HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Edmonton


Closed Thread

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #6621  
Old Posted Jul 7, 2009, 5:52 PM
Coldrsx's Avatar
Coldrsx Coldrsx is offline
Community Guy
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Edmonton, AB
Posts: 69,043
i do have to say i am warmed by the replies on the 2 condo towers for once... our tone has gone from 'think of the children, traffic, noise' to 'we must build up'

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/Council+approves+downtown+condo+towers/1766432/story.html
__________________
"The destructive effects of automobiles are much less a cause than a symptom of our incompetence at city building" - Jane Jacobs 1961ish

Wake me up when I can see skyscrapers
     
     
  #6622  
Old Posted Jul 7, 2009, 6:52 PM
Coldrsx's Avatar
Coldrsx Coldrsx is offline
Community Guy
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Edmonton, AB
Posts: 69,043
great to hear!

Edmonton plans to build energy research facility


BY HANNEKE BROOYMANS, EDMONTONJOURNAL.COMJULY 7, 2009 12:02 PMBE THE FIRST TO POST A COMMENT


EDMONTON — The City of Edmonton has firmed up its plans to build an advanced energy research facility in an effort to increase the types of waste that can be converted to fuel.

Construction of the $9 million research facility is scheduled to be completed in the first quarter of 2010.

Research will focus on converting nonhazardous waste from the oil and gas, forestry and other industrial sectors, as well as waste from municipalities, into fuels and chemicals that reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

There are three different pieces to the city’s efforts to convert garbage to fuel.

The largest piece is Enerkem’s waste-to-biofuel plant, which will begin construction late this year.

Then there is a $38-million facility where residual scraps from the composting and recycling facilities will be shredded into a fluffy feedstock for the biofuel plant.

The research facility is the third piece.

“This research centre will become an important component in furthering our company’s dedication to innovation, allowing us to attract some of the country’s brightest minds,” said Vincent Chornet, president and CEO of Enerkem, in a statement.

Altogether, the three parts of the project are expected to cost $127 million, said Connie Boyce, director of community relations for the city’s waste management branch.

The Alberta Energy Research Institute provided a $29-million grant to the city to spend on the project as they see fit. The city hasn’t decided yet how that money will be distributed, Boyce said.

On Aug. 4, the city will also begin operating its integrated processing and transfer facility — the system set up to handle waste once the Clover Bar landfill is closed. Material that can’t be composted or recycled will go to a landfill at Ryley.

Once the waste-to-fuel system is running, another 30 per cent of waste will be diverted from landfill, bringing the total diversion rate to 90 per cent.

[email protected]

© Copyright (c) The Edmonton Journal

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/Technolog...rgy+research+facility/1767710/story.html
__________________
"The destructive effects of automobiles are much less a cause than a symptom of our incompetence at city building" - Jane Jacobs 1961ish

Wake me up when I can see skyscrapers
     
     
  #6623  
Old Posted Jul 7, 2009, 10:42 PM
wco's Avatar
wco wco is offline
Business Is Usual
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sherwood Park
Posts: 328
^now this is good.
__________________
-----------------------
---No matter where you go, there you are---
     
     
  #6624  
Old Posted Jul 7, 2009, 11:04 PM
tony0911 tony0911 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 484
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldrsx View Post
^me neither and nope..

to me this is the bellamy hill tower and falls short of expectations.... ESPECIALLY THE PODIUM.
You should know better than to have high expectations for buildings in Edmonton. Lower your expectations like everyone else and then you'll be fine.
     
     
  #6625  
Old Posted Jul 7, 2009, 11:09 PM
Kevin_foster's Avatar
Kevin_foster Kevin_foster is offline
Kevin Folds Five
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Edmonton, Canada
Posts: 6,072
__________________
I used to be indecisive, but now I'm not sure...
     
     
  #6626  
Old Posted Jul 7, 2009, 11:10 PM
Kevin_foster's Avatar
Kevin_foster Kevin_foster is offline
Kevin Folds Five
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Edmonton, Canada
Posts: 6,072
Quote:
Originally Posted by tony0911 View Post
You should know better than to have high expectations for buildings in Edmonton. Lower your expectations like everyone else and then you'll be fine.
You got it!

4,000th post!
__________________
I used to be indecisive, but now I'm not sure...
     
     
  #6627  
Old Posted Jul 8, 2009, 12:01 AM
CMD UW's Avatar
CMD UW CMD UW is offline
Urbis Maximus
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 12,009
Quote:
Originally Posted by wco View Post
^now this is good.
VERY good....
__________________
"Call me sir, goddammit!"
     
     
  #6628  
Old Posted Jul 8, 2009, 12:16 AM
CMD UW's Avatar
CMD UW CMD UW is offline
Urbis Maximus
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 12,009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldrsx View Post
^me neither and nope..

to me this is the bellamy hill tower and falls short of expectations.... ESPECIALLY THE PODIUM.
Its much MUCH better than The Bellamy. However, I need to see the elevations from ALL sides before making a full judgement. EDIT - I looked at the elevations provided in the DC2 and they are good, no 3-sided building here. I think this will be a great building imo, it will all depend on the material palette.

