The Pearl | Residential | 35 stories | Under Construction

[darrellinyvr]

Originally Posted by davidnorwoodink

^ Sorry to disagree, Darrell. Way back in the 1950's I delivered the Journal to those apartments. They were just about as bad then as they were just before they were torn down. They were never very good, and as time passed they became more and more ugly. They were way past their time to go.

I will defer to your advanced age in regards to them being ugly in the 50's since I can only remember them from the 60's LOL

Actually Ken I misread your post as I didn't have my sarcasm radar switched on yet

So I was obviously being misread here, I do not think those previous walk-ups were spectacular and or worth keeping. I suppose that being I had friends living in the ones where the Illuminda towers are in the 80's I will confess to having some good times in them.

So hypothetically IF the entire block of walk-ups HAD been kept up and were STILL viable either as rentals or condo's do you not think that 1 block of walk-ups on Jasper ave could have remained?

I am not stating that they deserved saving just for the sake of being there,
I can remember those buildings my entire life. On one level I am sad to see them go but on another level I'm looking towards the Pearl towering over Jasper.

[jagators63]

about 3 hrs ago, I just happen to pass by at where pearl is planning to built and it was deep digging about 18 to 25 ft down now

[darrellinyvr]

Probably a big ol mud pit at the moment.

[abaka]

^if not a tailings pond. (I remember the pond that used to form at the CPR overpass on Jasper back when....)

[darrellinyvr]

Originally Posted by abaka

^if not a tailings pond. (I remember the pond that used to form at the CPR overpass on Jasper back when....)

Don't forget the ill fated rathole under 104th at 109th always a delight in this type of weather.

I wouldn't be suprised if the equipment at the Pearl site is half swallowed by muck.

[Megatron]

Well apparently not too mucky, they're back at it today. Sidewalk scaffolding is now being set up as well.

[immobile]

There was a big lake there 2 days ago. With an island in the middle and beautiful boats...mmm...sorry...excavators floating around.

No seriously there is a bit of a problem there with that rain. I know at least 2 building are flooded in parkades in this area.
11930-100 Ave (brand new condo) and River Cliff(I think it's called) are hooked up to fire hydrant and pumping. And the driveway(next to Pearl's pit) between River Cliff and an older brown building next to it got washed and there is a huge hole about 15-20 feet deep.

[IanO]

^pictures!

[immobile]

Here are some pictures from Saturday July 17th.

As you can see tenants are parking supercars outside because they can not get to(or get out) the parkade.


There is no longer a lake in a pit. They pumped it out.

However the 2 nearby condos still have hoses attached to fire hydrants as of Saturday afternoon.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/5064043...th/4802836619/

[Megatron]

I am currently drooling over that Mercedes SLS....

[ChrisD]

^Yea, that is a wicked ride.

[CRobertson]

Amazing what you can come across on the internet.

http://digitalarts3d.com/DAI_090510/...High_Rise.html

[kal104]

Originally Posted by CRobertson

Amazing what you can come across on the internet.

http://digitalarts3d.com/DAI_090510/...High_Rise.html

Nice find CRobertson. I can see that one of the renderings (north perspective) on the web page you cite above clearly has "The Pearl" as the name over the building's entrance. Just wondering, how did you find these renderings on the internet (via Google or some other means)?

Also, I see that the above post is your first one on C2E. So, welcome to C2E! Have you been lurking for a while on this message board or did you find out about C2E recently (again, just my curiosity as I like to know what brings new posters to C2E)?

[OilTastic/BigCityDude]

that's ultra cool, CRobertson!

[glasshead]

Originally Posted by CRobertson

Amazing what you can come across on the internet.

http://digitalarts3d.com/DAI_090510/...High_Rise.html

Frankly, I'm schocked at how good it looks...assuming indeed that these digital renderings are followed. The podium retail spaces are a little SEC'ish to me, but all in all very impressive.

[jagators63]

Originally Posted by CRobertson

Amazing what you can come across on the internet.

http://digitalarts3d.com/DAI_090510/...High_Rise.html

I like what I saw in this link !! thumb up !!

[IanO]

nice find!

[abaka]

I know the architects and engineers have worked it over, but that is one seriously huge mass going up very close to a landslide-prone area. How much density can that bank support before a repeat of the c. 1995 slide at 116 street? I doubt they're anchoring it as well as they did at the convention centre back in the day.

[davidnorwoodink]

It'll be transformative to that part of the central west end. I like it a lot.

