The Emerald: aiming higher
To date, Edmonton has never seen a residential building of the scale that City Council approved at its Public Hearing on Monday night. At 45 storeys, the Emerald will be four times higher and double the density than the current zoning allows. When it’s all said and done, it will add 500+ people to the Oliver neighbourhood. If you take those two facts in isolation – a taller building and more people downtown – this should have been slam dunk decision for me.
Only it wasn’t.
When we consider buildings of this scale, I believe our standards must rise accordingly. Through a decision like this, where council is asked to grant a doubling of development potential through upzoning, we ought to expect outstanding design. Council has approved several large towers over the past few years – including the stunning Pearl, by the same developer – that evolve our city’s skyline and bring new people to the core of our city. However, in my entirely subjective view, the configuration of the Emerald’s podium and the sculpting of its tower are not up to the same standard as many other recent tower approvals.
While I can appreciate the need to contain costs with the aim of (hopefully) providing more market-affordable units, the above-grade parking in this project did not sit well with me. Commercial or residential activity in front of the parking, as we see in towers along 104 Street for example, would be more appropriate along one of our main streets. This message of ‘function over form’ that Council’s decision sends to other landowners could have undesirable consequences, but time will tell on that question.
Council also struggled with the contributions the developer will be making to affordable housing. Encouragingly, this was a strong point of concern for the Community League, which took the rare position of advocating for substantially more affordable housing. Under Council’s existing policy, the City has the option to purchase 5% of the units in the building at 85% of the market rate. Again, this is the same ask we make of any site-specific Direct Control rezoning, no matter how much new development opportunity is created. Here, Council is granting a doubling of that potential, which is quite out of the ordinary, so one contribution to the public benefit could have been additional affordable housing contributions, beyond the ‘5/85,’ just as we’ve seen with other exceptional rezonings like the Mezzo. These are the kinds of trade-offs that should be astutely negotiated when the City is being asked to grant tens of millions of dollars in new development opportunity.
In the end, my vote was not against height and density in our core but against settling for second-best. I’d happily support 50 stories in the right location, with the right design, and appropriate community benefits. But all of this would need to add up to an A+ building.
This proposal started as a B two weeks ago, and got to a B+ with some minor changes I pushed for. But I expect straight A’s at this height and when this magnitude of new development rights is being requested of Council.
11 thoughts on “The Emerald: aiming higher”
Comments are closed.
I disagree Mr. Mayor. I think with the changes it will be just fine. Too much nit-picking for a nice impressive tower downtown !!!
I agree with much of what you have written, Mayor iveson. One of the design traps that Edmonton is falling into (perhaps by policy as much as by interpretation thereof) is the notion that for high-rise buildings there is a distinct separation between design of podia and the design of towers. While this may be an admirable methodology to promote neighbourhood distinction for the “warehouse district”, I believe it is a mistake to apply it to other parts of the city. It leads to above-grade parking conundrums as illustrated by the “Emerald” project. Certainly, much of this could be cleared up by applicable new policy.
For central core towers, the City ought to reduce the overall parking requirement — as density increases in the City’s core, there becomes less and less need for a private vehicle for those who choose the downtown lifestyle; there ought to be, as well, a clear policy for automated parking standards. As you and I have discussed in the past, well considered use of automated systems enables parking areas to be “densified” so that less overall space is consumed as a ratio — parking to entire project. A well thought out automated parking design can reduce the parking floor plate by as much as 300%. Had this been considered for “Emerald” by their designers, underground parking would have been economically achievable. In fact, it would have reduced costs.
I well understand that civic policy cannot ensure good design, but it should be able to herd thinking in the right direction. While the Jane Jacobs’ meme “eyes on the street” is an admirable goal for all development, the Planners stretched the intent for this project — Jane was referring to only residential “eyes” and the podium design with canopy projections, etc. would have occluded that possibility were the upper podia floors residential anyway.
One very successful civic operation that I was able to help guide in its formation here in Los Angeles was the institution of a “Restaurant and Hospitality Expediting Group”. The Group’s main focus was on restaurants and hotels and the ways and means of connecting City architects, planners and engineers with those of the developer to achieve results that met the goals of all potential stakeholders. I see the potential for a similar organizational structure in Edmonton that would deal exclusively with high-rise structures, anything rising above 6 floors, say.
How can a Planning Department negotiate with developers for this A+ vision, if council is willing to settle for less? In other words, are we handicapping the development approval process (and associated negotiations between the administration and developers) with a council willing to say ‘yes’ to developers?
I agree with the mayor and the councillors who voted against this plan as it is. I appreciate his explanation and transparency unlike Mandel who bullied councillors into voting his way.
I appreciate these thoughts when we’re talking about buildings that will be in place for decades. Quick approvals lead to the same long-term fate as ones more fully considered.
I agree with the rejection based on the design. I want to see a structurally diverse Edmonton. After visiting Barcelona and marveling at the beautiful apartments and fantastic designs, it was very depressing to return to Edmonton and look at the blue steel architecture. While it is fantastic to have taller buildings in Edmonton we need to remember that these will be seen for generations to come and it is perhaps time that the city take on some more initiative to make this place a joy to walk through and see different artistic styles gracing our city. Let us keep this city A+