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

[positive1]

Just because there is a parking lot does not mean that people can't walk or cycle there; I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. If there was no parking lot would more people walk or cycle there? There is a walking/cycling trail just to the west which links this site to the north and the downtown/Oliver/Brewery District, so it's well placed from that perspective. Chill out people!

 

[Platinum107]

@positive1 I agree with you, you will have people using all transportation methods coming here for sure once it's done and filled up.

Guys, I think we can all agree on the point that development in Edmonton needs to start having better urban design (in central areas at least), and while Manchester Square may not be the best example of how that's done, LET"S NOT FORGET what was here before. If you wanna talk about the death of walkability and urban design you don't need to look further than the Brick/United Furniture warehouse that was here before, and I would take Manchester Square over that a thousand times over. So, I guess what I'm saying that I don't view this project as a failure to supply great urban design in the area, but rather a stepping stone to success in other projects that will happen in the future around here.

 

[quit]

I don't think we need to argue about Manchester Square like it is some sort of false dilemma (either/or argument). There are other alternatives that could have improved this development. I think that is what Dave is fundamentally saying. I strongly dislike the argument of, well at least we got this instead of the dump it was before. That is how you end up with sub-par development and poor zoning requirements across a city, because no one is challenging the status quo. You can acknowledge that this was improvement over what was there before AND still accept/acknowledge that this was a sub-par development AND say that we need to do better in the future.

Where's my...


I found it guys,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
"Meh, good enough for Edmonton" poster!

 

[dunno]

Just because there is a parking lot does not mean that people can't walk or cycle there; I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. If there was no parking lot would more people walk or cycle there? There is a walking/cycling trail just to the west which links this site to the north and the downtown/Oliver/Brewery District, so it's well placed from that perspective. Chill out people!

lol ok

if you’ve ever learnt about urban design or even just experienced walking alongside parking lots with multiple entrance/exit points for cars as a pedestrian, you’d know it isn’t pleasant, especially alongside a road that is far too wide and filled with through-traffic (such a 107th ave). residential streets, or streets that are more “complete” (i.e. giving equal space to various modes of transport) such as 104th st downtown or i suppose rice howard way, are much more pleasant to walk.

the point is to stop subsidizing and giving ridiculous amounts of space to cars and to disincentivize it. why does a central, gridded, old neighbourhood need to be convenient to cars? obviously because we’ve spent 70 years building for them above all other means of transportation that we simply don’t question it. edmonton is already too spread out and sprawled for its population and continuing to build a city for cars does little to enhance community, healthy neighbourhoods, or quality of life. perhaps making it harder to drive will put more pressure on creating better pedestrian realms, building more bike lanes, and putting more funding towards transit.

obviously cars are handy for certain things, but they’re simply unnecessary for 99% of the things we do. the only reason why they are deemed necessary is because our built environment is full of oliver squares and manchester squares and wide stroads like 104 ave, stony plain road, calgary trail, etc. we need to shift away from this and have a more equitable approach to transportation planning.

 

[dunno]

@positive1 I agree with you, you will have people using all transportation methods coming here for sure once it's done and filled up.

Guys, I think we can all agree on the point that development in Edmonton needs to start having better urban design (in central areas at least), and while Manchester Square may not be the best example of how that's done, LET"S NOT FORGET what was here before. If you wanna talk about the death of walkability and urban design you don't need to look further than the Brick/United Furniture warehouse that was here before, and I would take Manchester Square over that a thousand times over. So, I guess what I'm saying that I don't view this project as a failure to supply great urban design in the area, but rather a stepping stone to success in other projects that will happen in the future around here.

honestly the old brick had less of a setback and i’d have rather that stayed in place and waited for something less embarrassing to be built.

 

[kcantor]

^^
"if you've ever learnt about urban design..."??? really? moving past the condescension, exactly how would any other form of development of development on this site have changed the urban design and streetscape for 107 avenue? now perhaps that is a worthwhile long-term goal but in the interim are you really suggesting that there be no further development or redevelopment along 107 avenue?

^
aaah yes... "the old brick had less of a setback" . and it was entirely devoted to parking and loading with no landscaping or decent urban edges. as for pedestrians and bikes and transit users, are you really trying to say manchester square isn't a more attactive destination to those users than the brick?

 

[dunno]

^^
"if you've ever learnt about urban design..."??? really? moving past the condescension, exactly how would any other form of development of development on this site have changed the urban design and streetscape for 107 avenue? now perhaps that is a worthwhile long-term goal but in the interim are you really suggesting that there be no further development or redevelopment along 107 avenue?

