Edmonton Construction 11 (November 2011)

[EdmTrekker]

Originally Posted by BLACK STAR

Wow...one of the only decisions I agree with Sloan on!

What was Mandel and Libo thinking!! Build up the Downtown for the last 9 years and then approve this!!!!!

Developers in the back pocket of Mandel and others. I too am furious and Iveson has my vote now. It was going to Leibovici but no way in hell now.

[Coldrsx]

This project is not all bad, let's be sure to keep that in mind. It appears to have higher quality materials, some underground parking, multi-level buildings, rooftop patios and at the end of the day will provide a bunch of new services and amenities as well as employment to the area.

The unfortunate part, in my opinion, is that little seems to have been changed conceptually with regards to the significant work that the OCL has done and meetings it has held. Much more of a 'win-win' COULD have been accomplished here, that to me is the real failure.

[Coldrsx]

(http://metronewsca.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/04_28_edm_oliver_contributed.jpg?w=618&h=408&crop=1)

[Hallsy's Toupee]

^ Good enuff

[SHOFEAR]

Let's say they did include a beautiful 15 and 20 story buildings with significant amount of glass....would anybody on here even consider buying in it?

The only residential that would work, is some 4 story wood framed pink and beige stucco that gets bet to shit by renters and looks like everything else in the area. Is that better?

[Xelebes]

Originally Posted by SHOFEAR

Let's say they did include a beautiful 15 and 20 story buildings with significant amount of glass....would anybody on here even consider buying in it?

The only residential that would work, is some 4 story wood framed pink and beige stucco that gets bet to shit by renters and looks like everything else in the area. Is that better?

Personally, I wouldn't mind if all they had proposed was three or four stories tall at most, just that 104th Ave should have the most minimal exposures to the parking lot in the middle.

[Coldrsx]

Anthem's site plan for comparison.

[Coldrsx]

Downtown Edmonton seeing growth, but residential key to continued success: Commercial realtor

Those in the business say Edmonton’s downtown core is seeing the growth long hoped for, but people need to live downtown to keep it going.

“I think the downtown core is going through another re-emergence,” said Dave Young, senior vice-president and managing director with CBRE Commercial Real Estate Service in Edmonton.

“Ten years ago it was a very small localized business. Right now you have got some great international companies looking at our downtown.”

http://metronews.ca/news/edmonton/777474...to-continued-success-commercial-realtor/

[CMD UW]

^Indeed things are changing...

[240glt]

Originally Posted by SHOFEAR

Let's say they did include a beautiful 15 and 20 story buildings with significant amount of glass....would anybody on here even consider buying in it?

The only residential that would work, is some 4 story wood framed pink and beige stucco that gets bet to shit by renters and looks like everything else in the area. Is that better?

Area is tough.. low end vinyl clad low rises and vacant lots surround it. It's not a particularly attractive area of Oliver.

I see what people are wanting out of this development but for multi unit ressy, there are so many more nicer areas

20 years from now, maybe it'll warrant what people are asking for.

[s211]

Originally Posted by BLACK STAR

^ (Monocle falls into brandy snifter)

<coffee sprays on monitor>

Mind if I use that imagery of yours some day? Love it.

[christopherj]

Originally Posted by 240glt

Area is tough.. low end vinyl clad low rises and vacant lots surround it. It's not a particularly attractive area of Oliver.

I see what people are wanting out of this development but for multi unit ressy, there are so many more nicer areas

20 years from now, maybe it'll warrant what people are asking for.

I was thinking the same thing.

What would be better - let the lot sit vacant for 15-20 years? Or put up something less than ideal, but cheap, and could be replaced 15-20 years down the road with a more ideal use?

[kcantor]

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

Anthem's site plan for comparison.

except it's not really for comparison is it? because if this plan really worked and anthem could actually make a reasonable return building it out, they would probably be going ahead with it. they're not. which should tell you something.

"this plan" is one that would continue to see the site remain vacant with nothing going on. except possibly completing the rexall and boston pizza pads at the street edge with the rest of the site staying as is for the foreseeable future. not a terribly pedestrian oriented urban result...

[Coldrsx]

^yes, no, maybe so... but elements of it are MUCH stronger, with the front pads much poorer.

[SHOFEAR]

The Peal looked stunning this morning peaking above the mist while on my morning jog across the high level and back at 6:00. somebody needs to get a camera and shoot that thing next time there is fog.

[ciudad_del_norte]

I don't like empty lots either, but I think we still respond to these things as if it were 10-15 years ago and we are absolutely desperate to see something... anything happen. We have a lot of parking lots...and since nearly anything is better than parking lot is any development worth it? It just starts to feel a little desperate to me.

