News   Apr 03, 2020
From the Editor: A Message to Our Readers
 8.3K     3 
News   Apr 02, 2020
Topping Off March 2020: What's Hot on SkyriseEdmonton
 9.5K     0 
News   Apr 02, 2020
News Roundup for April 2, 2020
 3.1K     0 

Miscellaneous

I drove by this lot yesterday (4802 118 avenue) and noticed there's and excavator on site and the ground is all dug up. Looks like this Amnor Group - 118 Ave Retail Development is getting started. Nothing spectacular, but it'll be good for this area to have some new retail. There was once a gas station here, but this lot has been vacant for at least 2 decades IIRC. It was remediated a couple years ago.

Another empty lot on 118 avenue bites the dust

1734287875475.png

118 ave retail development.jpg

1734288905881.png
 
Last edited:
EtoV said:
The city should really have urban design standards preventing parking from being located at the front of buildings on major roads.

Every city in the lower mainland manages to do it, so it shouldn't be too hard
Click to expand...
Agreed, and I'm not asking a lot, I can live with bland design if it's not a high value location. Just take this exact same design, and put the parking behind the building and scoot the building up to the sidewalk. EZ.
 
JuliallThat said:
Agreed, and I'm not asking a lot, I can live with bland design if it's not a high value location. Just take this exact same design, and put the parking behind the building and scoot the building up to the sidewalk. EZ.
Click to expand...
So easy, and should be required. But I imagine in that case we'd end up with a dead streetfront anyway as they'd put doors in the back so people who park don't have to, *gasp*, walk around the building to get in, and businesses wouldn't want to monitor/secure 2 doors and would close up the front. 🤦‍♂️
 
mcr said:
So easy, and should be required. But I imagine in that case we'd end up with a dead streetfront anyway as they'd put doors in the back so people who park don't have to, *gasp*, walk around the building to get in, and businesses wouldn't want to monitor/secure 2 doors and would close up the front. 🤦‍♂️
Click to expand...
Yup, I think that's exactly what happened with these two shops on 102ave/109st
 
archited said:
The building that those two shops occupy will be slated for demolition within the next few years as part of NorQuest expansion.
Click to expand...
Which is great, but the point remains that it's a good example of the typical Edmonton way of prioritizing parking and drivers over walkability and street interaction as a whole.
 
mcr said:
Which is great, but the point remains that it's a good example of the typical Edmonton way of prioritizing parking and drivers over walkability and street interaction as a whole.
Click to expand...
Yes, it is not hard to find examples of this over the last few decades, even downtown. The Staples store on 101 St was also good example of that, but gone now and replaced by structures more pedestrian friendly.

Given the value of land, I suspect big parking lots in front are going to become less common particularly in more central areas.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mcr
David A said:
Yes, it is not hard to find examples of this over the last few decades, even downtown. The Staples store on 101 St was also good example of that, but gone now and replaced by structures more pedestrian friendly.

Given the value of land, I suspect big parking lots in front are going to become less common particularly in more central areas.
Click to expand...

*** cough cough *** Manchester Square
 
I would say Manchester Square was quite an improvement of the previous furniture outlet store there and certainly better than having to drive to a suburban place to shop, but yes the big parking lot in front is not great.

I suspect where it is located and the "quiet" neighbourhood nearby is just far enough from the downtown core that the land prices are not as high.
 
I hate street facing parking but I will always defend Manchester square. It reused an existing building (sustainability points), so it was limited how it could be redeveloped as they were working with the existing footprint. It has been very successful (or at least it was a year and a half ago when I was their last lol). I’m sure it wasn’t cheap to do that faux Dutch(?) facade, but at the same time, it wasn’t a massively involved undertaking that is going to limit this site from eventually being developed further in the future. It’s like a 4 out of ten in general, but a 9 out of ten given the circumstances and location and improvement on what was there. Nothing is permanent and it’s a hell of a place filler
 
It also has a very nice selection of local and other businesses, not just a bunch of the same national franchises and chains as elsewhere.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top