Edmonton Construction 11 (November 2011)

[Shodan]

What makes Edmonton a great place to do business?
On scene: Locals share their thoughts on doing business in the city

Edmonton Journal

Wednesday, August 28, 2013

"There's a very open, inviting atmosphere here, and there's a lot of support networks for business people. There's just a huge optimism here in Alberta and specifically Edmonton that allows people to get into business and to thrive immediately." - Brent Bushell, executive director of The Business Link Alberta (canadabusiness.ab.ca)

"It's the nature and the spirit of the people who make the city. There's a natural propensity for Edmontonians to be open, thoughtful and innovative... I think the greatest trait that we have is our diversity of people, ideas and cultures." - Lewis Cardinal, president and CEO of Cardinal Strategic Communications...

© 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=13b1012d-9e2a-4f56-bf40-551aff933626&sponsor=

[SHOFEAR]

Originally Posted by 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=

So will these mature communities pay for this themselves, or will newer communities that are designed to properly handle 1:100 year floods be chipping in to pay the bill for this? Surely these mature neighbourhoods when first developed paid offsite assesments equal to a subdivision in 2013 to pay for downstream infrastructure to prevent things like this.

The funny thing about sprawl is that some of the biggest financial winners are people who own housing in mature areas. Your lot cost and subdivision didn't pay massive amounts of money for offsite levies, your neighbourhood wasn't designed with engineering requirements nearly as costly to design and build as today subdivisions to limit future maintenence. But as the cost to build on the fringe of the city increases your home's value increases for no reason...and all that increase in value is 100% yours.

something to think about...

Shofear has sold out.

[kcantor]

Originally Posted by 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.

"tools" will not provide development. they can facilitate development or they can sterilize it. the only thing that will provide development is market demand for it. i will reiterate my previous point that this is not an argument in favour of the lowest common denominator in regard to architecture or finishes or density etc. but if there is no market for something all the tools in the world won't make it happen. failing to recognize this results in the "if it's not up to my/this standard, then i would rather see nothing" rationale. the problem with that is that the market is not fixed, it changes and evolves over time. the following is a perfect example of that:



this image is courtesy of henriquez partners architects who are doing the latest redevelopment proposal for oakridge in vancouver. it provides everything and more that many people - including myself - would love to see on the molson/crosstown site. but if a dc zone had required this kind of development "or nothing", nothing is what would currently be happening and nothing is what would have happened on this site for the past half century. the initial development was a single storey - except for woodwards' two - unenclosed shopping centre surrounded by surface parking. it was the success of that initial development (which was always relatively "high-end" in terms of materials and finishes etc.) that created enough market demand for its ever increasing density over the last 50 years. oakridge would not have gone from nothing to what you see here and neither will the molson/crosstown site. like oakridge, much of the density and the viability of that density is created by everything from location to demand to quality to the availability of servicing and access (in oakridge's case what used to be entirely automobile and then regular transit and in the past 3 years lrt). all of these things - all of these tools - were not always in place and what happened in the interim wasn't "all or nothing". what happened in the interim actually became another driver or tool. and when they are collectively strong enough you will see the results spill back to oliver square and over to 124th street. it's called synergy and leverage - something a vacant site does not bring to the table.

[CMD UW]

^But a Direct Control zone could be tailored to allow the site to densify over time. The key elements of the DC would be to regulate the interface between the buildings and the public streets and infrastructure. It could also provide a greater description on how the existing Molson brewery could be integrated with new development. There have been DC zones that allow for this. One recent example is the mixed commercial/residential development in Suder Greens immediately north of the Lewis Farms Transit Centre. This allows the site to increase its FAR when the LRT reaches Lewis Farms. Personally I think this is how the DC could have been designed for the Crosstown site. http://webdocs.edmonton.ca/zoningbylaw/DC1/Suder_Greens/15919.htm

[240glt]

Originally Posted by SHOFEAR

So will these mature communities pay for this themselves, or will newer communities that are designed to properly handle 1:100 year floods be chipping in to pay the bill for this? Surely these mature neighbourhoods when first developed paid offsite assesments equal to a subdivision in 2013 to pay for downstream infrastructure to prevent things like this.

The funny thing about sprawl is that some of the biggest financial winners are people who own housing in mature areas. Your lot cost and subdivision didn't pay massive amounts of money for offsite levies, your neighbourhood wasn't designed with engineering requirements nearly as costly to design and build as today subdivisions to limit future maintenence. But as the cost to build on the fringe of the city increases your home's value increases for no reason...and all that increase in value is 100% yours.

something to think about...

Shofear has sold out.

Wow.. that's some F-ed up logic there

[SHOFEAR]

not really. The financial cost sprawl has on residents in older neighbourhoods isn't nearly as bad as people like to believe.

