Edmonton Construction 5

[Coldrsx]

absolutely pathetic...

Homeowners threaten lawsuit
Affordable homes to be built on vacant school sites
Gordon Kent, The Edmonton Journal
Published: Wednesday, December 13, 2006
EDMONTON - One southwest community league will consider legal action following city council's decision Tuesday to go ahead with a plan to sell 20 vacant school sites to developers to build "affordable" starter homes.

The controversial scheme to create up to 1,000 units of row housing has prompted an angry backlash in several communities since it was announced last month. In the end, city council voted 11-2 to pass final reading of zoning bylaws needed to enact the program.

"It's a very, very difficult issue for council," said supporter Coun. Janice Melnychuk, describing it as one of the hardest decisions she has faced as a councillor. "This is public land. It will be used for a public purpose. I do believe that sites that aren't appropriate will come back to us."


Email to a friend

Printer friendly
Font: ****While many details haven't been settled, the program will target families or couples with incomes of $60,000 to $80,000 who the city says can't afford to buy homes in Edmonton.

They will pay market value to a developer for their unit. The city will hold a second mortgage on the land, set aside years ago for schools the public and separate boards have decided not to build. Any profits will be split with the school boards. The city's share is earmarked for low-income and seniors' housing.

Many people complained about the plan because there wasn't any public consultation. There are also concerns it will take away land now used as parks, will overcrowd local schools and introduce row housing that won't fit in existing neighbourhoods.

"I think (the bylaws) were pushed through too fast," Brookview Community League president Les Day said following the vote. "To have three readings within two weeks, this isn't really what I call a democracy. It's a dictatorship."

He said his group will consider legal action over the 17 units set for Bulyea Heights, although he's not sure there's much they can do.

In Twin Brooks, 200 people attended a meeting about the project Monday and the president of the community league said they will lobby the Catholic district to put up a school on its surplus site in their southwest area.

They'll ensure their voices are heard on the design and location of any housing that's built, Sandy Tarnowski said.

"We will gather our troops in our neighbourhood and other neighbourhoods, go through the EFCL (Edmonton Federation of Community Leagues) and see what they present us."

At least one northeast area has already volunteered to be among the first to welcome the developments. Construction could start in 2008. Officials will now begin detailed work on each of the sites, which can still be deleted from the program if they're determined to be unsuitable. The provincial cabinet exempted the sites from regular public hearings in November.

Mayor Stephen Mandel said there's widespread support for the program.

The normal consultation process could have taken five years, a further delay in finding uses for land that in some cases has been surplus for decades, he said.

That's too long to wait when many people are already having a hard time buying a home, he said.

"These are not going to be inferior houses. We're not going to create boxes that aren't going to be attractive ... we don't see any downside to it."

[email protected]




© The Edmonton Journal 2006

[Coldrsx]

Twin Brooks opposition, alas, still elitist, absurd

Scott McKeen
The Edmonton Journal


Wednesday, December 13, 2006


More Columns By This Writer
:: Mayor is one of many taught a lesson by Stelmach's win

:: 'Us vs. Them' is formula for sterile city

:: Morton's not the devil, but if he wins, it could be hell

:: Oilers fans risk carrying their passions too far

:: Mandel gets A+ for developing his schoolyard idea

:: Residents taking back 118th Avenue

:: Imagine sending a virtual Chris Pronger into the boards -- Weeeee

:: 'Jerk' behaviour goes under city microscope



According to a few excitable south-siders:

w Mayor Stephen Mandel's once-secret scheme to develop starter homes -- townhouses -- on surplus school sites is obscene, greedy and absurd.

- Mandel is a dictator. And some kind of utopian socialist.

- Townhouses are inappropriate for affluent, south-side neighbourhoods, whose residents are being unfairly called snobs and bigots by the dread, liberal media.

And I'm inclined to disagree with the excitable people on the south side. Oh, I listened closely to their pain at Monday's community meeting in Twin Brooks. I took notes and everything. I even nodded to the guy who asked me to treat them with kindness.

But you know, sometimes you've got to be cruel to be kind. So I stand by my earlier column where I used terms like "elitist" and "bigotry" to describe some of the opposition to Mandel's starter-homes scheme.

Especially after hearing the guy at Monday's meeting who said starter homes will turn Twin Brooks into "Mill Woods." Especially after hearing the crowd cheer another man, who said he's willing to settle for some development on the surplus site in Twin Brooks, so long as it's exclusively upscale housing.