^
aaah yes... "the old brick had less of a setback" . and it was entirely devoted to parking and loading with no landscaping or decent urban edges. as for pedestrians and bikes and transit users, are you really trying to say manchester square isn't a more attactive destination to those users than the brick?

i mean the person i'm referring to was explicitly telling people to "chill out", but alright. the urban design of the development itself wouldn't improve the actual streetscape of 107th ave as that isn't part of the property, but it would help in terms of street interaction. the types of developments we allow can influence how good/bad the surrounding urban design is. at the very least, it wouldn't continue to perpetuate the urban design issues along that stretch of 107 ave.

my point with the old brick was a bit facetious but the building itself could be retrofitted into something else without the big parking lot.

 

[positive1]

i mean the person i'm referring to was explicitly telling people to "chill out", but alright. the urban design of the development itself wouldn't improve the actual streetscape of 107th ave as that isn't part of the property, but it would help in terms of street interaction. the types of developments we allow can influence how good/bad the surrounding urban design is. at the very least, it wouldn't continue to perpetuate the urban design issues along that stretch of 107 ave.

my point with the old brick was a bit facetious but the building itself could be retrofitted into something else without the big parking lot.

I agree with everything you are saying regarding transportation - I didn't grow up in north America and have not always owned a car in my adulthood as I could rely on public transport (ah, those were the days). I live in Oliver and walk or use my bike when getting around the area and cycle to work a lot during the summer (my car usually stays in the parkade during the weekend). Would have been great if a chunk of the parking lot was given over to bike parking with a shelter - I think that's a big missed opportunity. I'll definitely be cycling there to check out the beer and there had better be enough space to lock up my bike!

 

[dunno]

I agree with everything you are saying regarding transportation - I didn't grow up in north America and have not always owned a car in my adulthood as I could rely on public transport (ah, those were the days). I live in Oliver and walk or use my bike when getting around the area and cycle to work a lot during the summer (my car usually stays in the parkade during the weekend). Would have been great if a chunk of the parking lot was given over to bike parking with a shelter - I think that's a big missed opportunity. I'll definitely be cycling there to check out the beer and there had better be enough space to lock up my bike!

yeah, fair enough. sorry if i came across condescending; perhaps i mistook your tone in the initial response. i agree biking infrastructure could have been better implemented here (and through the city as well). aesthetics aside, i think the urban design of this would be much better if they simply had the parking behind or underground. as it is, it's just a fancy strip mall.

 

[Platinum107]

You can acknowledge that this was improvement over what was there before AND still accept/acknowledge that this was a sub-par development AND say that we need to do better in the future.

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.

 

[thommyjo]

Well this thread got some energy haha. I'm not a fan of the project, but I imagine I would feel less frustrated by it if it was in the whyte ave area. The fake European style is frustrating, but could blend better along whyte or even 109th street. How would you guys feel about that? Is the location part of what makes it feel so out of place?

 

[dunno]

Well this thread got some energy haha. I'm not a fan of the project, but I imagine I would feel less frustrated by it if it was in the whyte ave area. The fake European style is frustrating, but could blend better along whyte or even 109th street. How would you guys feel about that? Is the location part of what makes it feel so out of place?

honestly, i’ve maintained before that if they took a small lot fronting a main street like 124th or whyte or 97th and designed a dutch-inspired single building that was nicely scaled, no parking up front, and with good architectural materials, i don’t think it’d look so... goofy. but as it is, it’s a worse version of europa boulevard. at least on europa the storefronts face a kind-of pedestrian realm haha.

 

[kcantor]

^
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.

 

[archited]

@dunno, No, it is the tackiness of 3rd storey windows that aren't; the notion that we have a village of buildings -- we don't; not to mention the plagiarism evident in copying a dutch postcard and dealing it to the City of Edmonton as original architecture. We have had pseudo-storefronts before (pioneer western wood-frame buildings); we have had massing of structures to suggest that they are two or more buildings melded together -- sometimes it works, most often it doesn't; and plagiarism (in architecture or any other form) is just laziness personified. And it can't be excused because it might be popular with a segment of the population (most instantaneous example that pops into mind here is the support in the U.S. for "the Donald"). Very simply put, this is bad architecture, non-planning (forget the word "urban"), and not even Disneyland-ish pretense. For the people who want to pretend that they are in Holland (one of the two urbanized provinces in the Netherlands) and taking selfies as if they were -- bless their misguided hearts. If this were a student presentation in Architecture or Urban Planning school it would receive a failing grade and held up in front of the student body as "what not to do" -- "maybe you should transfer to an accounting class... er, in Nederland".

 

[kcantor]

^

3rd storey windows that aren't?

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...

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", you better figure out some way to fix that. naaah, you can't just board them up with plywood, we only let you do that if it's a heritage building - maybe you could consider something applied from the interior instead.