pedways providing a nice backup.
 
The City administration negotiated in good faith with the developer to come to this result with the developer's CRL funding. What do you think would happen with other negotiations if the City were to blow this up? What do you think that Qualico would do in terms of future negotiations with the City? This will surely not be the last CRL money headed to the City from development possibilities -- to think otherwise is being a tad naive.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top