I just believe the developers could have used a DC to satisfy parties in a much better way. I think we are all aware that the LRT is not there right now, and that given what is around it, it isn't an easy spot to make into an urban utopia. Yeah, it costs time and money, but site specific zoning allowing for all of the lovely future ideas the developers claimed to be interested in could have gone a long way in expression of good faith towards the communities.Realistically, the actual development would probably end up looking fairly similar to what is proposed. It doesn't look like they are going for the zoning minimums, but if they wanted to they could... They basically pitched a specific development with unique additions and considerations to council and then approved it under standard zones. This in and of itself doesn't really seem fair to me. Why not have the special considerations in there all along and also council approved/regulated, especially in this location? Would council approve this if the pictures they were shown pictures of the bare minimum that could be developed with these zonings?

Admittedly, it wouldn't be my time or money spent of developing the DC, but given the unique location, history, potential lrt connection etc, this seems like a prime case where a DC would be appropriate.

[Coldrsx]

Council should have asked more in Oliver redevelopment

The community wanted more density, and the city should have pushed for it, too

BY DAVID STAPLES, EDMONTON JOURNAL

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/edmo...ave+asked+more+Oliver/8840039/story.html

[kcantor]

Originally Posted by ciudad_del_norte

I don't like empty lots either, but I think we still respond to these things as if it were 10-15 years ago and we are absolutely desperate to see something... anything happen. We have a lot of parking lots...and since nearly anything is better than parking lot is any development worth it? It just starts to feel a little desperate to me.

I just believe the developers could have used a DC to satisfy parties in a much better way. I think we are all aware that the LRT is not there right now, and that given what is around it, it isn't an easy spot to make into an urban utopia. Yeah, it costs time and money, but site specific zoning allowing for all of the lovely future ideas the developers claimed to be interested in could have gone a long way in expression of good faith towards the communities.Realistically, the actual development would probably end up looking fairly similar to what is proposed. It doesn't look like they are going for the zoning minimums, but if they wanted to they could... They basically pitched a specific development with unique additions and considerations to council and then approved it under standard zones. This in and of itself doesn't really seem fair to me. Why not have the special considerations in there all along and also council approved/regulated, especially in this location? Would council approve this if the pictures they were shown pictures of the bare minimum that could be developed with these zonings?

Admittedly, it wouldn't be my time or money spent of developing the DC, but given the unique location, history, potential lrt connection etc, this seems like a prime case where a DC would be appropriate.

maybe you could comment on how well the dc worked out for the city on the baccarat site? or scores of others for that matter? appropriate perhaps if you like parking lots destined for things that will never happen regardless of appropriate they were considered when first designed. i'm all for high standards and high density and height in general. i'm also all in favour of pedestrian oriented mixed use projects that maximize transit use and use high quality materials. but if your standard zoning by laws and schedules don't foster those things, then fix them so that they do. and then use them. as hoc dc zoning is not the answer - and if it is then if should be a standard zoning schedule available anywhere it's appropriate, not restricted to a single site upon which it is expensive and time consuming to implement and at any scale virtually impossible to maintain.

[ciudad_del_norte]

Improper use of a tool reflects not on the tool itself, but on the user. Zoning itself is a flawed tool that in many cases seems to hold things back more than fostering them. I'd agree that the excessive need for DC1 and DC2 zones, especially in the central area speaks to deficiencies in the existing zoning bylaw. Sometimes it seems everything is an exception, which ultimately speaks more to the rule. If people keep needing to write their own zone because the existing zones result in awkward and poor designed buildings, than yes, those zones need work.

That being said, I don't see that as the issue here. I think there is enough constraints and opportunities on this site that it should be better addressed and don't think that is so very unreasonable. It isn't necessary to write a zone with unattainable regulations and just because that has happened doesn't negate the utility of site specific zoning. And if doing something more for this site meant that it stays empty right now, I personally wouldn't mind at all. "Something is better than nothing" is a tired argument IMO.

[Shodan]

Drainage repairs could cost $200 million
'Awful way to live' say residents of flood-prone neighbourhoods

Gordon Kent
Edmonton Journal

Wednesday, August 28, 2013

The city will have to spend $150 million to $200 million improving sewers in south

Edmonton communities so they won't flood again in the next big storm.

Yards,basements and roads were submerged in July 2012 when downpours inundated

Mill Woods and southwest communities such as Aspen Gardens, Westbrook Estates and Parkallen...

[email protected]
© Edmonton Journal 2013

Copyright © 2013 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=ebccfcc7-cab7-423f-a67b-aae468c96af6&sponsor=