We also have to remember that this was only the approval of the DC2 rezoning, not a Development Permit. They still have to get their Development Permit, which the Development Officer will give weight / consideration to EDC comments.
__________________
"Call me sir, goddammit!"

Last edited by CMD UW; Jul 8, 2009 at 3:03 AM.
     
     
  #6629  
Old Posted Jul 8, 2009, 2:59 AM
0773|=\ 0773|=\ is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,256
RE: Condos

Good news. Raintree doesn't even look half bad IMO. Could be MUCH worse.

Just curious, someone mentioned here that council approved these despite the EDC not endorsing them. Does anyone know the details of EDC's gripes with these designs? For Tango was it just height or were there other things? What about Raintree?

Thanks in advance.
     
     
  #6630  
Old Posted Jul 8, 2009, 3:01 AM
0773|=\ 0773|=\ is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,256
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin_foster View Post
Edmonton just might become the 'big city' we've all dreamt of. The comments on the cbc site are for the most part equally encouraging, but Mandel being labeled a neocon??? wtf?
     
     
  #6631  
Old Posted Jul 8, 2009, 3:04 AM
CMD UW's Avatar
CMD UW CMD UW is offline
Urbis Maximus
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 12,009
Quote:
Originally Posted by 0773|=\ View Post
RE: Condos

Good news. Raintree doesn't even look half bad IMO. Could be MUCH worse.

Just curious, someone mentioned here that council approved these despite the EDC not endorsing them. Does anyone know the details of EDC's gripes with these designs? For Tango was it just height or were there other things? What about Raintree?

Thanks in advance.
Like I stated above, Council was approving the DC2 rezoning. The Development Permit is where the EDC's influence truly comes into play, which has not been approved yet.
__________________
"Call me sir, goddammit!"
     
     
  #6632  
Old Posted Jul 8, 2009, 3:19 AM
0773|=\ 0773|=\ is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,256
Got it. Thanks for clarifying.
     
     
  #6633  
Old Posted Jul 8, 2009, 3:45 AM
wco's Avatar
wco wco is offline
Business Is Usual
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sherwood Park
Posts: 328
Quote:
Originally Posted by 0773|=\ View Post
Edmonton just might become the 'big city' we've all dreamt of. The comments on the cbc site are for the most part equally encouraging, but Mandel being labeled a neocon??? wtf?
I have to say that if I think of the "mayors" we have had in the last twenty years Mandel actually is the only one on the right path. Just my opinion...
__________________
-----------------------
---No matter where you go, there you are---
     
     
  #6634  
Old Posted Jul 8, 2009, 4:04 AM
wco's Avatar
wco wco is offline
Business Is Usual
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sherwood Park
Posts: 328
OT - does anyone have a good picture of the old 105th street overpass? I loved it and I can't find a pic of it anywhere....I would like to see a picture taken from the overpass itself.
__________________
-----------------------
---No matter where you go, there you are---

Last edited by wco; Jul 8, 2009 at 4:14 PM.
     
     
  #6635  
Old Posted Jul 8, 2009, 4:10 AM
ue ue is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: WPG
Posts: 9,493
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin_foster View Post
Yup. Keep your fingers crossed guys!

Quote:
Originally Posted by tallisgood View Post
Yes, keep loving Edmonton EE. But a word of advice, don't try to fit in with the college kids all the time, just be your own man. Base your opinions on your values and what you believe, and then stick to them.
Thanks. I don't fix my opinions to fit in with these guys though. And why would I? With the way they treat me. My opinions are mine, and yes, as new information arises sometimes my opinion changes.
     
     
  #6636  
Old Posted Jul 8, 2009, 4:17 AM
0773|=\ 0773|=\ is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,256
^^^Totally agree. The comment appeared to be a knee-jerk reaction to the whole Epcor deal, but Mandel has shown that he isn't afraid to challenge the status quo in this city, and on so many fronts. Placing more controls on the city's development plans (even with a regional board) and promoting inclusive (public) involvement with larger projects/decisions for this city doesn't really sound anything remotely like neo-conservatism.
     
     
  #6637  
Old Posted Jul 8, 2009, 11:39 AM
kcantor kcantor is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 2,987
Quote:
Originally Posted by CMD UW View Post
Like I stated above, Council was approving the DC2 rezoning. The Development Permit is where the EDC's influence truly comes into play, which has not been approved yet.
i don't think so - dc2 is contract zoning which includes building design and form and it can't be changed even for the edc at the dp stage without a full rezoning amendment and you're not likely to see that...
     
     
  #6638  
Old Posted Jul 8, 2009, 12:45 PM
Shodan's Avatar
Shodan Shodan is offline
Sherwood Park as a Nation
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Where I hang my hat
Posts: 2,372
Yep, big day indeed!

Fifty years of airport rancour must end with decision to close it
Coun. Ed Gibbons has framed a common-sense motion that is the best middle ground of all positions


Scott Mckeen
Edmonton Journal

Wednesday, July 08, 2009

Edmonton's historic and bitter airport debate ends today.

