Airboy
Senior Member
No I think Alldritt will sit on it for another year then sell it off. They have loads of other properties they can sit for longer.
- Thread starter Daveography
- Start date
archited
Senior Member
Truly a lost image-shaper.
Gronk!
Senior Member
Leston, Westrich, ONE, Rohit and other developers should be paying attention.
Also, the likelihood of an 80 story tower is next to nil, however a midrise or highrise with a hotel and residential suites should still be doable.
David A
Senior Member
Yes, a decent sized hotel/residential tower here would be great and I hope it does happen soon. However I wonder if the stigma of this area is too great for that.
Edmcowboy11
Senior Member
yup there are definitely some companies that are developers in practice and others that are developers in name mainly.
mcr
Active Member
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this isn't the parcel that was proposed for the 80 story correct? I think that was across 96st and towards the convention centre. Or was this to be part of it as well? If it is separate, hopefully someone will at least pick up this small parcel and do something with it.
From earlier in the thread:
archited
Senior Member
^ The project was actually meant to cover both parcels that you refer to -- with a project mockup to be built on the lot between the Russian Orthodox Church and Jasper Avenue. The design that you are sharing was an earlier version designed by Kennedy; there was a later substantially different design prepared by Gene Dub.
Last edited:
mcr
Active Member
Thanks! I knew the design was definitely different, but figured same footprint. Interesting that a smaller mockup would've been part of it.
Out of Towner
Active Member
Former Mayor Don Iveson voted against the Alldritt project. His reason was that the location of the project blocked the view of the river valley from Jasper Ave. It's difficult to oppose a project of that stature but I agree with his view. Besides blocking the view of the river valley, the public access to it would have also been restricted. The original plan presented a compromise or remedy to that concern but it still meant funneling Jasper Avenue foot traffic through the private domain of the proposed facility. Perhaps not the end of the world but not ideal either. In the long run, the City would probably be better off to acquire that property and develop it into a primary river valley access point in a style similar to the promenade on 100 Avenue. The funicular presently offers connectivity to the river valley trails but another funicular in the Alldritt location would create a circular flow pattern without needing to deal with Alldritt's mercantile objective. The Alldritt location is also a good location for the skywalk that been talked about because it's not cramped like the 100 Street location and the absence of traffic noise would give its visitors a better experience. If that backdrop doesn't spur development of the Quarters, than I have no idea what might. Not holding my breath though because it wouldn't be a big surprise if the City spends all of its money on bike paths out to the boonies and then approves a low cost housing project for the Quarters.
David A
Senior Member
This is one of the select areas downtown where there is a good view of river valley from Jasper Avenue, It would be a good idea for whatever is built to preserve as much of this as possible, as well as access to river valley.
kcantor
Senior Member
As opposed to what the City did with Hall D?
A tower of any height would be much less intrusive when it comes to protecting view corridors while providing animation and access.
Avenuer
Senior Member
Basic market economics make a tower at this site a no-go in Edmonton currently - it's geotechnically challenging and the construction costs for high-rise concrete right now don't make sense, hence why there are minimal cranes in the sky right now. It has nothing to do with 'City spending all of it's money on bike paths' - that's a weird take.
You may see 'low-rise' stuff built in the Quarters/Boyle Street because that is where the market is right now, but at least it'll add new units to the area. Even if it's an affordable project, as long as it's well-designed, I don't care, it's adding more active uses and bringing more people to the area.
David A
Senior Member
I realize the city set a very low bar here, no interaction with the street, just a big blank wall and blocking the view. I sure hope the private sector will do much better in this case.As opposed to what the City did with Hall D?
A tower of any height would be much less intrusive when it comes to protecting view corridors while providing animation and access.
TAS
Senior Member
As opposed to what the City did with Hall D?
Hall D (built by the city) opened in 2006, about two years into Mandell's first term as mayor.
Was this, in part, where his no more crap statement came from (he made the statement in his state of the city address in 2006 I read) or was he talking more in general?
Out of Towner
Active Member
Not a weird take at all if you're a rate payer. The City budget for bicycle paths last year alone was $100M and since the City's treasury has its limitations, Council sets priorities. If rate payers were given the choice between acquiring and developing the Alldritt property or bike paths to the boonies, I believe they would choose the former. Moreover, I didn't advocate for anybody to build a high rise on the property. How you came up with that is what is weird.