"Not all neighbourhoods are the same, you know?" another resident said to me. "We worked hard to be able to live here."

What? Only Twin Brooks residents work hard to acquire their homes? Only Twin Brooks should be immune from city hall edicts?

Uh, nope.

But alas -- sigh -- neither should they be subject to a kind of reverse bigotry. Truth be told, the majority of people living in Twin Brooks and other affluent, south-side neighbourhoods aren't cold-hearted, country-club capitalists.

They're just worried, is all. They've invested a lot of time, money and effort into their homes. And they've been given almost no information on the starter-home program. Absent the facts -- and led by a few elitist alarmists -- they get excited.

Twin Brooks is one of about 20 neighbourhoods in Edmonton with a surplus school site picked for this project. For years, the sites were viewed as parks and community assets.

Two weeks ago, city council announced things were changing. And it announced the starter-home project as a fait accompli.

City councillors -- Mandel, in particular -- know they're a bit exposed on this one. They skirted standard practice and approved the proposal without the requisite public hearings.

Mandel hurried the starter-home plan past two school boards, the Klein cabinet, then city council. Why the rush? Mandel wanted the deal sealed before the Tory leadership race concluded. A new cabinet might not be so agreeable.

Council gave its final approval on Tuesday. But not without some hand-wringing. Coun. Janice Melnychuk, in particular, lamented the lack of community consultation.

But Melnychuk also talked of a politician's duty to show leadership in making tough decisions. As she well knows, you can consult communities till the cows come home. But at some point, councillors have to push the Yes or No button.

Where does this leave the people of Twin Brooks, Riverbend or other unhappy neighbourhoods? Worried, no doubt. But I suspect their worries are out of proportion with the threat.

First, the city is going to pick a handful of pilot sites to test the program. A few city neighbourhoods -- those with dwindling enrolment in schools and minor sports -- will actually be keen for starter homes and new families.

Second, the mayor and council have invested some serious political capital in the program. The civil service knows what council wants.

It wants the city and school boards to make some development money, while increasing the density in serviced communities.

It wants to attract talent to Edmonton's economy by offering affordable homes to young professionals.

It wants a home run, a roaring success. Thus, the chosen communities will be given ample opportunity for input into the look, the character and location of the developments.

It might take years for the project to reach Riverbend, Twin Brooks or other upscale communities. But, reach there it must.

Allowing a few communities to opt out of a housing project because of their affluence would truly be an act of bigotry.

Oh -- as well as obscene, greedy and absurd.

[email protected]

APPROVED SITES

NEIGHBOURHOOD / SIZE OF / TOTAL SCHOOL SITE PARK / (HECTARES) / SCHOOL AREA

Dechene 1.2 13.18

Belle Rive 1.6 16.87

Dunluce 1.2 5.66

Caernarvon 1.4 7.12

Sifton Park 0.8 7.75

Kernohan 1.2 4.73

Kirkness 1.4 14.78

McLeod 1.2 6.02

Canon Ridge 1.2 5.37

Bulyea Heights 0.8 11.61

Haddow 0.8 8.92

Twin Brooks 0.8 9.07

Blue Quill 1.2 15.58

Bearspaw 1.2 5.48

Skyrattler 1.2 7.34

Tawa 0.8 7.9

Michaels Park (ECS) 0.8 8.99

Michaels Park (EPS) 1.2 8.99

Greenview 1.4 10.67

Larkspur 1.6 12.2

Source: City of Edmonton

Ran with fact box "Approved Sites", which has been appended to this story.

© The Edmonton Journal 2006

[Coldrsx]

Biotech centre costs reduced
The Edmonton Journal
Published: Wednesday, December 13, 2006
EDMONTON - City council approved changes to a proposed new biotechnology centre Tuesday that will cut the cost of the project by almost $7 million.

The centre, which will provide lab and office space for small biotechnology companies, was supposed to open in a new building in the Edmonton Research Park. Instead, the province agreed to provide space in a building it owns under a deal that will see the Edmonton Economic Development Corp. pay $1 rent annually for five years, with each side then receiving half of any profits from the centre for a further 20 years.

The project will cost $12.5 million, made up of a $1-million grant and $6.5-million loan from the city along with $2.5 million each from the provincial and federal governments. Renovations to the building are to start early in 2007.


