News   Apr 03, 2020
 9.6K     3 
News   Apr 02, 2020
 10K     0 
News   Apr 02, 2020
 3.7K     0 

Miscellaneous

^^ It reminds me of the era of the 2 & 3-storey walk-ups of the 60s and 70s (a previous time of rapid population expansion in Edmonton)... a hideous collage of urban ugliness -- and the same arguments are heard today: they are necessary to meet a strong rental demand; the City needs to grow more with an intensified core densification; it will help the City Admin and many of their programs with population consolidation in the core; quality architecture is the least important of these goals. And most just don't seem to care, particularly those in the development game who are armed with abundant excuses in justification of this horror.
It's actually offensively simple. Brick or stone cladding with large square windows. The architecture is Quebec City isn't fantastic, it's just pleasant and utilizes nice materials. Developers in Edmonton are acting like ICF construction with brick cladding is asking for the world.

We are losing architecturally to utilitarian era New France. I'm pissed.
 
It's actually offensively simple. Brick or stone cladding with large square windows. The architecture is Quebec City isn't fantastic, it's just pleasant and utilizes nice materials. Developers in Edmonton are acting like ICF construction with brick cladding is asking for the world.

We are losing architecturally to utilitarian era New France. I'm pissed.
It's like I said about the simple, harmonious, brick-clad mid- and high-rises from the 70s. They aren't groundbreaking or dramatic. They're not Gaudi or Zaha Hadid. They're just...handsome, classic buildings. More of the same, please!
 
It's actually offensively simple. Brick or stone cladding with large square windows. The architecture is Quebec City isn't fantastic, it's just pleasant and utilizes nice materials. Developers in Edmonton are acting like ICF construction with brick cladding is asking for the world.

We are losing architecturally to utilitarian era New France. I'm pissed.
Well it was the capital of New France so it probably picked something up about style and good taste even if it didn't get it all. However, I feel you are on to something here, some brick or stone cladding can help improve appearance a lot. We actually already have an area being developed downtown called the Warehouse District, so lets just lean into that theme a bit more.
 
Calgary has some crap being built for sure. They also have some nicer projects like these:

(The top one is what I wish mercury and cobalt had been more like)

IMG_5842.jpeg
IMG_5841.jpeg
IMG_5840.jpeg
IMG_5843.jpeg
 
More context re: affordable housing;

The City of Edmonton is offering total of 11 Surplus School Sites for developing affordable housing developments. The sites range from 1 to 1.41 hectares in size, and are zoned Medium Residential RM h16 and h23. Following sites are available in:

  • Belmont (13207 - 37 Street NW): 1.41 hectare in size zoned RM h16
  • Blue Quill (2710, 2810 - 112 Street NW): 1.40 hectare in size zoned RM h23
  • Caernarvon North (14903 - 121 Street NW): 1.40 hectare in size zoned RM h16
  • Dunluce (12030 - 162 Avenue NW): 1.00 hectare in size zoned RM h16
  • Kiniski Gardens North (4320 - 41 Avenue NW): 1.20 hectare in size zoned RM h16
  • La Perle (9611 - 189 Street NW): 1.13 hectare in size zoned RM h16
  • Lymburn (7204 - 184 Street NW): 1.40 hectare in size zoned RM h16
  • Miller (4910 Matheson Way NW): 1.34 hectare in size zoned RM h16
  • Overlanders (12770 Victoria Trail NW): 1.29 hectare in size zoned RM h16
  • Summerlea (9020, 9104 - 175 Street NW): 1.00 hectare in size zoned RM h23
  • Wedgewood Heights (1003, 1021 Wedgewood Boulevard): 1.13 hectare in size zoned RM h16
Interested applicants are encouraged to review the Surplus School Site - Program Guide.

Successful applicants will be required to obtain the development and building permits by September 2026, with construction to follow. All submissions must clearly outline their development timelines and meet the September 2026 development and building permit deadline.
The Wedgewood site (slated to be developed by an indigenous affordable housing provider) was halted by a Court of Kings Bench resolution, and there was quite a showing from residents against the sale of this site yesterday.

The sale was ultimately approved by Council, 9-4. This is one of the times I agree with the residents opposing the sale. Wedgewood has only the one park, which includes baseball diamonds, soccer, and a skating rink. That's being paved for the 60-unit Treaty 8 build. The neighborhood is a single-exfil area, and has no regular bus service. A disappointing failure to protect our urban green space, and a fundamentally lacking location for an affordable housing site.

Quite a loss for the west end.
 
The Wedgewood site (slated to be developed by an indigenous affordable housing provider) was halted by a Court of Kings Bench resolution, and there was quite a showing from residents against the sale of this site yesterday.

The sale was ultimately approved by Council, 9-4. This is one of the times I agree with the residents opposing the sale. Wedgewood has only the one park, which includes baseball diamonds, soccer, and a skating rink. That's being paved for the 60-unit Treaty 8 build. The neighborhood is a single-exfil area, and has no regular bus service. A disappointing failure to protect our urban green space, and a fundamentally lacking location for an affordable housing site.

Quite a loss for the west end.
Seems pretty clear that the majority of the park space is remaining untouched, including everything around the community league and land to the south. From what I can tell, they are losing one soccer field but the ball diamond and second soccer field are safe. Unclear where the skating rink is. Not saying it was the right decision, but the opposition made it sound like there would be no park space left at all if the sale went forward.

1771524115045.png
1771524260331.png
 
Seems pretty clear that the majority of the park space is remaining untouched, including everything around the community league and land to the south. From what I can tell, they are losing one soccer field but the ball diamond and second soccer field are safe. Unclear where the skating rink is. Not saying it was the right decision, but the opposition made it sound like there would be no park space left at all if the sale went forward.

View attachment 716445View attachment 716446
That, and there's a lot of park space just outside the neighborhood's technical boundaries.
 
Calgary has some crap being built for sure. They also have some nicer projects like these:

(The top one is what I wish mercury and cobalt had been more like)

View attachment 716378
This one is beautiful and more of what I wish we'd see. It should be the minimum standard for projects like Westrich's 106 ST or 108 ST. It's not fundamentally different than either project, but a step up in design. That's not to pick on them, those projects aren't the worst, but they're the first example that comes to mind.
 
Seems pretty clear that the majority of the park space is remaining untouched, including everything around the community league and land to the south. From what I can tell, they are losing one soccer field but the ball diamond and second soccer field are safe. Unclear where the skating rink is. Not saying it was the right decision, but the opposition made it sound like there would be no park space left at all if the sale went forward.

View attachment 716445View attachment 716446
Makes sense. I misinterpreted the PU zoning in the southern end of the park to be parking.
 
Seems pretty clear that the majority of the park space is remaining untouched, including everything around the community league and land to the south. From what I can tell, they are losing one soccer field but the ball diamond and second soccer field are safe. Unclear where the skating rink is. Not saying it was the right decision, but the opposition made it sound like there would be no park space left at all if the sale went forward.

View attachment 716445View attachment 716446
What I don’t understand on these projects is the priority being “evenly dispersing” these sorts of builds instead of aligning them with the plethora of other goals we have around sustainability, active transportation, 15min communities, and nodes.

Stony plain road needs 15 midrises to be built and has a 3 billion dollar train about to service it and a dozen major employment and medical hubs. How is that not a better location? Again, I get the equity lens of not concentrating poverty. And I certainly don’t care about exaggerated nimby claims that are veiled racism/classism. But is this the right place? 20% of most Canadians’ spending is transportation. Is car dependent affordable housing actually affordable?
 

Back
Top