[Mikemike]

Only if you mean "existing mature neighbourhood property owner" rather than "prospective mature neighbourhood purchaser".
For the former the rising cost of new neighbourhoods and the relative attractiveness of the mature neighbourhood creates value with no cost. For the latter it's an increased cost without the higher quality infrastructure that newer neighbourhoods enjoy.

There have been 60 years of property taxes paid on my home, and pretty much zero capital investment in the neighbourhood by the city, other than a little asphalt on the arterials.

[Coldrsx]

^exactly. Not to mention that the neighbourhood improvements are a shared cost.

[Kevin_foster]

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

Story

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/business/...oned+amid+controversy/8836153/story.html

[SHOFEAR]

Originally Posted by Mikemike

Only if you mean "existing mature neighbourhood property owner" rather than "prospective mature neighbourhood purchaser".
.

I agree. But keep in mind as additional restrictions are placed on newer development you will see that additional value when you sell.

There have been 60 years of property taxes paid on my home, and pretty much zero capital investment in the neighbourhood by the city, other than a little asphalt on the arterials]

And many neighbourhoods built before yours got screwed over when yours was built.

Fact is, subdivisions being built now more closely resemble the cost to the city to build and upgrade surrounding infrastructure than any neighbourhood previously built during any era. Again, it's not perfect. There are many issues like schools and such that aren't factor into this. And increasing densities in older neighbourhoods provide the city a huge value that needs to be encouraged. My point is, a neighbourhood being built on 17th street beyond millwoods isn't the boogyman so many of us percieve it to be.

[kcantor]

Originally Posted by CMD UW

^But a Direct Control zone could be tailored to allow the site to densify over time. The key elements of the DC would be to regulate the interface between the buildings and the public streets and infrastructure. It could also provide a greater description on how the existing Molson brewery could be integrated with new development. There have been DC zones that allow for this. One recent example is the mixed commercial/residential development in Suder Greens immediately north of the Lewis Farms Transit Centre. This allows the site to increase its FAR when the LRT reaches Lewis Farms. Personally I think this is how the DC could have been designed for the Crosstown site. http://webdocs.edmonton.ca/zoningbylaw/DC1/Suder_Greens/15919.htm

bold added... isn't that what all of our zoning schedules should be addressing? why else do they exist? and if you're going to write a dc with the intent that it would allow phased development, why the objection to a standard zoning schedule that - wait for it - accommodates phased development as demand warrants without the added requirement to secure rezoning as well as development and building permits in response to those changes in demand?

[CMD UW]

Originally Posted by cdnklc

bold added... isn't that what all of our zoning schedules should be addressing? why else do they exist? and if you're going to write a dc with the intent that it would allow phased development, why the objection to a standard zoning schedule that - wait for it - accommodates phased development as demand warrants without the added requirement to secure rezoning as well as development and building permits in response to those changes in demand?

Thats exactly what some zones 'should' be doing, but many fail to do so. This is why the City's zones need to be revisited.

[Coldrsx]

DBA Report on Downtown Housing



















Will soon be up at http://www.edmontondowntown.com/index.php

[s211]

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

DBA Report on Downtown Housing


Will soon be up at http://www.edmontondowntown.com/index.php

I can only guess the building on that page is a new prison? Otherwise, another Gooch-ism?

[Coldrsx]

Chinese seniors housing in quarters.

[Coldrsx]

Residential development surging in downtown Edmonton: report

BY ALICJA SIEKIERSKA, EDMONTON JOURNAL

EDMONTON - Edmonton’s downtown core is seeing a massive surge in residential development, according to a new report released Thursday by the Downtown Business Association.

The report revealed the 14 new residential buildings currently being built in the downtown area, as well as proposed future projects, are worth more than $625 million and will include 1,500 new residential units.

Since 1998, residential growth in the downtown area has been rapid. Over the past 15 years, 57 residential buildings have been constructed, totalling over 5,200 new units and an estimated $1.1 billion in building value.

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/business/...ing+downtown+Edmonton/8848282/story.html

[Mikemike]

Shoring has started on Horizon on 112st at 105 ave.

Studio Ed is well underway on 117st at 106ave, and something ugly has been demo'd on 105 ave west of 107, presumably for another budget condo.

Non of these are anything special, but it adds up to a lot more density in the north edge, and makes fixing 105 ave much more important.

[Coldrsx]

http://horizonon105.com


(http://horizonon105.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Render1.jpg)

[240glt]

Prettier than Fusion on Whyte... nasty location though.. although decent for students I guess

[Mikemike]

I think that's the target market.
The are will look better once 105 is fixed and scaped, but right now it's a worn down industrial park. Not a prime location.