Email to a friend

Printer friendly
Font: ****


© The Edmonton Journal 2006

[Coldrsx]

City of grumblers
The Edmonton Journal
Published: Wednesday, December 13, 2006
What is this cranky, querulous streak that's slipping into many civic conversations in our growing, prosperous city these days?

Whether it's new housing, snow-clogged streets or rising property taxes, many citizens seem to have little positive to say. After complaining until the city plows the streets, we want driveways cleared of those post-plow barriers of ice and snow. But heaven forbid property taxes go up to pay for it.

We love the booming economy, but we don't want to make room for the thousands of people coming here to work, even if they earn a very respectable $80,000 a year.


Email to a friend

Printer friendly
Font: ****We're fed up with traffic congestion and urban sprawl, but we resist in-fill housing in older neighbourhoods and more money for transit.

In another bizarre example, residents near Borden Park oppose a skateboard park, of all things, because they fear it would bring kids with drugs -- and never mind that it would actually give kids in that sometimes tough neighbourhood something to do.

But perhaps most worrisome lately has been community reactions to council's decision to build about 1,000 housing units on 12 surplus school sites. The idea is a practical way to use a public resource to get some badly needed housing on the market, and help keep this a stable, healthy, inclusive city. But it's brought out that old Not-In-My-Backyard syndrome.

Of course, community groups have a right to speak their mind, and change is rarely popular, so maybe the negative reaction is not surprising. Still, consider the argument of a resident of Twin Brooks, a well-off suburb in the southwest, who believes adding addition of 100 townhouses for first-time buyers will transform his well-off suburb for the worse.

How could such a small number bring drastic change, and in any case, why is it assumed that people who can't afford big houses are bad news? The units will accommodate middle-income families caught by the rising house market, people who will never be able to afford the more expensive houses across the street if they don't get a foot in the door of the market. Those who oppose this new housing might ask themselves how many of them could afford to buy into their community if they were starting out right now.

Maybe it's time to reflect on what kind of city we want to build and how to balance what's in the public interest -- in terms of a building a progressive, livable city -- and protecting our own private interest. Since when, for instance, did having a mix of incomes or housing types in a neighbourhood become such a bad thing?

Let's be careful not to lose our sense of what constitutes a whole and healthy community where everyone feels they belong and everyone is welcome.




© The Edmonton Journal 2006

[Coldrsx]

Wednesday » December 13 » 2006

Economy too hot to handle
Local manufacturers reeling from massive hikes in utility and labour costs

Gordon Jaremko
The Edmonton Journal


Wednesday, December 13, 2006



CREDIT: Greg Southam, The Journal
Steve Parsons, left, president of the Pasta Mill, and Paul Flesher, president of Crust Craft, maker of pizza crusts, contend that huge utility hikes have eliminated the so-called "Alberta advantage" for many local manufacturers.

EDMONTON - Alberta's energy boom is a bust for two growing Edmonton food manufacturers who vow to escape rising costs by building their next new plants elsewhere in Canada or the United States.

"The advantage we used to have is gone," Pasta Mill Ltd. founder Steve Parsons said as he examined the latest burn inflicted on his firm by the province's hot economy.

The sore spot is a monthly bill for power, water and waste drainage that has doubled to $47,596. Surging electricity costs also added to the pain.

"The 'Alberta advantage' really isn't there for companies such as ours which have no ties into the oil industry," agreed Crust Craft Inc. president Paul Flesher.

His factory's electricity tab jumped 80 per cent to $33,902.31 for October.

Pasta Mill's 90-employee plant produces lasagna by the tonne and up to 100 single-serving meals per minute. Crust Craft's staff of 80 makes pizza crusts by the tens of thousands per day.

Both firms, built from scratch since the 1980s, ship most of their output out of Alberta for retail under a variety of brand names to supermarket and restaurant chains across Canada and the United States.

Food has nowhere jumped in price like oil, natural gas and power -- and Alberta factories lose sales if they try to pass rising expenses on to their customers, Parsons and Flesher said in an interview.

The fall power shocks came on top of labour and transportation cost jumps ignited by employer competition for increasingly scarce service, said the northwest Edmonton business neighbours.

Trucking charges have doubled and factory wages have risen more than 20 per cent, Parsons and Flesher said. Oil-fuelled gains in the Canadian dollar's value, meanwhile, made their firms' products more expensive in the U.S.

Rising Alberta costs cloud an otherwise bright outlook for the Alberta food manufacturers. "We've got good growth prospects," Flesher said. "Pizza is such a huge market," he added, citing rising demand from restaurant chains for his firm's custom-manufactured crusts.

