Results 1 to 51 of 51

Thread: Build on the MacDonald Hotel Park?

  1. #1

    Default Build on the MacDonald Hotel Park?

    Looking at the old picture IanO posted (link below) of Jasper Ave in a Lost Buildings thread I got to wondering if eliminating the park by the MacDonald Hotel and putting a few new buildings on the site might really change the dynamics of Jasper Avenue for the better. (I'm assuming that they could somehow build around and over the LRT / LRT entrance at this site.)

    Note - eliminating any downtown open space seems like a crime to me but, sometimes, they are in simply in the wrong place and instead of being a draw open spaces act as a barrier and never do become the 'people places' they were originally envisioned to become.

    Take a look at the "Before" picture.

    http://www.abheritage.ca/francoedmon...riser0007b.jpg

    1/2 way down this thread...
    http://www.connect2edmonton.ca/forum...ead.php?t=5812

  2. #2
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    47,240

    Default

    NO.

    Many other sites would be far better for a tower and this park is quite an asset to the core and the overall experience of the hotel 'grounds' if you will.

    I just do not 'get it' when people in this city want to destroy some of the more interesting or beautiful elements when we have such vast wastelands ripe for development that are contributing little to no value currently.

    argh
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  3. #3

    Default

    Oh, not a tower!

    I was thinking of single story retail much like the site originally contained. Look at the old photo you originally posted.

    And I agree with your comment about destruction. Nonetheless, in rare cases the parks themselves are small unused wastelands. As for the experience of the hotel grounds, the south face view of the river valley attracts much of the attention. As the trees mature the north side park will no doubt become a greater asset and more of an attraction however since the river valley is under a block away, is it the best and greatest use of that land?
    Last edited by KC; 28-10-2010 at 09:58 AM.

  4. #4

    Default

    Single story retail has no place on CBD-area Jasper Ave anymore, regardless of the historical precedent.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  5. #5

    Default

    Then if it had to be a tower - I'd demand a near architectural match to the MacDonald Hotel. The prime consideration though would be adding retail at street level. I may be wrong but what seems to have killed the vibrancy of downtown Edmonton has been a number of tower developments that inward orientated and so very 'un-inviting' from the street.

    I'd be very fearful of a return of the annex. "Be afraid, very afraid."
    Last edited by KC; 28-10-2010 at 10:15 AM.

  6. #6
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,038

    Default

    If there is to be any single storey buildings I would only want to see them further east on jasper ave. Instead of the park in front of the mac, I would rather see a building on the parking lot 1 block east.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  7. #7

    Default

    Except that parking lot has great potential with a view of the river valley.

    Take a look at Google street view and look at the MacDonald Hotel's open space.

  8. #8
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    47,240

    Default

    "onetheless, in rare cases the parks themselves are small unused wastelands. As for the experience of the hotel grounds, "

    while not central park, i often see conference goers, hotel guests (i presume), and avg. joe enjoying lunch there... and even as simply a natural break from the concrete jungle there is massive value in that park.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  9. #9
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Bonnie Doon
    Posts
    5,303

    Default

    The sloped roof of the LRT entrance does act like a barrier to the park. Is there a better way to incorporate it with the setting?

    http://maps.google.ca/maps?q=jasper+...=12,106.9,,0,5

    Considering that the other three corners of Jasper and 100st. are high rises, I'll like to see better usage of that park space. Perhaps have some food vendors set up there.

  10. #10
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    47,240

    Default

    ^are people that daft that they cannot see or enter the park on the 85% that is open and visible?

    jesus
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  11. #11
    In Guantanamo (Banned)
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,064

    Default

    ^Not that it's a high priority, but that kind of sloped-bunker really can be improved. It would be less intrusive, I think, if shaped as an ordinary kiosk.

  12. #12

    Default

    There used to be a high rise tower on that site and it was demolished in the 1980s (I think). Apparently most of the public was against having a building (or at least the Hotel Mac Annex) on that site.


  13. #13
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Surrey, BC
    Posts
    473

    Default

    Why would anyone support building a tower to block the view of what is arguably the most beautiful building in the city? I think doing so would be disastrous from a PR perspective. Let's put towers in front of Peregrine Point and The Icon instead.

  14. #14

    Default

    We need more buildings in our core, but not on this spot.

    We need a building across Jasper Ave from that park to replace the parking lot right beside the World Trade Center Edmonton, and another building to replace the surface parking between the Marriot and Shaw conference center.