A motion to close the City Centre Airport will be brought forward by Coun. Ed Gibbons. If approved by council--and it must be--the airport's runways will be closed over time and in stages.

The Gibbons'solution is a commonsense approach to an issue that has divided and dogged this city for 50 years. Not only does the proposal respect the airport's existing users, it respects the public interest in developing underutilized land in the city core.

The proposal is to close one runway promptly; the other at some future date when the remaining airport lands are ripe for development.

Closing Runway 1634 immediately opens up roughly 250 acres of airport property. NAIT can expand at its main campus, along the future northern leg of LRT, instead of at an alternate and remote south-side location.

Closing 1634 also removes the flight-path height restriction downtown and encourages redevelopment and revitalization in and around Jasper Avenue.

Those restrictions often scared off developers who asked for additional building height to make downtown projects affordable and profitable.

As well, the closure of Runway 1634 makes extending the LRT to NAIT simpler and cheaper. The same can be said of taking LRT north past the airport.

Finally, closing the one runway --as opposed to none, or both--is as close to a win-win as one can imagine.

The remaining airstrip, Runway 1230, is already the busier of the two. So, the aviation businesses, private planes and medevacs can continue to operate out of the downtown airport into the foreseeable future.

It is both pragmatic and respectful to the Muni's aviation businesses, including the aviation museum, to allow them time to operate as usual, then plan for eventual closure. Alberta Health can also prepare for a day when medevacs must use an alternate airstrip.

The medevac concern, though wildly exaggerated as a life-and-death issue, was central in the Muni debate.

Some councillors conveniently forgot that medevacs are the responsibility of the provincial government, not the city.

But rhetorical flourishes and fury were typical for the Muni debate. Extremists on both sides, therefore, won't like this compromise.

It's even possible one side or the other will attempt a petition to put the airport question to a plebiscite in the 2010 civic election. But given the concessions in the Gibbons solution, Edmontonians won't be in the mood for another rancorous airport debate and vote.

It is incumbent on council today to be clear in its decision. Council must signal that this is a temporary arrangement; that the Muni is headed toward an eventual closure.

No new aviation business can be allowed to establish at the Muni. The aviation infrastructure must be maintained, yes, but not be enhanced. Council must also demand that the remaining scheduled service at the downtown airport be terminated immediately. The 1995 referendum was clear--scheduled service was to consolidate at the International Airport.

Some small northern airlines still fly directly into the Muni. This is a competitive advantage for them, but it contravenes the spirit and the intent of the 1995 plebiscite.

Charters can continue for the foreseeable future. Private planes and medevacs can fly in and out of the one runway.

Student pilots can continue their training at the Muni. But scheduled service must end with the closure of Runway 1634.

Ed Gibbons is a pragmatic politician. Gibbons says he likely would have allowed the status quo at the Muni.

But when his ward mate, Coun. Tony Caterina, called for open skies over the Muni, council was forced into a corner.

Gibbons says it's possible one of his council colleagues will attempt today to delay the decision to a later date. Yet another might try to convince council to turn this over to a public plebiscite.

Edmontonians will not be amused by either tactic. We've been arguing over airports for 50 years.

A thoughtful, even decent solution to this never-ending mess will be put to the mayor and councillors today. The bearer of that solution has a strong message for his colleagues.

"Make a decision," says Ed Gibbons with a clear note of frustration in his voice.

I second that emotion.

[email protected]
© The Edmonton Journal 2009

Copyright © 2009 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks Publications, Inc.. All rights reserved.
CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks Publications, Inc.. All rights reserved.

http://www2.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=800fdb3b-4ff7-4016-82b3-f74960c25121&sponsor=
__________________
Sweet.
     
     
  #6639  
Old Posted Jul 8, 2009, 2:38 PM
Coldrsx's Avatar
Coldrsx Coldrsx is offline
Community Guy
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Edmonton, AB
Posts: 69,043
Quote:
Originally Posted by tony0911 View Post
You should know better than to have high expectations for buildings in Edmonton. Lower your expectations like everyone else and then you'll be fine.
... all of a sudden i hear a song...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xLsRI7-hBs
__________________
"The destructive effects of automobiles are much less a cause than a symptom of our incompetence at city building" - Jane Jacobs 1961ish

Wake me up when I can see skyscrapers
     
     
  #6640  
Old Posted Jul 8, 2009, 3:12 PM
deedub35 deedub35 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Kelowna
Posts: 173
Quote:
Closing 1634 also removes the flight-path height restriction downtown and encourages redevelopment and revitalization in and around Jasper Avenue.

Those restrictions often scared off developers who asked for additional building height to make downtown projects affordable and profitable.
Is this 100% true? Just looking at google maps. Runway 1634 is aligned north/south and lines up roughly with 111 street. This will allow taller buildings in oliver. The other runway 1230 is aligned northwest/southwest and lines up roughly with riverdale. Won't the overlay still exist over the cbd?
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Closed Thread

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Edmonton
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 6:39 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.