[IanO]

From digitalarts3d.com

[Chris83]

It will be great to see when the building overtakes The Pinnacle as the tallest in the neighborhood.

I think this will probably be the tipping point necessary for this end of Jasper Ave.'s business; although I think the city's ending it's Jasper Ave. 'vision' at 111 St. is a bit short-sighted.

[Marcel Petrin]

Originally Posted by abaka

I know the architects and engineers have worked it over, but that is one seriously huge mass going up very close to a landslide-prone area. How much density can that bank support before a repeat of the c. 1995 slide at 116 street? I doubt they're anchoring it as well as they did at the convention centre back in the day.

I'm sure Protostatix are designing the foundation properly. If anything it'll likely stabilize the bank in that area. Don't forget that the parkade is likely 30-40 feet deep, so it's not like the building is just sitting on top of the bank.

[DTrobotnik]

wow this building makes so many others seem ancient. we need so much more steel and glass in the city...

[McBoo]

It'll be great, if, IF it ends up looking anything like the renderings (see Icon phallics for reference to my healthy scepticism).

[Marcel Petrin]

Originally Posted by McBoo

It'll be great, if, IF it ends up looking anything like the renderings (see Icon phallics for reference to my healthy scepticism).

Moahunter made a similar comment about the Quest in the past, and I will ask the same of you: what was changed in regards to the Icons and them not looking like their renderings?

[IanO]

^green podium roofs..... hahaha

[McBoo]

^^ Looking at the gallery here - http://www.theicon.ca/ - I don't know but somehow the words ALL FREAKING WHITE don't come to mind same as they do every time I see those giant phallic symbols.

[240GLT]

^ The renderings look almost exactly like the finished product. Quit whining.

[McBoo]

It's in the eye of the beholder I guess - no point getting into a hissing match about it.

[moahunter]

Originally Posted by McBoo

^^ Looking at the gallery here - http://www.theicon.ca/ - I don't know but somehow the words ALL FREAKING WHITE don't come to mind same as they do every time I see those giant phallic symbols.

Or all freaking beige and crap all windows per the Quest renderings that suggested the opposite. These are done to "sell" not to show "regular people" (i.e. those who can't imagine the colours and materials that aren't presented clearly, and show all four sides) what it will actually look like. I mean seriously, just look at the comments on quest about how top is better than bottom, etc. - were any of those made before the building went up, just based on the renderings? Nope. Whatever, if it sells to the suckers and is "good enough" / "confuses" EDC, so be it.

[Marcel Petrin]

So basically you still can't point out anything that was changed from the renders. Thanks.

Originally Posted by McBoo

It's in the eye of the beholder I guess - no point getting into a hissing match about it.

That's a cop out response. Were things changed from original renders/design or not? Looking at their website the buildings look identical, and yes, the renders are clearly shown almost entirely in white save for windows and the podiums.

Originally Posted by IanO

^green podium roofs..... hahaha

Score one for Ian, although I'm not sure if those rooftop gardens were part of the renders or just a note in the marketing materials. Whoops nevermind, they're shown on the website.

[IanO]

Icon changed from renderings for the following reasons:

- height increase
- tower 2 N/E, NW redesign
- no green roof podiums

[McBoo]

^^ The renderings show a glass curtain (and indeed there is one on each building) and a lot of grey, glass balconies (which there are) and exactly one window per floor surrounded by white.

I'd say "pretty" accurate from one POV. Unfortunately the other three sides aren't anything close to looking like the renderings.

I'm not tryintg to cop out - just don't want the grief of a back aqnd forth "stop whining" over this, of all things.

[240GLT]

There never was a rendering of the other three sides. The money shot was always from the SE. And renderings are always 'pretty' accurate.... they're never carbon copies of the finished product.

[etownboarder]

Notice the little park on the west side of the renderings? I like parks.

[McBoo]

Originally Posted by 240GLT

There never was a rendering of the other three sides. The money shot was always from the SE. And renderings are always 'pretty' accurate.... they're never carbon copies of the finished product.

Perhaps because the other three sides are masses of freakin white?

[IanO]

actually they had multiple sides... at one time.

[newfangled]

In the "west" rendering of the Pearl (which Ian didn't post) it clearly shows the south elevation with a little bit of the stucco and cartoony windows that were all over the original renderings.

That same section of the building is also shown on the "southwest" rendering, except in that one it looks more like the windowwall (or Omega-esque pseudo curtainwall) that is used in other sections.

