News   Apr 03, 2020
 7.5K     3 
News   Apr 02, 2020
 8.1K     0 
News   Apr 02, 2020
 2.7K     0 

Landsdowne Centre - 5120 - 122 Street - Redevelopment - proposed

Like the Brewery District, the Lansdowne Project retains the possibility of future build-out on surface parking areas as businesses are attracted to the area that would convert surface parking to underground parking with additional mixed use development over top.
I personally believe that Canadian Edmontonians are unable to do so because, uh, some people out there in our nation don't have maps of their future plans, and, uh, I believe that our education like such as in planning school and, uh, the EAS everywhere like, such as, and I believe that they should, our education over here in the ...
I don't doubt that some redevelopment will eventually occur here, but there is absolutely zero chance the bridged portions are included. That's a lot of additional cost that would be much easier to actually profit off of if the FAR is included in another way (height, increased floor plates etc.). These types of proposal have a hard time working in cities like Vancouver and Toronto, I would be extremely surprised if they could make it pencil out here.
Why do you figure that?
Because the cost per sf of a clear span like that is quite high, and condo developments in edmonton are already low margined.
Bingo. That would get VE'd to death, but is a great bait and switch to sell planning on an up zoning.

That will inevitably become this.
I wouldn't place a bet on a rendering that is a placeholder by the author's own admission. As far as being 'negative', the forensic evidence is in and you seem to check off all the boxes -- maybe you should check the dictionary for more clarity on your condition.
Negative at times, supportive at others and more honest than it seems most can handle.
Here we go again, more negative speculation!
Here we go again with the unrealistic optimism. I'm all for densification and redevelopment at this location, but you also have to be realistic. It's not productive to hate on anything and everything, but it also doesn't help to uncritically praise every single thing that is proposed. Being critical doesn't mean being against it, it means tempering expectations. These types of building forms are quickly value engineered away in other Cities, and will likely happen here. It's a good way to get support for your development though, by starting with the "ideal" proposal and going from there.

Not that removing those spans is really a negative impact on the proposal, I don't think having them changes a proposal here substantially, a development here can be a net positive regardless of whether those elements are present. But to get those clear spans you need luxury prices, and I don't see how that happens with a development next to a gas station, 122 st, and the university farms.
Are you tearing down the idea of overly expressive architecture or the development procedure that takes place on all proposed structures before the final concept is set in place? In either case why express that before the project has been properly vetted -- what good does it do? I am not by any standard saying that the project will remain in the form proposed, but I do like the starting place -- it is creative (gas station or no gas station and I highly doubt that it will be there 20 years from now anyway). And as to the expense...a three-storey box truss two-way frame can easily pick up the loads (both lateral and vertical) without impacting the elevational design, rendering the concept no more expensive than load-transfer slabs than one normally finds over underground parking structures. This design has the added benefit of providing multi-sided retail space with exterior patio potential for interesting landscaping possibilities and gathering space for eateries. It's a good design -- no need to rip it apart at this stage -- unless that is your "thing". Doing that doesn't portend "wisdom" or "deep thought"; to me it is just a mindless irritant.
Alrighty then, I was initially just mentioning that the proposal as shown would be hard to pull off, not some grand value judgement on the project overall.

In any case, this project is in its early days, so it's ironic that you call us out for speculation, and then proceed to provide a ton of speculation about why you think it will work. Which is fine, all we can do is speculate right now and is basically the point of this forum, it's just slightly annoying that you make snarky and dismissive comments towards anyone who doesn't meet eye to eye with your high levels of optimism.

I think my post history is pretty clear, my "thing" is not to baselessly tear down projects for the sake of it. I would like to think my comments and concerns have some merit.

If you think the project can work and have reasons for that, just talk about those things instead of making combative comments towards the person who is just giving their views on a project, same as you. We can have a constructive conversation about this project while disagreeing
Last edited:
lots that had gas stations need to sit vacant for years before they can be redeveloped due to ground contamination, so for the time being it kind of needs to be included.
Not really. Contamination doesn't just 'go away'. You either remove it, treat it with chemical injections or aerate it over time - how you remediate a contaminated site depends on the type of contamination too - hydrocarbons, dry cleaning chemicals, etc.
Depth of contamination plays a large role too. If a site can be dealt with by getting rid of surface soils then it's usually cleaned up quickly. However, some sites often sit vacant for years because it is expensive to remediate them. Developers/landowners will often wait until development occurs to conduct the remediation because that material was being removed anyway for a parkade (for example). They essentially avoid paying the excavation costs twice.