Edmonton Construction 12 (December 2013) - Page 490

edm_guy · #**9781** Posted **Oct 15, 2015, 9:00 PM**

Re: Hendrix

When I walked by on the holiday Monday they were full steam ahead. Other construction site looked like they had the day off

Daveography · #**9782** Posted **Oct 15, 2015, 9:19 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by s211

Umm, er, what?

The 102 St. Centre (a.k.a., "Manulife 2" which I wish we'd stop calling it) design. Not Stantec Tower.

oiler-dude · #**9783** Posted **Oct 15, 2015, 9:27 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by s211

Umm, er, what?

I'm assuming he means that Stantec designed this iteration of the 102 St Centre, and if a tenant were to be found, it's no guarantee they go with that design.

Coldrsx · #**9784** Posted **Oct 15, 2015, 9:31 PM**

Stantec did not drive that design... AIMCO did by way of ALASCO

craner · #**9785** Posted **Oct 16, 2015, 2:05 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by EdmTrekker

3 minimum and 4 in some places and 5 prepped and in the wings.

Yes. God Yes. Hell Yes !
Really needs to be 3 lanes NOW!

EdmTrekker · #**9786** Posted **Oct 16, 2015, 3:17 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by oiler-dude

I'm assuming he means that Stantec designed this iteration of the 102 St Centre, and if a tenant were to be found, it's no guarantee they go with that design.

Thank you 😀

hqcan · #**9787** Posted **Oct 16, 2015, 5:53 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

Stantec did not drive that design... AIMCO did by way of ALASCO

This +1. Please don't spread misinformation guys. Yes, the 102nd st tower was pitched to Stantec as the prime tenant. But it was also pitched to the CoE, Enbridge, and other prospective tenants. The base tower design was not altered based on the tenants and was developed at the behest of AIMCO. So please don't state that it was "designed for Stantec"

Whether it ever gets built or not is a different story.

oiler-dude · #**9788** Posted **Oct 16, 2015, 6:58 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by hqcan

This +1. Please don't spread misinformation guys. Yes, the 102nd st tower was pitched to Stantec as the prime tenant. But it was also pitched to the CoE, Enbridge, and other prospective tenants. The base tower design was not altered based on the tenants and was developed at the behest of AIMCO. So please don't state that it was "designed for Stantec"

Whether it ever gets built or not is a different story.

My apologies if my response to s211 was taken as misinformation, only meant to clarify how I read EdmTrekker's statement.

Hallsy's Toupee · #**9789** Posted **Oct 16, 2015, 2:43 PM**

Council mulling $4.1 million investment in Molson building
http://www.630ched.com/2015/10/16/draft-for-sj-molsons/

Quote:

City council has a costly decision it has to weigh at next week’s meeting. There’s a proposal to invest more than four million dollars to help breath new life into the old Molson building.

It’s part of the larger effort to create a Brewery District development on the western edge of downtown along 104 ave. The developer is looking for city council to go 50-50 on what’s needed to ensure the building gets municipal historic designation.

“It’s a lot of money but I think we have to spend it,” said Coun. Scott McKeen. “I’m not happy about it, I’m not dancing up and down, it’s a hell of a lot of money but It’s half of the restoration cost.”

The development has been controversial because the Oliver Community League complained that what is proposed isn’t urban enough, and has too much surface parking. “It is what it is,” McKeen said. “We are backed into a bit of a corner here. I don’t see how we could not save that building.”

Total cost is $12 million. $8.2 is the commitment for historic designation, and the city’s portion is $4.1 million. “It’s not like you’re 100% in favour but I think when you do the cost benefit analysis in your mind the benefits to the city over the next fifty years outweigh the investment.”

McKeen said they’re feeling a bit backed into a corner. “They would just mothball it. That’s the risk. We could be in one of those situations where you see who blinks first.”

Council will vote on the proposal Tuesday.

Coldrsx · #**9790** Posted **Oct 16, 2015, 3:22 PM**

Hello corner, hello backed in... gotta do it.

Makenosmallplans · #**9791** Posted **Oct 16, 2015, 3:30 PM**

Yup, put on a tight lipped smile and write the cheque.

EdmTrekker · #**9792** Posted **Oct 16, 2015, 3:39 PM**

Leave the building as is. That taxpayer money has other priorities.

Black Star · #**9793** Posted **Oct 16, 2015, 3:43 PM**

I would like to see some sort of micro brewery put in there.

Coldrsx · #**9794** Posted **Oct 16, 2015, 3:57 PM**

Condition the cash as to what can go in...

EdmTrekker · #**9795** Posted **Oct 16, 2015, 4:02 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Black Star

I would like to see some sort of micro brewery put in there.

Me too but not with a $4.1M taxpayer subsidy. Why should taxpayers pay for that? I will bet 99% of voters would be opposed to using tax payer dollars. Approval for development on the site should have been contingent in developer paying for all costs.

EdmTrekker · #**9796** Posted **Oct 16, 2015, 4:03 PM**

Rossdale a better use for the $4.1M.

Boris2k7 · #**9797** Posted **Oct 16, 2015, 4:14 PM**

Reminds me a bit of the process for the Lougheed Building and Grand Theatre in Calgary. Heritage Property Corp. purchased the building in 2003 for $7.4 Million, and said they were willing to commit 50% of the cost for restoring the building. In 2004, the City gave the building a municipal historic designation and a $3.4 Million grant (utilizing a TIF to be repaid through a 15 year period commencing upon completion). The municipal designation allowed for the building to apply for the National Historic Places program, under which the building qualified for a $1 Million grant through Parks Canada. The building was restored quite wonderfully and sold off to Allied Properties REIT in 2010 for $31 Million.

Coldrsx · #**9798** Posted **Oct 16, 2015, 4:25 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by EdmTrekker

Rossdale a better use for the $4.1M.

This is what... $185k for 20 yrs... I am ok with that, given that would should have happened was this DC required preservation and restoration in the first place...

Makenosmallplans · #**9799** Posted **Oct 16, 2015, 4:28 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by EdmTrekker

Me too but not with a $4.1M taxpayer subsidy. Why should taxpayers pay for that? I will bet 99% of voters would be opposed to using tax payer dollars. Approval for development on the site should have been contingent in developer paying for all costs.

whose historical resource is it? this faceless development company's? the history is a public good so means that some public money has to be involved. regardless of what level of altruism a developer may have why would the onus be solely on her/him to preserve local history? we can bicker over if it should be 50/50 as it is in this case - honestly, i'm happy they are willing to put in that much - but i for one would prefer to save our history over filling a few more potholes this year. discount city, here we go again.

Coldrsx · #**9800** Posted **Oct 16, 2015, 4:34 PM**

Matt is incredible.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqDRzoV5X94

also, retweet this

https://twitter.com/cityofedmonton/status/654692021555204097