I hope that the west rendering is a goof, because getting rid of the stucco and cartoon windows (particularly the cartoon windows) was a great move. If they mysteriously make their way back onto the finished product that will be worthy of some complaining.

[AlanW9]

I looked at Pearl website and through this thread. Anyone know how tall the Pearl is in ft or m? Thanks in advance!

[immobile]

That's a nice rendering. It is inaccurate in terms of the area around Pearl, though. But it has to look pretty, I guess.

I was looking at the pit yesterday to see the progress. The dump trucks were moving mud for the past few days as if there is no tomorrow. It is fairly deep already. I would guess at least 50 feet. The worker mentioned to me it will have 7 story underground parking.

It is before 7 a.m. right now and I see from my window there are already 7 of them waiting to get in.

[Chmilz]

Retail renders say "Health, Fashion, Salon..."

When complete, I predict it'll say "Cash Store, Donairs, Subway, Starbucks"

Beautiful building though. Renders look good, and much better than the rotting row housing that preceded it.

[IanO]

Originally Posted by AlanW9

I looked at Pearl website and through this thread. Anyone know how tall the Pearl is in ft or m? Thanks in advance!

If I recall it was around 107-110m

[moahunter]

Originally Posted by newfangled

I hope that the west rendering is a goof, because getting rid of the stucco and cartoon windows (particularly the cartoon windows) was a great move. If they mysteriously make their way back onto the finished product that will be worthy of some complaining.

I do too, that's my fear on this. There are some "hints" of stucco on the pictures. Often I have noticed renderings hide these, by blacking it out as shadow behind the balcony. Sure the glass we see here looks nice (although we can see hints that there is stucco around the windows), but what if it turns out that its only one or two strips on one or two sides, and the rest is, who knows what colour, stucco with even smaller puched windows? I have learned that is what to expect, I would never make the mistake of buying based on one of these types of images. If nothing else, I hope they keep to the dark blue and white scheme and don't get pushed by EDC again to change it to blah beige or similar.

[Chmilz]

That west perspective sure seems out of place, and could very well be stucco. I too share the fear that those windows will end up smaller. However, if the rest of the renders prove to be accurate, one slightly less-than-ideal portion of the west wall would be acceptable, and in all likelihood is made that way to reduce evening sun (being a west-facing condo owner, I can attest to the insane heat it draws).

[IanO]

^sun shades would do wonders for afternoon heating...

[moahunter]

Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin

So basically you still can't point out anything that was changed from the renders. Thanks.

OK, then lets put you on the spot to do us all a favour. Since you have the brilliance to know exactly what this will end up looking like on all four sides based on the rendering, please help those of us who can't figure it out, by telling us if it will be closer to:

1. A building like Icon or Quest, that is punched windows and stucco with some strips of glass, with the stucco dominating, or
2. A glass looking condo tower like we see being built in Calgary and Vancouver.

Which is it? I'm expecting 1. (although I'm hoping darker stucco will result in it looking better than Icon or Quest - the strips of white concern me though).

[noodle]

Originally Posted by IanO

^sun shades would do wonders for afternoon heating...

My cats have stopped lying in sunbeams since I moved to the Uptown. The patches on the floor just don't get warm enough to be worth the constant readjustment and hard surface compared to the couch.

The new glass is superimpressive for it's heat reflection ability. It takes high outdoor temps along with the sun to really turn up the heat inside, and even then it's generally fixed by circulation rather than active cooling.

[Marcel Petrin]

Since you have the brilliance to know exactly what this will end up looking like on all four sides based on the rendering

I never said I'm a genius at interpreting renderings or architectural plan elevations and developing a mental image of what a building will look like. In fact, I'll be the first to admit I'm quite poor at it.

My only issue is that you and McBoo made accusations that the Icon and Quest were significantly changed from their renderings in a bait and switch, when the reality is that they ended up virtually identical to what the renderings showed, and therefore the accusation is unfounded.

From what I've seen of the Pearl, it looks pretty nice and has the potential to really stand out from most buildings in Edmonton. It probably won't top One River Park, but certainly it'll end up looking better than Icon or Quest. I don't know how keen I am on the ground floor, but I'm not an expert on "street interaction" or indeed architectural design in general. I like pipe and boilers and ducts.

[moahunter]

Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin

From what I've seen of the Pearl, it looks pretty nice and has the potential to really stand out from most buildings in Edmonton. It probably won't top One River Park, but certainly it'll end up looking better than Icon or Quest.