  15. #15
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    31,478

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by prairieboyinexile View Post
    why would anyone support building a tower to block the view of what is arguably the most beautiful building in the city? I think doing so would be disastrous from a pr perspective.
    this this this
    “You have to dream big. If we want to be a little city, we dream small. If we want to be a big city, we dream big, and this is a big idea.” - Mayor Stephen Mandel, 02/22/2012

  16. #16

    Default

    I've always liked the sloped LRT entrance and find it less intrusive than a 'kiosk'. This year during the Gay Pride parade me and my friends (and about a dozen other people) were using it as bleacher seating. Maybe not ideal to some, but it has an alternate use, whenever a parade graces Jasper Ave.

    There are worse barriers in the downtown that limited funds could be spent on removing/improving--the Rice Howard Way Central LRT entrance for one.
    I think of art, at its most significant, as a Distant Early Warning system that can always be relied on to tell the old culture what is beginning to happen to it. —Marshall McLuhan

  17. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    ... Nonetheless, in rare cases the parks themselves are small unused wastelands.
    wasteland

    noun \ˈwāst-ˌland also -lənd\
    1: barren or uncultivated land <a desert wasteland>

    2: an ugly often devastated or barely inhabitable place or area

    3: something (as a way of life) that is spiritually and emotionally arid and unsatisfying
    Can you explain how you perceive this park as being a wasteland? It strikes me as being none of those three, and I see it on a daily bases.
    "A doctor can bury his mistakes but an architect can only advise his clients to plant vines." - Frank Lloyd Wright

  18. #18
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton (belevedre)
    Posts
    6,508

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by farway View Post
    There used to be a high rise tower on that site and it was demolished in the 1980s (I think). Apparently most of the public was against having a building (or at least the Hotel Mac Annex) on that site.

    this hotel tower was open in 1953 and demolished in 1986


    http://www.emporis.com/application/?...dmonton-canada
    Edmonton Rocks Rocks Rocks

  19. #19
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,397

    Default

    What they should do with the land is use it to connect Central LRT station to Canada Place and the Convention Center, of course they need to run it across Thorton Court (umm Courtyard Marriott) perhaps connect it to the LRT too

  20. #20

    Default

    Ah yes, the Hotel Mac and the box it came in.

  21. #21
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    11,011

    Default

    I think that Frank Oliver Park is a nice complement to the Hotel Mac. Let's keep it this way.

    I wonder, though, if it would be possible to have an underground walkway/tunnel (around the transit centre) between Telus and the park. The other end of the tunnel could come out next to Hotel Mac. The entrance to the pedway could be modified for easier access.
    Last edited by The_Cat; 28-10-2010 at 11:20 PM.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  22. #22
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    St. Albert, Alberta
    Posts
    1,007

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jagators63 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by farway View Post
    There used to be a high rise tower on that site and it was demolished in the 1980s (I think). Apparently most of the public was against having a building (or at least the Hotel Mac Annex) on that site.

    this hotel tower was open in 1953 and demolished in 1986


    http://www.emporis.com/application/?...dmonton-canada
    this building was an eyesore, that's why most were glad to see it go! i'm not against a highrise going up in the old building's place.
    Thank You For Finally Going Higher!

  23. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Cat View Post
    I wonder, though, if it would be possible to have an underground walkway/tunnel (around the transit centre) between Telus and the park. The other end of the tunnel could come out next to Hotel Mac. The entrance to the pedway could be modified for easier access.
    I don't know what you're saying.. There already is a tunnel between that park and Telus, how do you think you get to the LRT station from the kiosk is the park? By walking through the tunnel that goes through the bottom of the Telus building.

  24. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Ah yes, the Hotel Mac and the box it came in.
    God that was an incredibly awful design. Why didn't they match it to the original hotel? Then we'd have had a landmark that was visible for blocks either way down Jasper Avenue.

    Do, note the number of people around it though.

    As for wastelands - maybe that's inappropriate. It's just that to me parks downtown should be full of people and not just flat expanses of grass with no seating or other attractions. We have several that seem more designed to deter people from using them than from gathering in them. Like grassy roadway medians, they are nice to look at but lack vibrancy.

  25. #25
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Surrey, BC
    Posts
    473

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Ah yes, the Hotel Mac and the box it came in.
    God that was an incredibly awful design. Why didn't they match it to the original hotel? Then we'd have had a landmark that was visible for blocks either way down Jasper Avenue.

    Do, note the number of people around it though.

    As for wastelands - maybe that's inappropriate. It's just that to me parks downtown should be full of people and not just flat expanses of grass with no seating or other attractions. We have several that seem more designed to deter people from using them than from gathering in them. Like grassy roadway medians, they are nice to look at but lack vibrancy.
    Have you been to this park? There is plenty of seating.

  26. #26
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    47,240

    Default

    ^and massive value in an oasis within an urban environment.