"We're going to need more capacity," Parsons said, describing a new line of ready-to-microwave Pasta Mill meals entering Canadian supermarkets and poised for a U.S. debut early in 2007.

"But why would we do it here? It would make no sense," Parsons added.

He estimated Pasta Mill would save more than $600,000 a year in power bills and wages if it moved to Manitoba.

Crust Craft also is researching potential growth locations outside Alberta, Flesher said. "We're going to start considering it. These plants are ugly to move but you can do it."

Both food manufacturers, unlike households and small businesses, pay fluctuating power market rates. Fixed-price contracts did not cut costs when the plants tried them in previous years, Parsons and Flesher said.

A rare coincidence of generator maintenance shutdowns and unpredictable demand peaks owed to cold snaps caused Alberta's fall business power bill shock, said Nancy Janes, communications officer for the Alberta Electric System Operator.

Incident records kept by the non-profit agency, which runs the provincial power transmission grid and deregulated "pool" or computerized electricity market, show no decline in the system's reliability, Janes said.

But the price trend is up, she reported. So far this year, the Alberta pool averaged $82.42 per megawatt hour or 20 per cent more than the $68.49 recorded for the same period of 2005.

The system operator attributes the increase chiefly to a hot summer and cold fall that generated higher, longer electricity demand peaks than the grid experienced in milder 2005.

Alberta power consumption also is growing at a rate of up to four per cent per year, said Evan Bahry, executive director of the Independent Power Producers Society of Alberta.

Projected requirements for Alberta generating additions of 400 megawatts per year exceed growth needs forecast for Ontario's much larger electric system, Bahry added.

A contested $495-million proposal to build a new transmission line between Edmonton and Calgary is a key part of plans to make Alberta's grid keep up with power demand, Janes said.

Landowners are lining up to fight the project's route west of the Queen Elizabeth II Highway when the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board starts hearings on construction applications in February.

"That transmission line is very critical," Bahry said.

Critics of the power system, including Parsons and Flesher, are wrong to suspect generating stations profit from breakdowns that contribute to price spikes, Bahry added.

Power companies make money only when their plants run. Breakdowns can cause heavy losses on supply contracts because the firms must buy electricity at spiking prices to keep delivery commitments, he said.

[email protected]

© The Edmonton Journal 2006

[Coldrsx]

Morris lofts go their west facing windows in as of today...well half of them.

[Coldrsx]

this is what i hope aurora will look like and make 105ave/106ave feel like

[Coldrsx]

ok i wont post too many, but how about this on 102ave/104st NWC.....integration from old brick to curtainwall glass...

[Coldrsx]

and here is Melville which i could easily see on the dundee site.....

[Coldrsx]

and finally imagine yaletown park around the BP's lots from jasper - 102ave from 106-107st.

[IKAN104]

Originally Posted by CMD UW

A new tower may be in the works for 124 Street and 102 Avenue (think Glenora Grill block).

It can't be right on that corner. At least I hope not. That B&B is the best thing we've got going on that street. I wouldn't mind losing the building(s) just south however, like where that "Pride Video" is located.

But don't forget. Another developer had plans for a tower on the corner of 124 and Jasper where the old 7-Eleven / liquor store building is but that went nowhere fast. If I remember correctly there was a lot of neighbourhood opposition which for the life of me I can't figure out. Does anybody have any more accurate info on that?

[Greco Roman]

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

and finally imagine yaletown park around the BP's lots from jasper - 102ave from 106-107st.

Is this one actually going to be built? I ask because it looks like a display model being shown to the public.

[SHOFEAR]

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

Biotech centre costs reduced
The Edmonton Journal
Published: Wednesday, December 13, 2006
EDMONTON - City council approved changes to a proposed new biotechnology centre Tuesday that will cut the cost of the project by almost $7 million.

The centre, which will provide lab and office space for small biotechnology companies, was supposed to open in a new building in the Edmonton Research Park. Instead, the province agreed to provide space in a building it owns under a deal that will see the Edmonton Economic Development Corp. pay $1 rent annually for five years, with each side then receiving half of any profits from the centre for a further 20 years.

The project will cost $12.5 million, made up of a $1-million grant and $6.5-million loan from the city along with $2.5 million each from the provincial and federal governments. Renovations to the building are to start early in 2007.