In other words, you don't know based on the renderings, whether it will look much better than the Icon or Quest, or on a par with what is being built in other cities, which is my point. We should know.

[newfangled]

^ on the north elevation the four windows in the centre that run all the way to the top (if that description makes sense) will be the key.

In the original renderings they were punched windows with cartoon mullions (which still show up on the west rendering, but not the southwest for some reason)

But if the new renderings are accurate then expect that section to roughly the same as the Uptown.

[IanO]

Originally Posted by moahunter

In other words, you don't know based on the renderings, whether it will look much better than the Icon or Quest, or on a par with what is being built in other cities, which is my point. We should know.

When they submit their development to the city they use these renderings along with a detailed description of materials et al to evaluate it. EDC also reviews this to ensure "we should know".

[etownboarder]

Originally Posted by Chmilz

That west perspective sure seems out of place, and could very well be stucco. I too share the fear that those windows will end up smaller.

At least it's not an entire wall without ANY windows at all... *couch* ICON *cough*

[Marcel Petrin]

Originally Posted by moahunter

In other words, you don't know based on the renderings, whether it will look much better than the Icon or Quest, or on a par with what is being built in other cities, which is my point. We should know.

No, your point was that the projects in question were changed from the renders, when in fact they were not.

Short of a life-like virtual reality simulator, I'm unclear as to what exactly you expect architects and developers to do past computer renderings and detailed architectural plans? 1/4 scale models? What? It's unfortunate, but also reality that renderings even if they are of high quality and detail are never going to be able to give you a completely 100% accurate representation of what a final, finished building will look like.

But again, nothing significant was changed with the Icon and Quest from what the renders and architectural plans showed. They ended up exactly as they were designed, or nearly so.

[McBoo]

Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin

....<snip> ...My only issue is that you and McBoo made accusations that the Icon and Quest were significantly changed from their renderings in a bait and switch, when the reality is that they ended up virtually identical to what the renderings showed, and therefore the accusation is unfounded.

I said bait and switch?

[moahunter]

Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin

Short of a life-like virtual reality simulator, I'm unclear as to what exactly you expect architects and developers to do past computer renderings and detailed architectural plans?

We have had some very clear renderings by other developers. Take the EPCOR tower, it looks almost exactly the same as the rendering. You yourself have said you don't know whether or not this will be significantly better than Quest or Icon. If renderings like were done for EPCOR, or even Vision for the Corner (which had photo realistic renderings from all directions) had been done, we would know that. That isn't really in the developers interest though is it, in terms of sales, if it turns out this isn't going to look that great like Quest and Icon? That's what makes me think this developer has something to hide again, just like we were all (except for you) a bit surprised with what Icon and Quest finally turned out like.

[ChrisD]

Originally Posted by moahunter

Or all freaking beige and crap all windows per the Quest renderings that suggested the opposite. These are done to "sell" not to show "regular people" (i.e. those who can't imagine the colours and materials that aren't presented clearly, and show all four sides) what it will actually look like. I mean seriously, just look at the comments on quest about how top is better than bottom, etc. - were any of those made before the building went up, just based on the renderings? Nope. Whatever, if it sells to the suckers and is "good enough" / "confuses" EDC, so be it.

Ok, I think you're going a tad overboard on the Quest windows. While the rendering seems to show larger windows, the finished product isn't that different at the end of the day.

[AAAAE]

Originally Posted by moahunter

If nothing else, I hope they keep to the dark blue and white scheme and don't get pushed by EDC again to change it to blah beige or similar.

This has already been through EDC...It was EDC that approved the project as you see it now.

Do you remember this?








This was before EDC.

[IanO]

^yup, pathetic.

[moahunter]

^well we will see, I hope the optimists are right. I guess I just got disheartened after how Quest turned out, I know this is a minority view, but I actually prefer the functional red box/rectangle look of the legacy.

I'm not convinced EDC really adds anything. If a developer builds something ugly that interacts poorly with the street, then that should impact sales, the market should fix the situation. There should be enough incentive to build something attractive without that. Lets see how this turns out though, I hope its better than I expect, in a way, its better to go into this with a pessimistic view, at least it can only get better.

[IanO]

^disagree. EDC is not perfect by any stretch, but it helps shape better developments.

Furthermore, I am not convinced we have enlightened buyers with regards to design yet... for as we found out in the movie Jerry Maguire, you had me at SS and granite.

[moahunter]

Originally Posted by IanO

^
Furthermore, I am not convinced we have enlightened buyers with regards to design yet... .