    Some of what I loved most about Manhattan were the ridiculously numerous pocket parks.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  27. #27
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Oliver
    Posts
    3,194

    Default

    ^ I'm going to say this park has the exact same image problem as Beaver Hills House Park - there's no entrance (or the entrance is in the wrong spot).

    If you're standing on any of the opposing corners of Jasper/100 (or sitting in your car at a red, I guess) this park should be welcoming. Like BHH, it completely isn't. People like doors/entrances/thresholds, but from the outside all you get are visual barriers, so it seems like a wasteland.

    The LRT bunker is a large part of that, but I think the layout plays a part too. It's laid out on the grid, so the "entrances" are placed mid-block. Why? That looks pretty in plan view, and it creates a nice vista between the Mac and WTC, but no one sees that. If it were rotated 45 or a giant "Y" I think normal people would like it a lot more. (although the bunker is definitely a problem)

    I'll note that the downtown plan disagrees with me, and envisions more boring linearity where there's no reason for it exist. What we really need is something like the Place D'Youville.



    It looks pretty in plan, but is nice in person too.

  28. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PrairieBoyinExile View Post
    Have you been to this park? There is plenty of seating.
    So it's a successful gathering place / destination? How about the one a block to the west?


    Does anyone have some pictures they can post?


    Here's another 'off-the-wall' thought: Drop the road down into an underpass before it approaches the river's edge and physically link that park to the old AGT Plaza and build a great river's edge lookout. Maybe close off the river's edge MacDonald drive too - or lower it below grade as well and roof it over with a park.
    Last edited by KC; 29-10-2010 at 01:24 PM.

  29. #29
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    47,240

    Default

    ^^ very nice plan.

    I honestly think beaverhills and this park in question are quite nice places but people choose to not use them.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  30. #30
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Oliver
    Posts
    3,194

    Default

    ^ it's because they look crappy from the outside.

    When you build your new downtown park (I should really dig up that other thread) make the corner onto the intersection into a gateway. If you obstruct that corner with masonry, trees, an LRT bunker, or rainbow-coloured lasercut figurines, people will think your park is a wasteland no matter how nice it is inside.

    Head down 103 ave in Oliver. Paul Kane on 121 and the new community garden on 120 both have corner entrances that work terrifically. Then compare those to Oliver Park on 118 and Kitchener Park on 114 which don't and are just kindof there.

  31. #31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by newfangled View Post
    ^ it's because they look crappy from the outside.

    When you build your new downtown park (I should really dig up that other thread) make the corner onto the intersection into a gateway. If you obstruct that corner with masonry, trees, an LRT bunker, or rainbow-coloured lasercut figurines, people will think your park is a wasteland no matter how nice it is inside.

    Head down 103 ave in Oliver. Paul Kane on 121 and the new community garden on 120 both have corner entrances that work terrifically. Then compare those to Oliver Park on 118 and Kitchener Park on 114 which don't and are just kindof there.
    Sentiments that might apply to an entire city. It's about the whole package and more often than anyone wants to admit, good design is about understanding the perception.

  32. #32
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Bonnie Doon
    Posts
    5,303

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by newfangled View Post
    ^ it's because they look crappy from the outside.

    When you build your new downtown park (I should really dig up that other thread) make the corner onto the intersection into a gateway. If you obstruct that corner with masonry, trees, an LRT bunker, or rainbow-coloured lasercut figurines, people will think your park is a wasteland no matter how nice it is inside.
    Not to mention the ugly green poster board thing.

  33. #33
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    5,169

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OilTastic/BigCityDude View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jagators63 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by farway View Post
    There used to be a high rise tower on that site and it was demolished in the 1980s (I think). Apparently most of the public was against having a building (or at least the Hotel Mac Annex) on that site.

    this hotel tower was open in 1953 and demolished in 1986


    http://www.emporis.com/application/?...dmonton-canada
    this building was an eyesore, that's why most were glad to see it go! i'm not against a highrise going up in the old building's place.
    There was a reason why the local joke was "the Hotel MacDonald and the box it came in...." UGLY.

  34. #34
    In Guantanamo (Banned)
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,064

    Default

    ^No uglier than the Federal building -- and exactly the same style.

  35. #35
    Plug C2E into my veins!!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Westwood
    Posts
    16,355

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by abaka View Post
    ^No uglier than the Federal building -- and exactly the same style.
    Huh? How can you compare the two (other than they being roughly the same height)?

  36. #36
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Holyrood
    Posts
    4,846

    Default

    ^^ Not even close.
    Strathcona City Separatist

  37. #37
    In Guantanamo (Banned)
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,064

    Default

    ^Much closer than you think.





    The same basic c.1940-1950 international style: very sober (dull) finish, small windows without sills, a noted lack or adornment.

