Edmonton Construction 12 (December 2013) - Page 12

CMD UW · #**221** Posted **Dec 15, 2013, 6:02 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ue

^ Still, even as a developer, without the city gnawing at your planned redevelopment, what is the incentive for tearing down a thriving building or block of businesses when there is ample empty spaces in downtown, Oliver, the North Edge, and the Quarters? We have such little heritage left as it is, I would think developers, planners, and architects would appreciate that and be more inclined to preserve, especially locally based ones. I get that certain owners of underutilized lots (*cough* BP Lands *cough*) aren't interested in selling, but in a city like Edmonton, with as many underutilized lots as there are, there must be some willing to sell.

It all comes down to whether existing landowners a) want to sell and/or b) are willing to sell at a reasonable price. In this case the previous owner of the Glenora Block approached the developers before going to market. They were able to broker a deal and here we are.

Jasper and one o nin · #**222** Posted **Dec 15, 2013, 7:43 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hallsy's Toupee

You mean to say that the municipalities cannot simply put in place more laws to protect and maintain historically designated buildings without the province's say-so? That is so monumentally stupid.

If I was the almighty, unassailable and powerful God-King of this province, these would be my rules:
- Allow the city to enforce strict maintenance standards on historically designated buildings so they don't fall derelict nor turned into strip clubs or payday loan outlets
- Failure to adhere to these standards would result in expropriation by the city without compensation
- The building would then be sold to anyone named Gene Dub or John Day
- Proceeds of sale to be used for filling potholes and snow removal
- Owners of the Arlington to be immediately exiled from the province, all assets seized. Owner's son's hot blonde wife to be admitted as the concubine of the almighty, unassailable and powerful God-King of this province

The Hiistoric Resources Act gives a municipality the power to designate if a building is threatened. The municiplaity must identify buildings worthy of designation, which edmonton has - and those buildings must meet certain criteria. edmonton has never designated a bulding without the consent of owner. owner must also be copmpenstated because he loses some rights with designation

brenGT2 · #**223** Posted **Dec 15, 2013, 7:51 PM**

I took a couple of construction photos yesterday. Here they are!

Pearl Construction Update: December 14, 2013 by brenGT2, on Flickr

Innovation Centre for Engineering Construction Update: December 14, 2013 by brenGT2, on Flickr

Enjoy.

CMD UW · #**224** Posted **Dec 15, 2013, 8:14 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jasper and one o nin

The Hiistoric Resources Act gives a municipality the power to designate if a building is threatened. The municiplaity must identify buildings worthy of designation, which edmonton has - and those buildings must meet certain criteria. edmonton has never designated a bulding without the consent of owner. owner must also be copmpenstated because he loses some rights with designation

The issue is that municipal designation means sh*t. There are currently no mechanisms in the Act that gives a municipality more tools or powers to protect these resources in the event a landowner wishes to pursue a demolition permit. Hence why there needs to be changes at the provincial level.

Tropics · #**225** Posted **Dec 15, 2013, 10:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

Anyone hear anything about a development group buying the building with the Glenora Bistro and Cafe de Ville? (102ave-124st)

Word is a new mixed development.

I am incredibly worried about one of my favourite buildings in the City now. My worry is that ^^we will lose yet another gem... One of the last. Preserving a building versus a facade is something we need to do a much better job of here.

Time for some investigation and fact finding.

That building is part of the reason that intersection is so cool and trendy to begin with. That is a very stupid thing if the city allows that building to be destroyed. The strip mall across the street and the building the Original Joes is in act to add to the sense of history to that area but the Glenora is the heart of that whole feeling.

Get a clue City of Edmonton, that building needs to be protected as it helps define that area and thus benefits your city and the people who live within it.

Design-mind · #**226** Posted **Dec 15, 2013, 11:06 PM**

Any info on the new 71 storey proposal for the old muni airport?

Jasper and one o nin · #**227** Posted **Dec 15, 2013, 11:08 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CMD UW

The issue is that municipal designation means sh*t. There are currently no mechanisms in the Act that gives a municipality more tools or powers to protect these resources in the event a landowner wishes to pursue a demolition permit. Hence why there needs to be changes at the provincial level.

the act does give the power, but at the end of the day it is up to the city. when push comes to shove, the question always comes down to how important are the city's historical resources versus the developer's desire to redevelop. it's shortsightedness from both the city and the developer. historic resources offers greater economic development to a city, and rehabilitation of historic resources generates more economic activity than redevelopment. (in the vast majority of cases)
Section 27 of the act... However, it is up to Council in terms of what designation means. Council can, by Bylaw, prohibit demolition of any kind. it is a MAY clause. so, again it comes down to how serious council is about protecting historic resources. You're right, designation can mean 🞵🞵🞵🞵, if the Bylaw has no teeth. plus a bylaw can be changed.

CMD UW · #**228** Posted **Dec 16, 2013, 4:20 AM**

^true, but there are some repercussions (financial) that the City would bear if they went to that degree. In fact I don't think there are any recent examples where a municipality has gone to this extent. Part of this has to do with Act that requires a landowner be compensated if it can be determined that such designation decreases the value of the building. This is where the Act fails.

Coldrsx · #**229** Posted **Dec 16, 2013, 3:18 PM**

(http://infiniticondo.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/banner-landing.jpg)

http://infiniticondo.com

Coldrsx · #**230** Posted **Dec 16, 2013, 3:27 PM**

CMD UW · #**231** Posted **Dec 16, 2013, 4:11 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

(http://infiniticondo.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/banner-landing.jpg)

http://infiniticondo.com

I saw this the other day. Address? In all its meh 5/10. At least its not peach/beige/red brick brown colour palette. Larger windows would have improved the look.

Channing · #**232** Posted **Dec 16, 2013, 4:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CMD UW

I saw this the other day. Address? In all its meh 5/10. At least its not peach/beige/red brick brown colour palette. Larger windows would have improved the look.

Somewhere on 105th Ave north of Oliver square/Molson somewhere.