Email to a friend

Printer friendly
Font: ****


© The Edmonton Journal 2006

We're cutting cost on projects like this that are Edmonton's future, meanwhile spending five million plowing our roads because a bunch of geriatrics have city hall on speed dial.

[RTO]

Originally Posted by SHOtime

We're cutting cost on projects like this that are Edmonton's future, meanwhile spending five million plowing our roads because a bunch of geriatrics have city hall on speed dial.

The extra 5mil on plowing roads is stupid. But the city failed in terms of planning. I don't understand how the city could do such a piss-poor job plowing the roads. This is actually the worst i've seen any city prepare for winter..ever.

[IKAN104]

Originally Posted by SHOtime

We're cutting cost on projects like this that are Edmonton's future, meanwhile spending five million plowing our roads because a bunch of geriatrics have city hall on speed dial.

Good point! Plowing residential streets is a waste of money. In most cases it doesn't even help because the snow gets piled up in front of our driveways. Besides, by the time they get out here the snow is all packed down and easy to drive on. There is absolutely no need for my street to get plowed.

[tony0911]

I love Edmonton just as much as the next person but just goes to show why this city sucks....we're talking about friggin plowing streets instead of which of the multiple towers under contruciton (should be under contstruction) we liek teh best.

[Citysource]

Originally Posted by Albertaboy

Is this one actually going to be built? I ask because it looks like a display model being shown to the public.

^^just to answer your question: these are not in Alberta: these are the "NEWS Towers" in New Westminster BC (at least I think they are). One is already done, other 3 are on the way. This application was my "test scenario" that I had to write about after my job interview interview. I hate them - only because I interviewed for a position as New West's downtown development planner, and was turned down.

[newfangled]

Speaking of 124 St, I got notification in the mail last friday of a proposed zoning change for three lots just west of the 124/Jasper corner.

There aren't many details on maps.edmonton, so the gist is that the site is currently zoned DC2 for a tiered apartment between five and ten storeys tall, although the lots currently have houses on them. Urban Systems has applied for a rezoning to increase the number of units from 48 to 51 and the FAR from 3.0 to 3.4.

This isn't terribly exciting, but something might be brewing,

As for the failed 124/Jasper development, I live right there, and the traffic at the corner is already terrible. I would pity anyone trying to drive out of that building every morning at rushhour because being right on that corner would make it a killer. The site is also not that large, with maybe about 3/4 the area of the illuminada site. Most importantly though is the fact that a building on that site would have slightly affected my view, and it therefore should not have been allowed (and while I'm being sarcastic, I don't think the rest of the community members were).

And I asked this awhile ago, but does anyone know the story on the lots on 122st just north of the Big Fresh? There must be seven or eight adjacent vacant lots, and I can't figure out why something hasn't been put up there.

[SHOFEAR]

Originally Posted by RTO

The extra 5mil on plowing roads is stupid. But the city failed in terms of planning. I don't understand how the city could do such a piss-poor job plowing the roads. This is actually the worst i've seen any city prepare for winter..ever.

I don't see what exactly was so piss poor about the city's reponse? It's not like we have yards of unused heavy equipment laying around waiting for projects. Equipment opperators are busy and to get them you have to pay inflated rates. Bus routes and main streets were done within a couple days and I think thats pretty good considering.

[Citysource]

re: Newfangled's question about the lots directyl north of the Big Fresh:

This side of 122 Street is zoned DC1. The intent was to preserve this chunk of houses, the houses from 102 Ave down to the vacant lots near Jasper Ave are actually fairly unique. The vacant lots were home to 3 or 4 clinker brick houses that were zoned DC1 and deemed unique. The Oliver ARP selected a few spots here and there, based on the quality of the housing stock, for preservation and only allow single detached housing or businesess in the housing. This is the state of parts of 123 Street also. This was done so that there would not be highrises everywhere, as the wave of redevelopment in the neighbourhood was/is happening at a relatively fast pace, i.e TNP's Uptown, which took out some neat old houses along with the Lessard house at the upscale WAM development.

The clinker brick homes were not kept up by the slum lord owners and shut down by Capital Health. So now the land is vacant and the only thing that can go there is a house. It is up to any applicants to amend both the Oliver ARP and the Land Use Bylaw ($$$) if they want to do anything other than single detached houses.

I had an aquaintance look into the development potential there, and based on the asking price for the land, and the potential ROI they decided to keep on looking for property elsewhere.