Edmonton Construction 5 - Page 65

Kevin_foster · #**1281** Posted **Dec 13, 2006, 6:19 PM**

ISnt Glenora B&B on 103rd?

Go south a little and there is a (half) empty lot...

Jasper and one o nin · #**1282** Posted **Dec 13, 2006, 6:27 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CMD UW

The part of the Tabernacle that the City wishes to save is not the pyramid, they realize that it is too difficult of a structure to incorporate into a new building. It is the building immediately west of the pyramid that they are eager to retain.

where are you getting that info.. curious
I thought that the city didnt want to save any of it.. it was the appeal board that overturned the demo permit

Kevin_foster · #**1283** Posted **Dec 13, 2006, 6:41 PM**

Damn this forum! It's too slow! Let's move!

Citysource · #**1284** Posted **Dec 13, 2006, 7:00 PM**

^^if the owner wants to designate a part of it there there is $$ in it for them to make that adaptation work.

Jasper and one o nin · #**1285** Posted **Dec 13, 2006, 7:19 PM**

Yeah, but it needs to be identified on the register of historic resources first. and the City would not support inclusion on the register. The buildings are late 60's early 70's

feepa · #**1286** Posted **Dec 13, 2006, 7:30 PM**

This video/rendering has recently changed, they've updated to the latest version of the 23/Gateway Blvd Interchange (Nov 17/2006)
http://www.23ave-interchange.com/g_animation.html
Don't think its been posted.
Much more detail then previous versions I've seen, and now shows the fly over rather then the underpass

feepa · #**1287** Posted **Dec 13, 2006, 7:44 PM**

Wonder if this will start in 2007 or 2008

feepa · #**1288** Posted **Dec 13, 2006, 7:47 PM**

Here is the maximum extent the quesnel can be built to

http://www.edmonton.ca/RoadsTraffic/Whitemud_Corridor.pdf

ExcaliburKid · #**1289** Posted **Dec 13, 2006, 7:59 PM**

Love the look of the Whitemud/Terwillegar interchange. Much better than the hair-pin currently there

EdmTrekker · #**1290** Posted **Dec 13, 2006, 8:44 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by feepa

This video/rendering has recently changed, they've updated to the latest version of the 23/Gateway Blvd Interchange (Nov 17/2006)
http://www.23ave-interchange.com/g_animation.html
Don't think its been posted.
Much more detail then previous versions I've seen, and now shows the fly over rather then the underpass

I don't see flyovers on the video - and I see 3 lanes South and North on Gateway. Is the City really ONLY planning for 3? 4 would have been better - even if the 4th is unddeveloped.

feepa · #**1291** Posted **Dec 13, 2006, 8:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by EdmTrekker

I don't see flyovers on the video - and I see 3 lanes South and North on Gateway. Is the City really ONLY planning for 3? 4 would have been better - even if the 4th is unddeveloped.

I meant the 19ave flyover into the Ikea section of SEC. And yes, its there.

I would hope that the city has the foresight to envision the need for this to be 4-5 lames in each direction, and that it can be expanded.

feepa · #**1292** Posted **Dec 13, 2006, 9:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by EdmTrekker

I don't see flyovers on the video - and I see 3 lanes South and North on Gateway. Is the City really ONLY planning for 3? 4 would have been better - even if the 4th is unddeveloped.

I meant the 19ave flyover into the Ikea section of SEC. And yes, its there.

I would hope that the city has the foresight to envision the need for this to be 4-5 lames in each direction, and that it can be expanded.

murman · #**1293** Posted **Dec 13, 2006, 9:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by feepa

This video/rendering has recently changed, they've updated to the latest version of the 23/Gateway Blvd Interchange (Nov 17/2006)
http://www.23ave-interchange.com/g_animation.html
Don't think its been posted.
Much more detail then previous versions I've seen, and now shows the fly over rather then the underpass

I don't like playing video driving games if my car is the slowest one on the road...

feepa · #**1294** Posted **Dec 13, 2006, 9:11 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by EdmTrekker

I don't see flyovers on the video - and I see 3 lanes South and North on Gateway. Is the City really ONLY planning for 3? 4 would have been better - even if the 4th is unddeveloped.

I meant the 19ave flyover into the Ikea section of SEC. And yes, its there.

I would hope that the city has the foresight to envision the need for this to be 4-5 lames in each direction, and that it can be expanded.

Citysource · #**1295** Posted **Dec 13, 2006, 9:43 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jasper and one o nin

Yeah, but it needs to be identified on the register of historic resources first. and the City would not support inclusion on the register. The buildings are late 60's early 70's

It IS on the Register already. It was put on this summer.

It is not however a DESIGNATED Historic Resource. I know the Heritage Planner at the City very well, and if the owners wanted to play ball, he's very game.

Jasper and one o nin · #**1296** Posted **Dec 13, 2006, 9:51 PM**

Im pretty sure its not, but if it is, I stand corrected. Certainly not on the A list

Citysource · #**1297** Posted **Dec 13, 2006, 9:58 PM**

ah...I stand corrected, I did some research and heres the skinny:

there was an application o put it on the A List, which the heritage planners wanted to support, however the current register only alows for buildings built prior to 1960, so it does not make the criteria, and did not get on the Register. There is Modern Inventory, which the church is listed in, however the Modern inventory has yet to be approved by Council. The Modern Inventory is scheduled for adoption in 2007.

Jasper and one o nin · #**1298** Posted **Dec 13, 2006, 10:00 PM**

SDAB's decision
http://www.edmonton.ca/citygov/sdab/deci...r%202-06%20-%20River%20Valley%20Room.doc

Jasper and one o nin · #**1299** Posted **Dec 13, 2006, 10:02 PM**

seems kind of an oxymoron to have a modern list of historic resources

murman · #**1300** Posted **Dec 13, 2006, 10:27 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jasper and one o nin

seems kind of an oxymoron to have a modern list of historic resources

Maybe if "modernism" were used instead?