The newly improved beds on 102/103 look good, but I guess the ones along 103st didn't make the cut?!??!
IMG_5639.JPG
 
IanO said:
The newly improved beds on 102/103 look good, but I guess the ones along 103st didn't make the cut?!??!
View attachment 661548
Click to expand...
Not that i I have anything against beds but does anyone really think they will change how desolate and abandoned that stretch is?

Unless you’re actually looking for them, they don’t even have any visual impact in the photo posted to show how “improved” they are.
 
crisp said:
Complete teardown of the Hudson bunker would be the best solution.
Click to expand...
Yes, the tear down everything mentality may be the official ideology of Edmonton. And replace it with what? Another surface parking lot? Another long abandoned empty lot like the old BMO/Tegler site just down the street?

IMO, this could be improved a lot with a new facade to the building. I hope the previous redevelopment plans for this space proceed soon.
 
It doesn't even need a complete facade makeover -- it just needs an opening up of (especially) the ground floor -- something akin to what is happening up the avenue on the southwest corner of 101street and 102 Avenue. This tearing down of completely serviceable buildings in Edmonton has got to stop.
 
archited said:
It doesn't even need a complete facade makeover -- it just needs an opening up of (especially) the ground floor -- something akin to what is happening up the avenue on the southwest corner of 101street and 102 Avenue. This tearing down of completely serviceable buildings in Edmonton has got to stop.
Click to expand...
The other thing that stop is the misconception that buildings create vibrancy.

They do no such thing. Buildings create internal and external spaces/volumes that create zero vibrancy if they are vacant and inaccessible.

It's not about the building's or the sidewalks or the planters or the parks etc., it's about how they're used and programmed so that people want to spend time there.
 
Last edited:
David A said:
Yes, the tear down everything mentality may be the official ideology of Edmonton. And replace it with what? Another surface parking lot? Another long abandoned empty lot like the old BMO/Tegler site just down the street?

IMO, this could be improved a lot with a new facade to the building. I hope the previous redevelopment plans for this space proceed soon.
Click to expand...
I never said anything about surface lot, sheesh.

If I owned the property, and I wanted to make a major investment to activate the area, would I invest in a major renovation to turn it into a retail hub where retail has not done so well in decades? Or do I tear it down completely, build two rental towers on a strip where residential has been the main product coming online in the past decade?
 
The City Centre west space is designed for retail, so the easiest renovation would be something that would involve that, basically dividing the old Bay space into smaller spaces.

So this is not just my crazy idea but what was contemplated in the the owners redevelopment plans also with a food area in front and some professional space on the second level.

I assume it will proceed when they get some tenants lined up. Based on the long empty BMO/Tegler lot just east of this, I don't think there is a high demand for anything else in this particular area now.
 
IanO said:
The newly improved beds on 102/103 look good, but I guess the ones along 103st didn't make the cut?!??!
View attachment 661548
Click to expand...
The picture might not look so bad if the City did its part to improve the street by replacing the light poles and traffic lights with something modern. That's not a picture of an old industrial area. It's downtown and the traffic lights are hanging on a wire that's been there for 75 years. What a joke. That's an embarrassment to the city.
 
Out of Towner said:
The picture might not look so bad if the City did its part to improve the street by replacing the light poles and traffic lights with something modern. That's not a picture of an old industrial area. It's downtown and the traffic lights are hanging on a wire that's been there for 75 years. What a joke. That's an embarrassment to the city.
Click to expand...

102-109st should be funded in the 2027-31 budget cycle - or at least it better be.
 
Edmonton's priorities need to be questioned. Appears that there was funding for a bike path on the street but no funding for bringing the lighting and signage up to standard. You won't find lighting and signage like that anywhere in Calgary. Certainly not in downtown Calgary. Why would a private developer take the initiative to invest in downtown Edmonton when they see Edmonton's commitment - or lack of it - to its downtown?
 
The signals hanging from a wire is one seemingly small thing that never fails to piss me off. Not only does Calgary not have them downtown, they don’t really have them anywhere. Meanwhile we have them at Whyte and 109, arguably among the most important/prominent intersections in the city. I’m sure most of them are just a case of “waiting for renewal” but maybe if we’re fairly certain the renewal is over a decade away we can take that chance and install the poles.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top