When somebody builds a glass condo that rasies the bar (like we see going up in Calgary), that might change (subject to whether people think any extra cost there is, is worth it). EDC is not going to make someone build that though, until then, I fear they are just applying lipstick that slows down the pace of developement that we need quickly to fill our downtown.

[IanO]

^i am sorry that you are wrong.

But I guess someone has to be.

[Chmilz]

I can EASILY whip up 50 newer condos, homes, or businesses that prove the market dictates little on exterior design. People buy cheap homes that can be lived in. Exterior looks truly are secondary to cost, layout, and location.

[Chris83]

When developers only build junk exteriors, then that becomes the norm for the city and doesn't affect pricing much. We need EDC to push design further; a handful of locations that go above and beyond what Edmonton typically does can raise the standard, but developers have little incentive to do so if no one else bothers and you can still charge $1,000,000 + for a condo in the Omega.

[IanO]

^don't hate on my building.

Plus, the penthouses sold for $400k in 2005 and one is for sale now, $675,000.00

Plus... Omega, objectively of course, is one of the nicest condos in the city other than the north wall IMO.

[Chris83]

Originally Posted by IanO

^don't hate on my building.

Plus, the penthouses sold for $400k in 2005 and one is for sale now, $675,000.00

Plus... Omega, objectively of course, is one of the nicest condos in the city other than the north wall IMO.

My bad, I meant Illuminada (the one right next to the pearl).

[ChrisD]

Originally Posted by Chris83

My bad, I meant Illuminada (the one right next to the pearl).

To be honest, I think Illuminada tower 1 is better than Omega - better use of articulation, curtainwall, roof line, mainfloor retail set-up. The only real drawback is its rather small lobby.

[XTendEdmonton]

^ Agreed ... Illuminada takes the crown

[moahunter]

^I like Illuminada as well, it is a shame it isn't being carbon copied all over the city.

[kcantor]

Originally Posted by IanO

^don't hate on my building.

Plus, the penthouses sold for $400k in 2005 and one is for sale now, $675,000.00

Plus... Omega, objectively of course, is one of the nicest condos in the city other than the north wall IMO.

there's no hate on for your building.

it's just interesting that your building is "other than the north wall" but when it comes to the icon it would seem to "only have a west wall"...

[Chris83]

I don't hate the Illuminada either.

I kind of ruined my own point when I mixed up the building names, but the point was that architectural style in Edmonton is so sub-par that a building like the Illuminada can command premium prices. The Illuminada is good for Edmonton and prices reflect that, however such a building in many other large cities would not be a point of much pride.

For example, the Riveria in Toronto, located on Lake Ontario, matches the Illuminada in price:

[Chris83]

Also, just found this in my Picasa; flashback to the beginning of demolition on the site:

[Marcel Petrin]

Originally Posted by moahunter

Take the EPCOR tower, it looks almost exactly the same as the rendering.

The Epcor tower's renderings translate very easily to what the building actually looks like because it's really a pretty simple building: it's glazing from head to toe. Other buildings the rendering doesn't give you as clear of a picture simply because there's a lot of smaller details that just aren't clear, or even if they are, once you see them "in real life" they don't work as well as they looked like they would in the render.

Again, it's a limitation of renders in general and not anything specific to those projects or an intentional bait and switch on the part of developers.

Originally Posted by moahunter

That's what makes me think this developer has something to hide again, just like we were all (except for you) a bit surprised with what Icon and Quest finally turned out like.

I was surprised as well, actually. As I said, I'm not good at looking at plans or renders and translating that in to an accurate mental picture of the finished project. I just don't have an eye or mind for it. Quest turned out better by a bit than I had originally suspected (save for the cooling tower on the North side, ugh), Icon quite a bit worse. But with the Icon it was primarily because I didn't pay close attention to the North and West elevations. Again, the buildings look quite similar to what was originally shown in renders, even if that doesn't translate well to actually seeing them in front of you.

Originally Posted by moahunter

I guess I just got disheartened after how Quest turned out, I know this is a minority view, but I actually prefer the functional red box/rectangle look of the legacy.

The colors of the Legacy are great. The massing? Horrendous and 40 years out of date. I live across from the Century and even though I'm not a fan of how the Icons turned out, I'll take their slender designs over another soviet-era apartment bloc like the Century or Legacy any day. The century blocks my sunlight for a huge portion of the day, probably 50% more than both of the Icons combined.

Originally Posted by Chmilz

I can EASILY whip up 50 newer condos, homes, or businesses that prove the market dictates little on exterior design. People buy cheap homes that can be lived in. Exterior looks truly are secondary to cost, layout, and location.

I very much agree. Most buyers know extremely little about what they're buying, other than square footage and what the interior finishing looks like. Why would they care what the building looks like from the outside? They live inside.

Originally Posted by Chris83

For example, the Riveria in Toronto, located on Lake Ontario, matches the Illuminada in price:

Really? On what basis? $/ft? I have a hard time believing that, truth be told.

[Chris83]

Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin

Really? On what basis? $/ft? I have a hard time believing that, truth be told.

On the basis of price per square foot, really.

Average price at the Illuminada is currently $400 per square foot, with a high over $500 - that's the sale price not the asking.

The Riveria in Toronto is approximately $460 per square foot, and that is the asking so the actual sale will likely be a bit lower.

Suprising? Welcome to Edmonton.

[micmac]

Looks similar to the Encore in Calgary. Bit taller and different colour but I'd imagine it would turn out similar.

Step in the right direction though. Hopefully there are no blank walls.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/26085622@N02/3489432968

[Marcel Petrin]

http://www.remaxcondosplus.com/toron...eraCondos.html

Doesn't have a complete price list or anything, but taking the smallest suite at 580ft and lowest price at $225,000, that works out to about $390 a square foot. So yeah, looks like the building is indeed in the $400-500/ft range. I'm not very familiar with Toronto's real estate market, but is that typical?

[ChrisD]

Originally Posted by Chris83

I don't hate the Illuminada either.

I kind of ruined my own point when I mixed up the building names, but the point was that architectural style in Edmonton is so sub-par that a building like the Illuminada can command premium prices. The Illuminada is good for Edmonton and prices reflect that, however such a building in many other large cities would not be a point of much pride.

For example, the Riveria in Toronto, located on Lake Ontario, matches the Illuminada in price:

Well not exactly apples to apples. While Illuminada did command strong prices, the psf cost of a condo in Toronto are higher than Edmonton. Plus in Toronto you typically have to pay for a parking stall which is an additional $20-30,000. Not that that is a bad thing and I know some local developers here are trying to convince the City to allow for this.

[abaka]

There is nothing subpar about the Illuminadas, beyond the infantile green-grass envy of pretend sophisticates.

The market is what the market is.

[barhonda]

Originally Posted by abaka

There is nothing subpar about the Illuminadas, beyond the infantile green-grass envy of pretend sophisticates.

Can you please elaborate?

[noodle]

Originally Posted by abaka

There is nothing subpar about the Illuminadas, beyond the infantile green-grass envy of pretend sophisticates.

The market is what the market is.

I had the opportunity to buy into both Illuminadas and chose not to based upon some lackluster floorplans that had long hallways and awkward angles, leading to wasted space. They weren't sub-par per se, but they were not at the level the cost per square foot led you to believe.

[Chris83]

^
So the price is too high, the floor plans are sub par and the exterior is not very high quality in comparison to similar projects in other cities commanding equal prices. Sounds sub-par to me.

You said the market is what it is, and that is exactly my point. I previously stated that Edmonton's general lack of architectural quality results in mediocore buildings commanding above average prices because they are nice relative to Edmonton's current stock.

[ChrisD]

I think Illuminada 1 is one of the better towers we've seen go up. I like the overall articulation in the facade, the window placement, the use of curtainwall, black window trims, neutral colour scheme. I would agree that the interior designs weren't that efficient but I wouldn't say the building is 'sub-par'.

[XTendEdmonton]

uhh yeah, about that ...Illuminada I is far from 'sub-par'

[Chris83]

Originally Posted by ChrisD

I think Illuminada 1 is one of the better towers we've seen go up.

My point exactly. The fact that this is one of the best new residential buildings in the city is what I take issue with, not the building itself. Especially considering what neighborhood it is built in.

[Edmcowboy11]

Not much to see, but I took a picture today to update what's all going on.

[jagators63]

^ it has been like that for almost 3 months but I do not know why they stop ??

[ChrisD]

They are still working it, the parkade levels always seem to take the longest.

[Megatron]

After coming back from a week-long trip to Seattle and seeing how many of their newer buildings have turned out, I'm praying that this development turns out close to the new rendering and less like the original. Give me more glass curtain walls and less stucco walls with punch out windows!

[IanO]

they have been going at a snails pace recently...