    Speer-stuff, really.

  38. #38
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    5,169

    Default

    c'mon

    The Federal building has some deco embelishments while the addition to the Mac had zero. Beside's the Fed is an office block while the other was a hotel and should have had some sense of "welcome" to it's style.

  39. #39
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    47,240

    Default

    Abaka - really? come on homey
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  40. #40
    In Guantanamo (Banned)
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,064

    Default

    Yes, the Fed building has some minimal art-deco embellishments. Very minimal ones. The old Mac extension did not have those. And the materials differ a bit.

    But otherwise they felt the same. Massive, overpowering, and in very poor scale.

    Don't let your sentimentality about the Fed surviving with a historical designation while the old Mac addition has been gone for 25 years blind you to their essential similarities.

    I know you many of you guys don't even remember what the SE corner of Jasper and 100 was like in the old days, but just look at the two photos I posted.

  41. #41
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Oliver
    Posts
    3,194

    Default

    With the Mac Annex, you can see that the sizing and spacing of the windows was quite deliberately trying to mimic the windows on the Mac. No wonder it's bad architectrue. They could have gone whole hog and copied the roof style too, but then instead of a box it would have been a Franken-building like the Chateau Lake Louise. (the CLL is so ugly that in the giftshop all the postcards are of the Banff Springs...)

    As for the Fed, the embellishment might minimal be but there's very little that's modern about it. The floorplan is a double-W which is a huge throwback, and everything else stems from that.

  42. #42
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Holyrood
    Posts
    4,846

    Default

    I guess if you look from a distance and squint really hard, they have similar colour and window spacings.

    The massing, detailing, lines, materials, and, well, pretty much everything else differ.
    Strathcona City Separatist

  43. #43

    Default

    I also think the fed's massing works—or at least works better—in near isolation, rather than the old Mac Annex's butting up against the older style. But then again, I don't remember the old Annex, it was demolished before I began to get a mental map of downtown.
    I think of art, at its most significant, as a Distant Early Warning system that can always be relied on to tell the old culture what is beginning to happen to it. —Marshall McLuhan

  44. #44
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    31,478

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by abaka View Post
    ^No uglier than the Federal building -- and exactly the same style.
    “You have to dream big. If we want to be a little city, we dream small. If we want to be a big city, we dream big, and this is a big idea.” - Mayor Stephen Mandel, 02/22/2012

  45. #45
    In Guantanamo (Banned)
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,064

    Default

    ^Cute drawing, but doesn't mean much.

    They were alike in many more ways than they were different.

  46. #46
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    5,169

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by abaka View Post
    Yes, the Fed building has some minimal art-deco embellishments. Very minimal ones. The old Mac extension did not have those. And the materials differ a bit.

    But otherwise they felt the same. Massive, overpowering, and in very poor scale.

    Don't let your sentimentality about the Fed surviving with a historical designation while the old Mac addition has been gone for 25 years blind you to their essential similarities.

    I know you many of you guys don't even remember what the SE corner of Jasper and 100 was like in the old days, but just look at the two photos I posted.
    abaka, the Federal Building was supposed to be massive and overwhelming governments like that style! Makes them feel "all powerful" a hotel should have some exterior charm (except in Soviet Russia LOL)

    The old Mac addition from the 50's is virtually the same style as The Queen Elizabeth Hotel in Montreal and since they were both built originally by CNHotels , obviously must have had the same firm design them.

    Ugly hotel addition in Edmonton thankfully gone. Montreal still has the QE, I got to stay in it for a week in October. Huge and Not the prettiest place on the streets of Montreal.......Has all the exterior charm of a huge Revenue Canada Block or such.

  47. #47
    In Guantanamo (Banned)
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,064

    Default

    ^well, the Russian parliament is actually shockingly similar to our Federal Building, but Revenue Canada is off.






    PS. I know this belongs in another ongoing thread, but look at the public art in front of Revenue Canada and at the slightly different art in front of the Duma.

  48. #48
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    5,169

    Default

    I was using Revenue Canada just as an example of government departments we all love to hate. I actually had no idea what it's building actually looked like.....And for the record I like it.

    Now as for the Russian Parliament that's scary......Either the USSR ran the Dominion of Canada once or the Dominion Government at some time controlled Moscow......

    But I still say the "late" addition to the Mac ïs no great loss.

  49. #49
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    11

    Default

    Stantec just sent out letters asking people for feedback on building on this site again. No longer Procura, now it's Great Gulf, hoping for a 55 story tower. I think good chance it'll kill the view of the Hotel Mac, our premier visual building downtown.

  50. #50
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    47,240
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  51. #51
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    11

    Default

    < Thanks!

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •