I was afraid of that -- with these international design talents that present concepts to an Edmonton client, employing a local firm -- the "architect of record" -- producing construction documents for the project -- the "excellent" becomes "good". I can hardly wait to see what damage has been done to an outstanding concept. And that is the very reason why I am going to open my own office in Edmonton -- to avoid the "good enough for Edmonton" syndrome that comes from "corporate firms."
@archited I don't have enough detail from the earlier proposal to know if it was truly excellent, and I don't yet have enough detail to say if this one is excellent, but from what I have seen they are comparable.
So here's my notes from the EDC meeting, made slightly more coherent than what I actually typed up on my phone:
Exterior: Imagine a stone canopy mimicking a mountain rising over part of the building on 97 St.
Public terraces on 102 Ave corner above street level, lots of local plantings
Lots of glazing facing south
Andrew Bromberg with Aedas is still involved in the project, along with Brian Bengert at Stantec (formerly ATb)
500-600 concert hall
Approx 60% transparency at street
Pedestrian overhangs for weather protection
3% amenity area in and out
Some interim at-grade parking within the building interior (almost completely hidden from sidewalk view), convertible to interior space later
One level underground parking that will be accessible via Century Place
District Energy Plant is part of the building (on 103 Ave. between this and Century Place), partnered with Enmax
Plant will have offices overlooking 103 Ave. with glazing
DC2 rezoning is CCA plus district energy, removed vehicle services, nightclubs, bars etc from uses, reduced setbacks with more activation, reduced maximum height to approx 100m (district energy stacks require some leeway on height, but should be set back and/or screened sufficiently to be hidden from street)
Thanks for the update @Daveography - came this morning looking for something on this project. Really hope this is mostly unchanged since the initial designs. Encouraging that Bromberg is still involved.
@MCXavierL It's changed a lot from that render (forever known as "the silver mushrooms" by people involved in the project). Whether anyone thinks the newer design is better or worse will remain to be seen, but I think the form had to follow the function, which has changed a fair bit from when those renders were created.
I remember sitting with some of the consulting team. the big factor will be the theater component. They want it very friendly to the music. What makes the music come alive. They traveled to some of the best concert halls in the world to figure out what made them so good. And it was how the audience and the musicians experience the sound. They when to some architecturally beautiful buildings that had crappy sound.
If the function has changed, that justifies a design redo. The Disney Concert Hall in L.A. -- one of the finest audio experiences in the world for a structure of that size -- illustrates that great architecture and great acoustics can be accomplished in the same program. It will soon become clear if the design took a back seat to budget, or function, or local architecture-of-record whim, and, as Dave notes, we can all score the new design based on the subjective (mostly) and objective qualities of the design.