[Gronk!]

They can do much much better than this.

 

[MacLac]

They can do much much better than this.

“Massing” ONLY!!!!!!!!!! What part of that dont you understand? Ffs!

 

[David A]

They can do much much better than this.

Yes, it seems mediocre from the picture. There are some elements which are not terrible and perhaps it can be improved enough to possibly even turn out to be adequate although not great, but it could go the other way too.

 

[archited]

A reputable builder will make all the difference -- try Rohit for example or Cantiro...

 

[IanO]

University District in Calgary for reference.

 

[Gronk!]

Just wondering why no high-rise development. So much potential for infill.

 

[itom987]

“Massing” ONLY!!!!!!!!!! What part of that dont you understand? Ffs!

They could have done the massing much better than what they came up with.

 

[ChazYEG]

Just wondering why no high-rise development. So much potential for infill.

I don't think this is the best place for high-rises, but it would be nice to see it be a bit denser, maybe more 5 or 6 story buildings with ground floor units opening to the street. I would honestly love to see Edmonton go more the "Europe way" with a lot of low and mid rise buildings except for the CBD, Winketowin and Garneau, where we already have nice clusters of towers. We'd have more complete blocks and a more human scale, which is very nice, imo. Stadium Yards is a great example of what I would love to see around the city in general

 

[Agard]

The "Europe way" isn't really better than building denser than the "Europe way", it's just better than the North American way. Building even denser than the European way would be generally better. That being said, I don't feel like there's much crazy missed potential with this site not being high rises

 

[Agard]

Expanding on that: there's not really a tradeoff present between developing only this site as high rises or redeveloping a much larger area of the south side to "European density". It's either you build more in a specific area or less, that's why I'm not very partial to the idea of building "European density" instead of high rises

 

[ChazYEG]

Having more low and mid rises that occupy a larger area is, in general, cheaper, provides more affordable housing options, improves a wider area, provides a more human scale, gets way less resistance from NIMBYs, gets built faster... the list of advantages goes on and on.
The only ways I see high rises having an advantage over this are: 1) we have exceedingly high demand for condo/apartment that we could fill the same area we'd fill with mid rises with high rises; 2) high rise construction costs are the same or lower (due to scale) than mid rises 3) we have substantial geographic constraints (like Vancouver), or any combination of these 3. None of them apply to Edmonton, however, so I feel like we should be restricting towers to areas that already have those clustered in (where there's obvious demand)

 

[cmd uw]

JFC, do people understand what 'Conceptual' means. Good god that rendering Ian posted was used at Council/Public Meetings to demonstrate 'massing' and 'builtform' across the site. F*ck people.

 

[Gronk!]

JFC, do people understand what 'Conceptual' means. Good god that rendering Ian posted was used at Council/Public Meetings to demonstrate 'massing' and 'builtform' across the site. F*ck people.

No offense but this Michener Park concept is simply not acceptable.
But hey, good enough for lil ol' Edmonton.

 

[an_edmontonian]

People need not get so hung up on a conceptual render. This is what is actually going up there:

I drive by it every day and the finishing materials are quite nice, better than much of what you see going up in more core areas. I would say its very good for 5km south of downtown.

The commercial strip mall development is another matter...

 

[an_edmontonian]

Although doing some further digging on the website, this appears to be the 1A site development:

Pretty bleh.