Home » Urban Redesign

The Miniature River Valley: Foster + Partners’ City Centre Redevelopment Proposal

23 February 2011 6 Comments

Yesterday I took a look at BNIM’s proposal for the City Centre Airport Redevelopment. Let’s move down one on the alphabetical list and take a look at what Foster + Partners has planned. You can visit this London, UK company’s portfolio to see some of their other work. If you watch a lot of Discovery Channel you’ll recognize some of their work, like the Millau Viaduct. So what do they want the former airport grounds to look like?

Overview of Foster + Partners proposal. Click for big version.

The proposal as given to the public is very scant on detail. I’m sure the city’s selection committee was given a lot more, but if you want the public to be able to give an informed comment then you need to give them more to go on.

Still, let’s glean what we can from what little we have. The plan is for a large river valley park that runs from northwest to southeast, in bold defiance of the North Saskatchewan’s directionality. Along this park are a number of high-rise towers—the highest value properties will naturally be along this new park.

The development is split up into five new neighbourhoods. Looking at the layout and the fact Foster & Partners want to fit 37,000 people on this site leads me to believe this may be a little denser than Edmontonians are ready for, but that might not be a bad thing.

There are a lot of things to like about this design. The proposed park is a large natural area not unlike our natural river valley, and so should fit into the city aesthetically and in terms of how we use our parks, summer and winter. There’s public and private open space, so if you’re the kind of person who just needs a lawn to mow there may be a place for you here. The design also suggests a waste-to-energy plant, and if you’ve ever played Simcity you know that’s the smart choice.

Something about this design is a little... sketchy

Again, I’m irritated by what little the public is given to go on. Probably the best way to grasp what they’re going for is the video, so go see that if you haven’t yet. Literally five out of the eight presentation boards are just a big picture and then a sprinkling of ideas on the bottom. Here, enjoy some of the random phrases found in the proposal:

“Intelligent building blocks” — Robot lego that builds itself?

“Streets designed to work with heavy snowfall” — Good, none of the other ones in the city do.

“skate across the site – skate to work” — But can I pedal boat to work in the summer?

“Cars are stored in underground parking” — Underground, like dinosaur bones and all of God’s other mistakes.

That’s it. Let us know what you think in the comments, and come back tomorrow for a look at the design submitted by KCAP Architects & Planners.

Subscribe to the Charrette's Comment Feed

6 Comments »

  • lesoteric said:

    “Along this park are a number of high-rise towers—the highest value properties will naturally be along this new park.”

    Versus the existing river valley upon whose high banks the city is woefully undeveloped. Should be easy to squeeze a few (dozen) low to medium rise developments (allowing sunlight and views to be maintained into the core) backed by some higher density bits on the less pleasant side of downtown.

    “The proposed park is a large natural area not unlike our natural river valley”

    Let’s spend millions of dollars to build a replica river valley where #yegcc is unwilling to protect / promote the current one (Brickyard = YECCCH!, nothing but tract housing elsewhere).

    ““skate across the site – skate to work” — But can I pedal boat to work in the summer?”

    Tooker Gomberg was ridiculed incessantly when he suggested this to a past city council. I’m glad that these ideas persist, for further ridicule.

    This design basically mimics what we already have, except that we have failed miserably to accomplish anything approaching it with the original. Another ‘urban island’ design which is only accessible by car or bus, remains disconnected from the city at large, and requires vast amounts of infrastructure to integrate. Banging the same drum again – downtown has the same potential, but for some reason #yegcc won’t ask developers to come up with these wonderful proposals for anything there. Couldn’t we get one $50,000 proposal for the Quarters?

    # 24 February 2011 at 11:02 am
  • Adam Snider said:

    Lack of details aside, the thing that bugged me the most about this proposal was the the “video within a video” was too small to really see the details. And, when viewed full-screen, it became so pixelated that it was actually MORE difficult to see what was going on.

    I was unimpressed by the presentation to the point where I’m still not entirely sure what the main design conceit is, other than the large tract of parkland.

    # 24 February 2011 at 12:50 pm
  • Mike Otto (author) said:

    When you’re viewing the proposal video on Youtube, go to the bottom right of the video frame and click where it says “360p”. If you select 720p from the menu that appears, the video will be in HD and so might be a little clearer. Especially full screen.

    # 24 February 2011 at 12:57 pm
  • @neumanic said:

    The big difference between ECCA and the Quarters, other than sheer size, is the fact that one is essentially a greenfield development (though it’s technically brownfield since it’s a conversion from industrial to residential) of a very large plot of land under sole ownership, and the other is The Quarters.

    There’s lots of “overall vision” documents for the Quarters, but no “master plan” because it’s not one group that gets to control all the property. The City’s role with the two developments are very different.

    I hope like hell that the Quarters comes to something, and I suspect that will happen before ECCA. But again, it’s planning phase here.

    # 24 February 2011 at 2:29 pm
  • lesoteric said:

    to my knowledge the city hasn’t done much to encourage development downtown. In fact opening up YXD accomplishes exactly the opposite. It encourages quick, cheap development over thoughtful and impactful development. It’s the difference between a central suburb (YXD) and urban renewal (Quarters, Station Lands, East Jasper, and S of 100an to the river).

    IMO

    # 24 February 2011 at 7:37 pm
  • Adam Snider said:

    Thanks for the tip. I’ll check the video again in HD mode and see what I think.

    # 25 February 2011 at 2:56 pm